The glorious 12th

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Are we really doing this again? It’s really rather pathetic. It’s weak as piss point scoring tbh insisting Ireland is somehow British cos the islands are called British isles.

Jaysis

Blanch you just insisted in the other thread that NI folks aren’t our country men. It’s a different country.

By your own logic we aren’t part of the British isles. We’re a different country

Ffs

Quite the opposite.

I am suggesting that the geographic labels have no meaning in determining nationality and origin.

Some posters claim disingenuously that because you are born on this island you are Irish. That is as silly and stupid as claiming that because you are born on these islands you are British. I am making neither claim.

Geographic labels are just that and nothing more. I am not making anything out of the fact that these islands are known as the British Isles. They just are, that is what they are called, it has no meaning beyond the lexicon. Similarly, the fact that this island is called Ireland has no meaning beyond the lexicon. We could all be Mexicans living on the island of Ireland.

blanch152 wrote: »

Quite the opposite.

I am suggesting that the geographic labels have no meaning in determining nationality and origin.

Some posters claim disingenuously that because you are born on this island you are Irish. That is as silly and stupid as claiming that because you are born on these islands you are British. I am making neither claim.

Geographic labels are just that and nothing more. I am not making anything out of the fact that these islands are known as the British Isles. They just are, that is what they are called, it has no meaning beyond the lexicon. Similarly, the fact that this island is called Ireland has no meaning beyond the lexicon. We could all be Mexicans living on the island of Ireland.

I think you’re joking. Are you?

So if you’re born in a country you’re not from or of that country and aren’t a citizen?
Or are you again disregarding the GFA which states Clearly Anyone in NI can identify as Irish or British?

This is kinda troll territory blanch to be honest

blanch152 wrote: »

Quite the opposite.

I am suggesting that the geographic labels have no meaning in determining nationality and origin.

Some posters claim disingenuously that because you are born on this island you are Irish. That is as silly and stupid as claiming that because you are born on these islands you are British. I am making neither claim.

Geographic labels are just that and nothing more. I am not making anything out of the fact that these islands are known as the British Isles. They just are, that is what they are called, it has no meaning beyond the lexicon. Similarly, the fact that this island is called Ireland has no meaning beyond the lexicon. We could all be Mexicans living on the island of Ireland.

I am not sure I have ever borne witness to such an inferiority complex as yours blanch tbh.

Dytalus

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

I think you’re joking. Are you?

So if you’re born in a country you’re not from or of that country and aren’t a citizen?
Or are you again disregarding the GFA which states Clearly Anyone in NI can identify as Irish or British?

This is kinda troll territory blanch to be honest

He's making the point that there is (quite rightly) a difference between geographical locations (islands, continents, peninsulas and so forth), and countries (legal entities, wherein one draws their nationality). His argument is valid: A French citizen is a citizen of the legal entity that is the "French Republic", and not the landmass occupied by that state (the European/Eurasian continent...though granted the EU manages to make things less clear cut).

And, further, being born in a country does not guarantee citizenship either. In fact, birth alone almost never confers citizenship. I was born in the Middle East and do not have citizenship of the country I was born in. Individuals born in RoI are not automatically granted citizenship, nor are individuals born in the UK simply granted citizenship. Other requirements must be met before a baby born in either country is made a citizen. The US is actually pretty against the grain in that regard (New World nations tended to allow anyone born there to be citizens to help bolster their populations against the older, more populous, Old World nations they broke away from. Canada still has it, for example).

Ireland/Britain naturally has a slightly...more complicated history when it comes to identity and the names associated with various things. Most of the conflict on our island comes down to identities. I'd not be surprised if, had our history with the UK been different, we'd be just as okay with the Isles being called the British Isles as everyone else. But given everything that happened (and more modernly, in light of some 'Britwashing'* of Irish celebrities and institutions in the British media, and the undercurrent of 'uppity Irish' in British politics) I think it's perfectly fair for Irish people and the government to be against the catch all "British Isles" name.

I personally don't care, but I can definitely see where people against it come from.

*The tendency for Irish people to miraculously become 'British' in the news when they do something cool, like win an olympic medal, or play on the Lions rugby team. I just made up the term, but I like it.

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

I think you’re joking. Are you?

So if you’re born in a country you’re not from or of that country and aren’t a citizen?
Or are you again disregarding the GFA which states Clearly Anyone in NI can identify as Irish or British?

