# Do you see the union jack as being an english flag?



## samanthajane (17 Aug 2009)

Me and the bf had this discussion while on holiday. And he brought it up today as well, and wanted me to post here to see what others thought, since we just cant agree.  

I'm english, I dont see the union jack as being an english flag i see it as representing all the countries. England has it's own flag, as does wales, scotland and northern Ireland. 

In his opionion he will never see the union jack as being a flag of all of them and will always see it as just being an english flag because it was the english who created the flag and forced it on countries they had conquered ( his exact words that me made me type ) 

There is no right or wrong in this just a difference of opinions...so what does everyone think of this. 

Do you see the union jack as just another English flag?


----------



## DavyJones (17 Aug 2009)

I wouldn't see it as English, but British,To most people thats the same thing.


----------



## jhegarty (17 Aug 2009)

I see it as an English flag, as in it represents people who are loyal to the queen. 

Some Scottish people would be loyal and I am sure they are happy with it , but I don't think you will get that answer in the other half of Glasgow.


----------



## Mpsox (17 Aug 2009)

Yes, in a nutshell

If you watch an international football match, it's rare to see Scottish or Welsh fans with Union jacks, very common for English fans to fly it (as well as the St George I have to say). 

I actually asked this question of a Scottish guy in the office here, he sees the Union Jack as being more English then British


----------



## Caveat (17 Aug 2009)

+1 to both.

I would add that Rangers/Celtic type allegiances aside, the union jack would mean very little to the majority of even vaguely nationalistic Scots - IME they would opt for St Andrew's flag in nearly all cases.

_Crossed with Mpsox._


----------



## Sunny (17 Aug 2009)

It is more English for the reasons mentioned above. Also, the English flag (St George) doesn't really have any official recognition. They fly the Union Jack from Government buildings (Even on St Georges Day)


----------



## samanthajane (17 Aug 2009)

But why would they fly the union jack at football matches? There isn't a uk team so of course they would fly their country's flag. 

For the likes of wimbledon and the olympics, you see a lot of union jacks, but you have no idea if the person waving them is english, scottish or welsh. 

Glad that you got the answer from a scottish person, i was interested in what the scottish and welsh thought of this.


----------



## Caveat (17 Aug 2009)

samanthajane said:


> ...because it was the english who created the flag and forced it on countries they had conquered *( his exact words that me made me type ) *


 
Sorry Samantha but LOL - conjures up an image of you typing under duress whilst he stands behind you in a balaclava or something!


----------



## ney001 (17 Aug 2009)

I would definitely put the union jack down as British.  To me, it always brings back memories of dodgy package holidays years ago when we would frequently roll our eyes at the 'Brits abroad' with their Union jack shorts, towels, tatoos, tee shirts etc! - I would never once put them down as being Welsh or Scottish!


----------



## samanthajane (17 Aug 2009)

Caveat said:


> Sorry Samantha but LOL - conjures up an image of you typing under duress whilst he stands behind you in a balaclava or something!


 

Haha that was how it went down lol. i wasn't allowed to post it untill he was happy with what i said said and written it word for word how he wanted



ney001 said:


> I would definitely put the union jack down as British. To me, it always brings back memories of dodgy package holidays years ago when we would frequently roll our eyes at the 'Brits abroad' with their Union jack shorts, towels, tatoos, tee shirts etc! - I would never once put them down as being Welsh or Scottish!


 
See i dont understand this, because if you see it as being british then that does include the scottish and the welsh, and north ireland.

I think just most people would just say british when they actually mean english. 

I must ask some english people that i know, maybe because of what happen we just automatically dont want it to be seen like it's "our flag". Not that i really think of it that much but the first thing that pops into my head when you mention the union jack would be the UK.


----------



## Betsy Og (17 Aug 2009)

I think that it's primarily used or revered in England (apart for a certain section of Norn Iron of course). For example I dont think I've ever seen one at a Scottish or Welsh match, they use their own flags.

While at an England match the majority of flags would probably be the St. Georges Cross (edit: cross of David were a Jewish thing innit), I know of another name involving "apron" - bascially white with a red cross), but I'd say you get a good few union jacks as well.

So to answer your question I think it would be regarded as primarily an english flag (even to those who know it represents the United Kingdom or GB or just B ..... more than England anyway).

Shouldnt you post on a pre-dominantly english site to get a better feeling for how the people themselves view it?


----------



## csirl (17 Aug 2009)

The union jack is the British flag and is the national flag of all of them whether they are English, Welsh, Scottish etc. 

St. Georges Cross, St Andrews Cross, Welsh Dragon etc. are all just regional flags with no national status as England, Scotland and Wales are not, legally speaking, seperate countries. They are the equivalent of our provinces.


----------



## Purple (17 Aug 2009)

The English see it as British, everyone else sees it as English.


----------



## Pique318 (17 Aug 2009)

In the interests of accuracy, it's the Union Flag.
It only becomes the Union Jack when flown from a ships mast.

100% agree with ney001, fwiw.


----------



## csirl (17 Aug 2009)

There shouldnt be any Scottish or Welsh teams allowed in National team competitions as they are not countries. Its a bid sad really the way that they go on with this pretence that they are independent countries just because a quirk in sporting history allows them to field soccer and rugby teams.


----------



## DrMoriarty (17 Aug 2009)

Prescient words...


> In objecting to the 1606 design of the Union Flag, whereby the cross of St. George surmounted that of St. Andrew, a group of Scots took up the matter with John Erskine, 18th Earl of Mar, and were encouraged by him to send a letter of complaint, via the Privy Council of Scotland, to James VI, which stated that the flag's design "_will breid some heit and miscontentment betwix your Majesties subjectis, and it is to be feirit that some inconvenientis sail fall oute betwix thame, for our seyfaring men cannot be inducit to resave that flage as it is set down_".


source: _Wikipedia_


----------



## Latrade (17 Aug 2009)

csirl said:


> The union jack is the British flag and is the national flag of all of them whether they are English, Welsh, Scottish etc.
> 
> St. Georges Cross, St Andrews Cross, Welsh Dragon etc. are all just regional flags with no national status as England, Scotland and Wales are not, legally speaking, seperate countries. They are the equivalent of our provinces.


 
They are countries. They compete as separate countries in certain sporting events and are officially "constituent countries". They share certain state functions, but are still countries.

And there actually is no flag for Great Britain as it ceased to exist from about 1801. The Union Jack represents the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). Also certain islands though part of England aren't part of the UK and vice versa. And the Welsh don't even get a reference on the Union Jack, just England, Scotland and NI. Though "GB" is used as the designated "country reference". 

No wonder people can be confused.

However, as others have said, apart from some sectarianism, you would only really find mainland English citizens who would use the flag in a representative way.

And I'd also say you could limit it even further to certain regions even within England. As some would be less patriotic in their views of a national identity than others.


----------



## csirl (17 Aug 2009)

> They are countries. They compete as separate countries in certain sporting events and are officially "constituent countries". They share certain state functions, but are still countries.


 
They're not seperate countries in the accepted international definition of a country. 

Allowing Wales and Scotland to play in world cup qualifiers would be no different to allowing Bavaria, Quebec, Texas, Canton, Brittany or even Cork field their own teams.


----------



## Latrade (17 Aug 2009)

csirl said:


> They're not seperate countries in the accepted international definition of a country.
> 
> Allowing Wales and Scotland to play in world cup qualifiers would be no different to allowing Bavaria, Quebec, Texas, Canton, Brittany or even Cork field their own teams.


 
You can still be a country without being a sovereign state. It isn't as clear cut as either just borders or where you are governed from. Hence why Scotland can be a country, but still dependent on the UK parliament, Government, but the Isle of Man separate from the UK and not part of the EU, but dependent on the Crown, yet not be a country.

Faroe Islands and Greenland are Countries (again "constituent countries), but are part of the Kingdom of Denmark. 

It isn't the same as a region or a state (in the USA sense). 

Political reasons mean NI is referred to as a "province" rather than country.


----------



## Betsy Og (17 Aug 2009)

csirl said:


> or even Cork field their own teams.


 
maybe thats the solution to the Stephen Ireland problem !!!


----------



## terrontress (17 Aug 2009)

csirl said:


> There shouldnt be any Scottish or Welsh teams allowed in National team competitions as they are not countries. Its a bid sad really the way that they go on with this pretence that they are independent countries just because a quirk in sporting history allows them to field soccer and rugby teams.


 
Is the Republic of Ireland a country? Or is it a state which includes part of a country? 

If so, and using your logic, should the Republic of Ireland be allowed to participate in soccer events? Should it be disqualified as it is not a country?

If not, should the Irish rugby team be allowed to participate because it takes in two countries.

Using your logic, either the soccer or rugby team should be given the chop.

Or should we all just lighten up and let people who enjoy playing sports play instead of being keyboard wizards, saying teams should be banned from the comfort of our offices.


----------



## csirl (17 Aug 2009)

> Is the Republic of Ireland a country? Or is it a state which includes part of a country?


 
There is no such country as the "Republic of Ireland" and there is no soccer team fielded by the "Republic of Ireland".

"Ireland" is a State and fields a soccer team in FIFA competitions (officially called "Ireland" - "ROI" is a British media invention). "Ireland" is officially recognised as a sovereign State, has international relations and embassies, issues passports, is a member of the UN & EU etc. 

I've actually done some work for a national sporting body, so I'm very familiar with the legal status of internationally fielded teams. While it is not widely advertised, for obvious political reasons, all teams that represent "Ireland" in International competition officially represent the 26 counties even if the sport is an all-Ireland organisation. [I remember being at one meeting where a high ranking official mentioned that "multinational" international teams are not allowed when asked about the prospect of an all-Ireland team].