This is kinda troll territory blanch to be honest

Not all people born in America are American, some are Canadian, some are Mexican.

Not all people born in Ireland are Irish, some are British.

Completely disingenuous to suggest I am disregarding the GFA. People born in Ireland are either Irish or British, but they are not all automatically Irish.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am not sure I have ever borne witness to such an inferiority complex as yours blanch tbh.

Quite the opposite Francie, quite the opposite.

blanch152 wrote: »

Not all people born in America are American, some are Canadian, some are Mexican.

Not all people born in Ireland are Irish, some are British.

Completely disingenuous to suggest I am disregarding the GFA. People born in Ireland are either Irish or British, but they are not all automatically Irish.

People born on the island of Ireland are Irish, blanch.

There is nothing scary about that, you do not have to prostrate yourself in front of your boogeymen or feed your insecurities and inferiority complex either.

'Identity' comes after that simple fact of location. There are Irish and British and Polish and German etc identities, living on the island of Ireland, just as there are in Great Britain, France, Germany etc etc etc.

Dytalus wrote: »

He's making the point that there is (quite rightly) a difference between geographical locations (islands, continents, peninsulas and so forth), and countries (legal entities, wherein one draws their nationality). His argument is valid: A French citizen is a citizen of the legal entity that is the "French Republic", and not the landmass occupied by that state (the European/Eurasian continent...though granted the EU manages to make things less clear cut).

And, further, being born in a country does not guarantee citizenship either. In fact, birth alone almost never confers citizenship. I was born in the Middle East and do not have citizenship of the country I was born in. Individuals born in RoI are not automatically granted citizenship, nor are individuals born in the UK simply granted citizenship. Other requirements must be met before a baby born in either country is made a citizen. The US is actually pretty against the grain in that regard (New World nations tended to allow anyone born there to be citizens to help bolster their populations against the older, more populous, Old World nations they broke away from. Canada still has it, for example).

Ireland/Britain naturally has a slightly...more complicated history when it comes to identity and the names associated with various things. Most of the conflict on our island comes down to identities. I'd not be surprised if, had our history with the UK been different, we'd be just as okay with the Isles being called the British Isles as everyone else. But given everything that happened (and more modernly, in light of some 'Britwashing'* of Irish celebrities and institutions in the British media, and the undercurrent of 'uppity Irish' in British politics) I think it's perfectly fair for Irish people and the government to be against the catch all "British Isles" name.

I personally don't care, but I can definitely see where people against it come from.

*The tendency for Irish people to miraculously become 'British' in the news when they do something cool, like win an olympic medal, or play on the Lions rugby team. I just made up the term, but I like it.

A clear concise welcome voice as always D. Please appear and vanquish the waffle more often. Many thanks.

janfebmar

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

A clear concise welcome voice as always D. Please appear and vanquish the waffle more often. Many thanks.

Are you that insecure that is the best reply to such a well thought out and detailed post you can come up with?

Odhinn

Dytalus wrote: »

*The tendency for Irish people to miraculously become 'British' in the news when they do something cool, like win an olympic medal, or play on the Lions rugby team. I just made up the term, but I like it.

That's grand, it's a good one.

janfebmar wrote: »

Are you that insecure that is the best reply to such a well thought out and detailed post you can come up with?

Reported.

Mr E

janfebmar wrote: »

Are you that insecure that is the best reply to such a well thought out and detailed post you can come up with?

Mod: Less of the antagonism please.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

People born on the island of Ireland are Irish, blanch.

There is nothing scary about that, you do not have to prostrate yourself in front of your boogeymen or feed your insecurities and inferiority complex either.

'Identity' comes after that simple fact of location. There are Irish and British and Polish and German etc identities, living on the island of Ireland, just as there are in Great Britain, France, Germany etc etc etc.

As another poster eloquently put it, I am "making the point that there is (quite rightly) a difference between geographical locations (islands, continents, peninsulas and so forth), and countries (legal entities, wherein one draws their nationality). His argument is valid: A French citizen is a citizen of the legal entity that is the "French Republic", and not the landmass occupied by that state (the European/Eurasian continent...though granted the EU manages to make things less clear cut)."

You are just spouting sectarian bigoted nonsense in order to get a rise out of other posters.

RobMc59 wrote: »

LOL- you probably think you own lough foyle too Matt!