People in Northern Ireland are generally eligible to play for Ireland as they are eligible for an Irish passport. The vast majority of International sporting organisations, including the IOC, use passport eligibility to determine nationality. The individual athlete doesnt have to travel on or even possess an Irish passport, but must prove eligibility for one. 

A lot of Northern Irish athletes from a unionist background who represent Ireland actually take out Irish passports, but don't use them on a day to day basis. Some never even keep them in their possession - pick them up in person (so as to avoid letter with harp going thru NI postal system) and hand them to their sports governing body who retain them for safe keeping. Some International sports organisations, by agreement, will also allow NI athletes just to prove eligibility without having to take out the passport - documentation required varies from sport to sport and some still insist on passport only.


----------



## terrontress (17 Aug 2009)

csirl said:


> There is no such country as the "Republic of Ireland" and there is no soccer team fielded by the "Republic of Ireland".
> 
> "Ireland" is a State and fields a soccer team in FIFA competitions (officially called "Ireland" - "ROI" is a British media invention).


 
http://www.fifa.com/associations/association=irl/ranking/gender=m/index.html

http://www.fifa.com/associations/association=irl/index.html

Fifa would love to disagree with you I am sure.


----------



## terrontress (17 Aug 2009)

So, given the above, do you believe that as there is no such country as "Republic of Ireland", in your words, the current Republic of Ireland soccer team should not exist, just like the Welsh and Scottish?

I knew what you were saying in previous posts would make either the soccer or rugby team invalid in your opinion. 

But I just wanted to clear up which one.


----------



## csirl (17 Aug 2009)

Both the soccer and rugby teams are valid - they both represent "Ireland" which is a sovereign internationally recognised country.

There can be no "Republic of Ireland" soccer team as there no country in existance in the world called "Republic of Ireland". The soccer team managed by Trappatoni is fielded by the "Football Assocation of *Ireland*" and represents *Ireland.*

I'm affraid FIFA's webmaster is wrong on this one - check with the official FIFA documentation and legal department and the FAI and the IOC and they'll confirm exactly what I've said.

While it's not politically correct for the IRFU to come out and say it as a large proportion of their membership is unionist, the reality is that they do represent Ireland and when rugby sevens is played in the London Olympics, the only people who will be allowed to play for Ireland will be those who are eligible for an Irish passport. [Incidently, there will be no Scottish or Welsh teams in the Olympic rugby - just a UK one].


----------



## Latrade (17 Aug 2009)

csirl said:


> "Ireland" is officially recognised as a sovereign State.


 
This is the crux in the Scotland, Wales, etc debate. First, there is no common agreement on what qualifies one "nation" (what defines a nation?) being a sovereign state and not. As we know, some "nations" do not recognise some others as "sovereign states". As you would expect, there was some attempt to reach a common agreement on what defines a sovereign state, but not everyone agreed, so it was left as it was.

But, while "country" and "sovereign state" tend to be used interchangeably, it's a bit like continuous and continual. Just because many confuse the two, doesn't make it right. Again, many "countries" are also "sovereign states", but the many furry four legged animals are cats, doesn't mean every furry four legged animal is a cat. 

Generally (as again there actually isn't a concensus or agreement on this), a "country" is a geographical designation, "nation" a cultural/racial designation and "sovereign state" a political one.


----------



## terrontress (17 Aug 2009)

csirl said:


> I'm affraid FIFA's webmaster is wrong on this one - check with the official FIFA documentation and legal department and the FAI and the IOC and they'll confirm exactly what I've said.


 
I think I put greater faith into what FIFA writes than what you do. Also, given the length of time that FIFA's website has referred to the Republic of Ireland soccer team, do you not think that someone from the FAI would have been in touch before now to point out such a glaring mistake?

I tell you what, why don't you email them and point out their mistake?

So, if FIFA's webmaster were not to be wrong and FIFA recognises a team called "Republic of Ireland" who govern football in the 26 counties, do you think that team should be dissolved?

You also state:



> There is no "Republic of Ireland" soccer team as there no country in existance in the world called "Republic of Ireland".


 
You claim that Scotland and Wales are not countries yet they obviously have teams.


I think that you need to think a bit more about what you write in future.


----------



## Latrade (17 Aug 2009)

csirl said:


> There can be no "Republic of Ireland" soccer team as there no country in existance in the world called "Republic of Ireland". The soccer team managed by Trappatoni is fielded by the "Football Assocation of *Ireland*" and represents *Ireland.*


 
Agreed. I understood that Ireland was the name of the sovereign state and Republic of Ireland was a description. 

The EU official reference is "Éire - Ireland" and not "Poblacht na hÉireann - Republic of Ireland". ROI is only used there is a need to distinguish between the Island of Ireland and Ireland the sovereign state. Which in general sporting and political life isn't needed due to use of UK and/or use of Northern Ireland.