In case you didn't realise, I was being sarcastic.

FYI: as regards Lough Foyle, most certainly, as soon as we get ownership back from our visitors

blanch152 wrote: »

Quite the opposite.

I am suggesting that the geographic labels have no meaning in determining nationality and origin.

Some posters claim disingenuously that because you are born on this island you are Irish. That is as silly and stupid as claiming that because you are born on these islands you are British. I am making neither claim.

Geographic labels are just that and nothing more. I am not making anything out of the fact that these islands are known as the British Isles. They just are, that is what they are called, it has no meaning beyond the lexicon. Similarly, the fact that this island is called Ireland has no meaning beyond the lexicon. We could all be Mexicans living on the island of Ireland.

If you are born in Wales you are welsh and British.
If you are born in Ireland....anyone, anyone? Bueller?

RobMc59

Matt Barrett wrote: »

RobMc59 wrote: »

LOL- you probably think you own lough foyle too Matt!

In case you didn't realise, I was being sarcastic.

FYI: as regards Lough Foyle, most certainly, as soon as we get ownership back from our visitors

In line with yours and francie's other crackpot theories, You better tell bojo he can't be British prime minister as he's American!

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If you are born in Wales you are welsh and British.
If you are born in Ireland....anyone, anyone? Bueller?

If you are born in American you are Mexican or Canadian or American, depending on what part of America you are born in.

If you are born in Ireland......anyone, anyone?

You can't make people born in Northern Ireland automatically Irish whether you like it or not.

blanch152 wrote: »

As another poster eloquently put it, I am "making the point that there is (quite rightly) a difference between geographical locations (islands, continents, peninsulas and so forth), and countries (legal entities, wherein one draws their nationality). His argument is valid: A French citizen is a citizen of the legal entity that is the "French Republic", and not the landmass occupied by that state (the European/Eurasian continent...though granted the EU manages to make things less clear cut)."

You are just spouting sectarian bigoted nonsense in order to get a rise out of other posters.

You are mixing up citizenship and identity and geography in an effort to salve your inferiority complex.

A complex that makes you think it is offensive to be simply called after the place where you are born.

You are going around in ever more complicated circles chasing your sad tail trying NOT to say something.

Ridiculous.

The repeated derailment of this thread away from the topic at hand and the vulgarities of the 12th and what it stands for have been repeatedly reported and yet still the train wreck continues.
One faction alone responsible for it in trying to shut down the debate. We’re all worse off for responding to it too I guess. Telling that the same accounts turn up to denigrate anything and everything Irish in whatever thread it appears on. And their post history speaks to that being their sole purpose.
Very odd but here we are.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are mixing up citizenship and identity and geography in an effort to salve your inferiority complex.

A complex that makes you think it is offensive to be simply called after the place where you are born.

You are going around in ever more complicated circles chasing your sad tail trying NOT to say something.

Ridiculous.

Rubbish.

It is offensive to British unionists to call them Irish - that is why their identity was protected in the GFA. They are not Irish, they were never Irish, being born on the island didn't make them Irish, even for a second, which bit of that do you fail to comprehend?

blanch152 wrote: »

Rubbish.

It is offensive to British unionists to call them Irish - that is why their identity was protected in the GFA. They are not Irish, they were never Irish, being born on the island didn't make them Irish, even for a second, which bit of that do you fail to comprehend?

I fully embrace and respect their British identity as I respect the identity of the 2 Romanians who work here in my yard and the Brazilians who live and work in the town.

Ian Paisley and other confident Unionists have no problem with the concept. You are too easily triggered to get 'offended' on behalf of others.

blanch152 wrote: »

If you are born in American you are Mexican or Canadian or American, depending on what part of America you are born in.

If you are born in Ireland......anyone, anyone?

You can't make people born in Northern Ireland automatically Irish whether you like it or not.

'Where were you Born?' "Britian". 'Oh, Scotland, wales, England?' "Britain". :rolleyes:
You see Mexico, Canada and The U.S.A. are countries. If you're born in Canada you my friend are Canadian. If you are born in Ireland, you are Irish, I'll allow Northern Irish but view it as a transitory term subject to change but you can still be British too, but that's subject to political whims.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You see Mexico, Canada and The U.S.A. are countries. If you're born in Canada you my friend are Canadian. If you are born in Ireland, you are Irish, I'll allow Northern Irish but view it as a transitory term subject to change.