Wasn't there also a Supreme Court ruling on this? An extradition warrant was refused because it referred to "Republic of Ireland" and not Ireland?


----------



## csirl (17 Aug 2009)

> I tell you what, why don't you email them and point out their mistake?
> 
> So, if FIFA's webmaster were not to be wrong and FIFA recognises a team called "Republic of Ireland" who govern football in the 26 counties, do you think that team should be dissolved?


 
I'm going to email them and the FAI. I'll let you know what response I get, but I expect it will result in the website being updated in time. [A few years ago I forced another International sporting body to change their website and official documentation to this effect, so I'll dig out the same letter and adapt it to FAI].

Question for you - where is this famed "Republic of Ireland " that fields a soccer team? Where is it located? How do you become eligible to play for it? Where is the "Football Association of Republic of Ireland" located and what teams play in their leagues?


----------



## Latrade (17 Aug 2009)

csirl said:


> I'm going to email them and the FAI. I'll let you know what response I get, but I expect it will result in the website being undated in time.
> 
> Question for you - where is this famed "Republic of Ireland " that fields a soccer team? Where is it located? How do you become eligible to play for it? Where is the "Football Association of Republic of Ireland" located and what teams play in their leagues?


 
Before you email though, I just checked. ROI is the official FIFA designation as is NI, both teams are barred from using Ireland as the name of their teams due to some...erm... "issues" in the past.


----------



## csirl (17 Aug 2009)

I'm going to email them anyway  Nice letter about how every other country in the world is referred to by their official name (as per UN) and we are not and how this is insulting and racially discriminating against Irish people. Worked before - bodies like this tend to be particularly sensitive to discrimination accusations.


----------



## terrontress (17 Aug 2009)

To be honest, I don't really see it as being important but I think csirl, who has done work in the International sporting arena, stating that Wales and Scotland should not have football teams is an unfair comment given the fun and pride that they give to hundreds of thousands of people.

If these teams were to be disbanded, you can also be sure that the kids of Scottish or Welsh neighbourhoods would have to work twice as hard to play internationally.

The fact is that the teams exist and I think it is great and I react negatively to people passing judgement on them.

There were previously two Ireland teams. Pre partition, the IFA controlled soccer for the whole Ireland. Following partition, the IFA continued as a 32 county body but the FAI was established for the 26.

FIFA stepped in and ruled that from then on the IFA would be responsible for Northern Ireland and that would be the name of the team. The FAI was to be responsible for the Republic of Ireland and that was to be the name of the team.

That is why the FAI governs the Republic of Ireland soccer team and a great team they are.

And if someone were to say that the Republic of Ireland soccer team should not exist as it is not a country, they will get the same response from me.


----------



## terrontress (17 Aug 2009)

csirl said:


> I'm going to email them anyway  Nice letter about how every other country in the world is referred to by their official name (as per UN) and we are not and how this is insulting and racially discriminating against Irish people. Worked before - bodies like this tend to be particularly sensitive to discrimination accusations.


 
So you have changed your tune from the FIFA website being wrong to Irish people being discriminated against?

Should the team as it stands be disbanded?


----------



## Betsy Og (17 Aug 2009)

csirl said:


> I'm going to email them anyway  Nice letter about how every other country in the world is referred to by their official name (as per UN) and we are not and how this is insulting and racially discriminating against Irish people. Worked before - bodies like this tend to be particularly sensitive to discrimination accusations.


 
isnt there enough hardship going around without generating spurious stuff for some poor divil to go head scratching about?


----------



## Latrade (17 Aug 2009)

Betsy Og said:


> isnt there enough hardship going around without generating spurious stuff for some poor divil to go head scratching about?


 
Actually, considering most of the stuff to come from FIFA regards making Women Football teams wear more provocative clothing in order to become more popular, etc, this letter might actually spark something more productive from them.


----------



## Caveat (17 Aug 2009)

Latrade said:


> Actually, considering most of the stuff to come from FIFA regards making Women Football teams wear more provocative clothing in order to become more popular, etc


 
 Please tell me this is a joke!


----------



## Towger (17 Aug 2009)

Latrade said:


> Wasn't there also a Supreme Court ruling on this? An extradition warrant was refused because it referred to "Republic of Ireland" and not Ireland?


 
Yes, You are correct, 'Republic of Ireland' does not exist. This is basic stuff people should know from school...


----------



## Latrade (17 Aug 2009)

Caveat said:


> Please tell me this is a joke!


 
Oh I wish (whether this is intrepreted as "I wish it were a joke" or "I wish this actually came true" is up to the filthy mind or not of the reader):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/jan/16/football.gender


----------



## terrontress (17 Aug 2009)

Towger said:


> Yes, You are correct, 'Republic of Ireland' does not exist. This is basic stuff people should know from school...


 
My point was that the football team is "Republic of Ireland" and if the football team does not refer to a country, should it be unilaterally scrapped as csirl was stating should happen to Scotland and Wales?

I suspect that this will be the last we hear of our International sporting expert csirl on the matter.


----------



## csirl (17 Aug 2009)

The team should be called "Ireland" as it represents "Ireland" and to qualify to play you must have an passport from "Ireland" and is fielded by the "Football Association of Ireland". Every other country in the world has their soccer team called after the name of their country, why should we be any different? FIFA can make whatever excuses they wish, but they are legally incorrect on this one.

To add another complication to the debate. The FAI usually fields soccer teams in the olympics (usually doesnt qualify for finals). These teams are fielded under the name "Ireland" as the IOC will only recognise the official UN sanctioned names for countries. 

In 2012, the FA (as in the one in England) will be fielding a "United Kingdom" team in the London olympics - Scottish, Welsh and IFA will not be part of the team, though people from those countries will be free to play for the UK in the FA team.


----------



## ludermor (17 Aug 2009)

I didnt think having a passport was a guarentee of eligibility? Wasnt there an issue with some players from the north who held irish passports but could not play for Ireland?


----------



## terrontress (17 Aug 2009)

csirl said:


> The team should be called "Ireland"


 
But it isn't. It is called "Republic of Ireland", which you repeatedly stated it is not, quoting your experience in international sporting matters.



> as it represents "Ireland" and to qualify to play you must have an passport from "Ireland" and is fielded by the "Football Association of Ireland". Every other country in the world has their soccer team called after the name of their country, why should we be any different?


 Because there were two teams named Ireland and FIFA had to rectify this. In Northern Ireland, the domestic league is called The Irish League and the football association is The Irish Football Association. The team is still Northern Ireland though.



> FIFA can make whatever excuses they wish, but they are legally incorrect on this one.


 
They cannot be legally incorrect as they set the law. Also, the FAI have signed up to abide by FIFA's rules as a member nation so they are every bit as right or wrong as FIFA by doing so.



> To add another complication to the debate. The FAI usually fields soccer teams in the olympics (usually doesnt qualify for finals). These teams are fielded under the name "Ireland" as the IOC will only recognise the official UN sanctioned names for countries.
> 
> In 2012, the FA (as in the one in England) will be fielding a "United Kingdom" team in the London olympics - Scottish, Welsh and IFA will not be part of the team, though people from those countries will be free to play for the UK in the FA team.


 
But that is not FIFA governed.


----------



## DrMoriarty (17 Aug 2009)

Sheesh, don't you hate it when people drag sports into politics?


----------



## RMCF (17 Aug 2009)

You could hardly call it an English flag when so many Linfield and NI fans fly it.

Why would they fly an Enlgish flag?

Its a British flag, end of. Even though there is no element of Wales in it.


----------



## mathepac (17 Aug 2009)

The union flag was devised to enable private companies to raise "national" armies under an  English flag in order to enslave and exploit sovereign countries they had illegally invaded and colonised. The Union Jack was initially a maritime device.

Prior to the introduction of the Union Jack (a jack being a naval flag flown from the "jack-staff" on the bow of a ship), pirate ships (or even convoys or armadas) with English Royal charters often flew their own colours and ended up engaging each other in battle despite being on the same "side". In reality, the only side they were on was their own - they were purely commercial ventures and having the Royal charter just meant that for a percentage of the take, the Crown did not prosecute them for theft, piracy, murder on the high-seas, slavery, etc.

The skull and cross-bones device, commonly touted in films and TV as the "pirate flag" is a propagandist attempt to discredit the Templars as lawless brigands around the time Philip got the nod from the then Pope to end their power and thus Philip's and the Church's huge debts to them. The original pirate flag is in all probability the Union Jack and not the so-called "Jolly Roger". (discussions about whether the skull and cross-bones is Templar or Masonic  or whether Masonic or Templar are different are separate )

There is evidence that the Union Flag, having been used successfully at sea to identify ships with a common purpose, was introduced  on land in order to prevent situations where for example Cecil Rhodes's private army flying the British South Africa Company flag (remember BSA bicycles, motor-bikes, rifles, air-guns,?) attacked other "British" commercial contingents in Africa because they didn't recognise each other's flags / emblems. This cost the Crown and the commercial operators money so the privateers sought and were granted a Royal charter to allow them to use the English pirate flag on land, thereby improving cash-flow.

The source of the design of the Union Flag is another huge propoganda lie. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the crosses of various national Christian saints being amalgamated and built into a "Union" flag. The English cousin of a Russian Tsar saw the Russian "Jack" on a fleet of Russian ships, decided it was pretty and copied the design, changing some of the colours slightly in doing so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Naval_Jack_of_Russia.svg

This helped Russian and English companies with Royal charters to recognise each other's ships when they were transporting opium and slaves and avoid attacking each other's ships (such attacks upset their respective Emperors,  shareholders and underwriters at Lloyds.)