Hate to tell you this but the UK is a country too, and if you are born in the UK, you are British, unless you identify as Irish in Northern Ireland.

blanch152 wrote: »

Rubbish.

It is offensive to British unionists to call them Irish - that is why their identity was protected in the GFA. They are not Irish, they were never Irish, being born on the island didn't make them Irish, even for a second, which bit of that do you fail to comprehend?

They can call themselves what they like. If they're offended by the label imagine how their fellow Irish men feel being told they are British, like it or lump it?
Did the Unionists have to deal with the Irish Army enforcing this and treating them like second class citizens? It's great that you're so concerned about the politically correct terms for the poor aul' Unionists all the same.

blanch152 wrote: »

Hate to tell you this but the UK is a country too, and if you are born in the UK, you are British, unless you identify as Irish in Northern Ireland.

Do the Welsh no longer identify as Welsh? What of the English?

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Do the Welsh no longer identify as Welsh? What of the English?

This was explained to you quite elegantly by Dytalus.

Dytalus wrote: »

He's making the point that there is (quite rightly) a difference between geographical locations (islands, continents, peninsulas and so forth), and countries (legal entities, wherein one draws their nationality). His argument is valid: A French citizen is a citizen of the legal entity that is the "French Republic", and not the landmass occupied by that state (the European/Eurasian continent...though granted the EU manages to make things less clear cut).

And, further, being born in a country does not guarantee citizenship either. In fact, birth alone almost never confers citizenship. I was born in the Middle East and do not have citizenship of the country I was born in. Individuals born in RoI are not automatically granted citizenship, nor are individuals born in the UK simply granted citizenship. Other requirements must be met before a baby born in either country is made a citizen. The US is actually pretty against the grain in that regard (New World nations tended to allow anyone born there to be citizens to help bolster their populations against the older, more populous, Old World nations they broke away from. Canada still has it, for example).

Ireland/Britain naturally has a slightly...more complicated history when it comes to identity and the names associated with various things. Most of the conflict on our island comes down to identities. I'd not be surprised if, had our history with the UK been different, we'd be just as okay with the Isles being called the British Isles as everyone else. But given everything that happened (and more modernly, in light of some 'Britwashing'* of Irish celebrities and institutions in the British media, and the undercurrent of 'uppity Irish' in British politics) I think it's perfectly fair for Irish people and the government to be against the catch all "British Isles" name.

I personally don't care, but I can definitely see where people against it come from.

*The tendency for Irish people to miraculously become 'British' in the news when they do something cool, like win an olympic medal, or play on the Lions rugby team. I just made up the term, but I like it.

His post should be stickied.

It explains why being born on this island doesn't make you Irish and also that while everyone else calls these islands the British Isles, the kneejerk inferiority complex that republicans have leads them to resent the name.

blanch152 wrote: »

This was explained to you quite elegantly by Dytalus.

His post should be stickied.

It explains why being born on this island doesn't make you Irish and also that while everyone else calls these islands the British Isles, the kneejerk inferiority complex that republicans have leads them to resent the name.

Selective quoting. Again. Blanch. Try harder

blanch152 wrote: »

This was explained to you quite elegantly by Dytalus.

His post should be stickied.

It explains why being born on this island doesn't make you Irish and also that while everyone else calls these islands the British Isles, the kneejerk inferiority complex that republicans have leads them to resent the name.

I'm cula bula with the 'British Isles'. It's like the Americas, where mexico is.
If you're born on the island of Ireland you are Irish. You might be British too and your part of Ireland might currently be associated with the U.K.
The British and U.K. additions can be dispensed with by the stroke of a pen, but the land is Ireland....Tiocfaidh ar laR

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'm cula bula with the 'British Isles'. It's like the Americas, where mexico is.
If you're born on the island of Ireland you are Irish. You might be British too and your part of Ireland might currently be associated with the U.K. currently.
The British and U.K. additions can be dispensed with by the stroke of a pen, but the land is Ireland....Tiocfaidh ar laR

That is your opinion, but it is at variance with the facts. This is what the GFA says:

"recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to
identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they
may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both
British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would
not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland."

The legal position is that you are born British if you are born in the UK, but it is your birthright to identify yourself as Irish by choice. I don't know how many times I have had to explain this but you guys are like the camel with the head in the sand.