At the start of the American Civil War, it was copied again, becoming the jack of the Confederate Navy.

[broken link removed]

The reasons for the similarities should be obvious as the English wanted their lucrative slave-trade to continue and were not enamoured of Lincoln's plans to end slavery and slave-trading.

I see the Union jack as a device that is intrinsically English, that has unified world-wide commercial interests, giving monetary matters precedence over human rights and the sovereignty of weaker nations, using nationalism as a subterfuge and as a sop to the masses.


----------



## aonfocaleile (17 Aug 2009)

Towger said:


> Yes, You are correct, 'Republic of Ireland' does not exist. This is basic stuff people should know from school...



http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1948/en/act/pub/0022/index.html

I beg to differ....

I can't find anywhere on the website that this piece of legislation has been repealed.


----------



## shanegl (17 Aug 2009)

Subtle difference between "description" and "name" (Article 4 of the Constitution)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland_Act_1948


----------



## aonfocaleile (17 Aug 2009)

Subtle being the operative word.
If the name "Republic of Ireland" is recognised by the law of the land through an act of the Oireachtas, then its not accurate to say that it doesn't exist.


----------



## mathepac (17 Aug 2009)

aonfocaleile said:


> ... If the name "Republic of Ireland" is recognised by the law of the land through an act of the Oireachtas, ...


"Republic of Ireland" is the *description*, "Ireland" is the name.


----------



## Latrade (17 Aug 2009)

aonfocaleile said:


> Subtle being the operative word.
> If the name "Republic of Ireland" is recognised by the law of the land through an act of the Oireachtas, then its not accurate to say that it doesn't exist.


 
The legislation you referenced is to set up Ireland as a Republic answerable to a President (President of Ireland). Therefore it describes Ireland as a republic because that is what it is. It does not give Republic of Ireland as the name of the state. 

Again, the Constitution is the only document that gives the state a name.


----------



## z104 (17 Aug 2009)

Ah, The Union Jack, also fondly known as the Butchers Apron.

It originally was designed to represent the union of Ireland and great Britain and dates from the act of Union. 
I usually associate the union jack with England, colonialism, genocide, slavery, bigotry and aggression. Funnily enough there is a huge Irish influence in the Union Jack i.e. The British designed St Patricks Saltire flag which represented Ireland for a while .


----------



## csirl (17 Aug 2009)

Checked the legal situation - below are some extracts from Section 10 of the FIFA statutes which cover membership. Only indepedent States as recognised by the international community can be members of FIFA with the exception of the 4 UK teams. Therefore it is "Ireland" (not "Republic of Ireland" or any other entity that isnt a State) that is the member of FIFA and is entitled to field international teams. ​ 


*1.* 
​​Any Association which is responsible for organising and supervising football​ 
in its country may become a Member of FIFA. In this context, the expression

“country” shall refer to an independent state recognised by the international
community. Subject to par. 5 and par. 6 below, only one Association shall be
recognised in each country.​​






-----​



*5. *​

Each of the four British Associations is recognised as a separate Member of​ 
FIFA.​


----------



## terrontress (18 Aug 2009)

csirl said:


> Checked the legal situation - below are some extracts from Section 10 of the FIFA statutes which cover membership. Only indepedent States as recognised by the international community can be members of FIFA with the exception of the 4 UK teams. Therefore it is "Ireland" (not "Republic of Ireland" or any other entity that isnt a State) that is the member of FIFA and is entitled to field international teams. ​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Go back to the beginning.

You believe there should be no Scottish or Welsh soccer teams. FIFA state that each of the 4 British associations is recognised as a separate member. Do you stand by your original assertion that the Scottish and Welsh should not be.

You state that there is no "Republic of Ireland" soccer team and FIFA is wrong to describe it as such. Do you stand by this assertion?

Finally, given that the formation of the FAI allowed Dublin to control football in the 26 counties, would you be in favour of a return to the previous set up of a 32 county soccer association controlled from Belfast?


----------



## Caveat (18 Aug 2009)

Enjoying all this Samantha?


----------



## Latrade (18 Aug 2009)

terrontress said:


> Go back to the beginning.
> 
> You believe there should be no Scottish or Welsh soccer teams. FIFA state that each of the 4 British associations is recognised as a separate member. Do you stand by your original assertion that the Scottish and Welsh should not be.
> 
> ...


 
I think with all due respect to csirl, you're misrepresenting what has been said. Obviously, they can answer for themselves on this, but even though I disagree with them, I don't think that's exactly what they said.

1. Csirl believed Scotland, Wales and NI were not countries and it was due to a quirk/historical set up that they were separated under FIFA rules. I disagree with this, again the Faroe Islands is an example, but I don't recall a call for them to be banished into on UK team.

2. The team is Ireland, however, to play in FIFA and UEFA competitions they have to be called "Republic of Ireland". It was a FIFA Solution to a FIFA Problem. As clearly demonstrated there is no such country called Republic of Ireland. (Just out of interest by what name does the country go in other international competitions such as athletics, cycling, even Eurovision?)

3. I don't recall any claim that the IFA should have control over the 32 counties. 

Even though I disagree with csirl's assertions on what a country is, I agree with their knowledge of what this country is called and that it is offensive that Ireland cannot use its own name in a football competition. I think you're mispresenting their points.


----------



## mathepac (18 Aug 2009)

Latrade said:


> ...   *Faroe Islands is an example, but I don't recall a call for them to be banished into on UK team*. ...


With very good reason, they are part of the Kingdom of Denmark.


----------



## csirl (18 Aug 2009)

> You believe there should be no Scottish or Welsh soccer teams. FIFA state that each of the 4 British associations is recognised as a separate member. Do you stand by your original assertion that the Scottish and Welsh should not be.


 
I do not believe there should be Scottish, Welsh or Northern Ireland soccer teams in International competition. There should be a UK team. FIFA's recognition of these teams is a historical quirk and against the spirit of their own rules - it's not fair for one country - the UK - to be allowed to field multiple teams in International competition.



> You state that there is no "Republic of Ireland" soccer team and FIFA is wrong to describe it as such. Do you stand by this assertion?


 
FIFA is wrong to use the term "Republic of Ireland" to discribe our soccer team. It is legally and factually incorrect. The correct term is "Ireland". I also think it is discriminating as every other country in the world competes under it's real name.



> Finally, given that the formation of the FAI allowed Dublin to control football in the 26 counties, would you be in favour of a return to the previous set up of a 32 county soccer association controlled from Belfast?


 
No. The FAI are the national governing body of the sport for Ireland. To have a foreign organisation running soccer in Ireland would be wrong on a number of levels. Football in Ireland should be run by the FAI based in Dublin.


----------



## Latrade (18 Aug 2009)

mathepac said:


> With very good reason, they are part of the Kingdom of Denmark.


 
Misquote probably based on poor sentence structure, the example was the Faroe Islands, the UK refrence was to Scotland, Wales etc. I'm more than aware FI are part of the Kingdom of Denmark.


----------



## mathepac (18 Aug 2009)

Latrade said:


> ...  (Just out of interest by what name does the country go in other international competitions such as athletics, cycling, even Eurovision?) ...


Rugby (Union, League, Sevens, Womens )- Ireland (32 county), Boxing - Ireland (32 county),  Hockey - Ireland (32 county), Athletics - Ireland (32 county), Tennis - Ireland (32 county), Motor-sport (A1 GP) - Team Ireland, etc. etc. 


Latrade said:


> ...  It was a FIFA Solution to a FIFA Problem.  ...


I disagree. 

The original organisation charged with administering Association Football in Ireland was the Irish Football Association, the FAI is a post-partition phenomenon, an Irish solution to a British-gerrymandered problem, the repercussions of which are still with us.


----------



## aonfocaleile (18 Aug 2009)

Latrade said:


> The legislation you referenced is to set up Ireland as a Republic answerable to a President (President of Ireland). Therefore it describes Ireland as a republic because that is what it is. It does not give Republic of Ireland as the name of the state.
> 
> Again, the Constitution is the only document that gives the state a name.



Fair enough. I understand that Ireland is the official name of the state but Ireland is acknowledged as a republic in our legislation. Is it not therefore correct to describe the country as "Republic of Ireland"? Such as one might say Kingdom of Denmark? But maybe we're getting into semantics here.


If Scotland, Wales and NI are all treated as separate teams for sports such as soccer and rugby, can anyone explain why there is a single British team at events such as the Olympics? I remember at Beijing, there was a single "Team GB" as they called themselves, which included athletes from NI. Surely it should have been team UK? Never understood why there is a differentiation for some sports.


----------



## Latrade (18 Aug 2009)

mathepac said:


> Rugby (Union, League, Sevens, Womens )- Ireland (32 county), Boxing - Ireland (32 county), Hockey - Ireland (32 county), Athletics - Ireland (32 county), Tennis - Ireland (32 county), Motor-sport (A1 GP) - Team Ireland, etc. etc.


 
Atheltics - GB and Northern Ireland team? IOC events are separate, Ireland competes as Ireland.
Golf - Harrington Ireland, Clarke Northern Ireland...

It was a FIFA problem because it doesn't exist for any other sport, whether competing across 32 counties or not. It was a FIFA solution because their response was to make a country play under a different name. Northern Ireland is Norther Ireland, Ireland is not the Republic of Ireland. The correct response would have been to respect a country's constitution. Though I suspect it was because there aren't enough references to hot pants in the constitution.


----------



## mathepac (18 Aug 2009)

aonfocaleile said:


> ...  can anyone explain why there is a single British team at events such as the Olympics? ...


Its simple really. FIFA, who inherited the administration of association football from the Brits, already had the exceptions regarding Wales, Scotland, England and NI written into their rules. Truly international organisations such as the IOC rcognise countries using UN guidelines, not those of a previous administration.


----------



## bren1916 (18 Aug 2009)

*Do you see the union jack as being an english flag?* 

Yes - i see it as a predominantly English flag although used also by Ulster Loyalists/Unionists ditto Scottish Loyalists/Unionists in order to proclaim their 'allegiance' to lizzy and westminster (when it suits).


----------



## csirl (18 Aug 2009)

> Is it not therefore correct to describe the country as "Republic of Ireland"?


 
No - aonfocaleile is correct. The legislation being referred to is the one which established Ireland as a republic (at independence, the Queen was still head of state). It did not add the term "republic" to our official name. Our Constitution clearly states what the name of the country is - anythng else is incorrect. Even if legislation was brought it to call the country "republic of.." it would be invalid as a Constitutional Referendum is needed to change the name.

If FIFA are to use the excuse that Ireland is a republic as the logic for referring to us as the "Republic of Ireland", then some of their teams should be renamed as follows:

The Evil Dictatorship of Korea
The Communist Dictatorship of China
The Undemocratic Theocracy of Iran
The Corrupt Murdering Regime of Sudan
The Basketcase of Somalia


----------



## Caveat (18 Aug 2009)

Samantha, think of it this way - if an ultra nationalistic English guy wanted to get his first tattoo (and it had to be a flag) what do you think he would get?


----------



## mathepac (18 Aug 2009)

A swastika?


----------



## Caveat (18 Aug 2009)

mathepac said:


> A swastika?


 
There's alway one... 

And a swastika is not a 'flag' anyway. 

The answer to the semi-rhetorical question is of course, a union jack. Even if this ultra nationalist hates Scottish people for example.


----------



## aonfocaleile (18 Aug 2009)

Latrade said:


> Atheltics - GB and Northern Ireland team? IOC events are separate, Ireland competes as Ireland.
> Golf - Harrington Ireland, Clarke Northern Ireland...
> 
> It was a FIFA problem because it doesn't exist for any other sport, whether competing across 32 counties or not. It was a FIFA solution because their response was to make a country play under a different name. Northern Ireland is Norther Ireland, Ireland is not the Republic of Ireland. The correct response would have been to respect a country's constitution. Though I suspect it was because there aren't enough references to hot pants in the constitution.



http://www.olympics.org.uk/BEIJING2008/aboutteamgb.aspx

Not according to the IOC website, which clearly makes reference to Team GB representing GB and NI. I recall this being discussed on BBC at the time and they had no explanation other than team UK wouldn't have the same ring to it.


----------



## Purple (18 Aug 2009)

csirl said:


> some of their teams should be renamed as follows:
> 
> The Evil Dictatorship of Korea
> The Communist Dictatorship of China
> ...



That would be cool


----------



## csirl (18 Aug 2009)

In the end of the day, the Scots and Welsh are all part of the UK and are ruled by the Queen of England. There's nothing more pathetic than a Scots or Welsh person going on about how they hate the English yadda yadda yadda - all talk, but no action. If they dont like their fellow subjects, they should leave the union.


----------



## secman (18 Aug 2009)

I laughed out loud at the end of Braveheart, the part when the script comes up to say that the Scots eventually got their freedom from English rule !!!!!!!!!!!!! Yeh right . 

Its a joke the Scots and Welsh thinking that they are a country, with their flag and National anthem, ( a song of Loyalty).
Thank God we Irish were not as weak as them !

The only reason that GB never entered a football team in the Olympics was that they feared that FIFA would say that they could only have one national team thereafter. 

Secman


----------



## Sunny (18 Aug 2009)

secman said:


> Its a joke the Scots and Welsh thinking that they are a country, with their flag and National anthem, ( a song of Loyalty).
> Thank God we Irish were not as weak as them !
> 
> The only reason that GB never entered a football team in the Olympics was that they feared that FIFA would say that they could only have one national team thereafter.
> ...


 
Scotland and Wales don't have National Anthems. But I certainly wouldn't call what they use instead as songs of loyalty. They are as Nationalistic as our own. 

People can make fun of the Scots and Welsh all they like but they are proud Nations. We may have independence but I am sure the people who fought and died for it would be delighted to see how we have rejected the Irish language, imported the British High Street, support English soccer teams, watch English tv etc etc. So are you sure we aren't as weak as them?


----------



## Latrade (18 Aug 2009)

As a further aside, there was some debate last night on G Hook regarding a formal visit from Queen Elizabeth over here. I was just amused that one "text" listed the usual reasons why she shouldn't come over, famine, oppression, etc, however it was when he also listed Cromwell I thought he should double check his history. 

Out of all the ills visited by the different regimes, I'm not sure the British Monarchy can be blamed on the guy who led a (follow-up) revolution, established a complete dictatorship, banned all forms of enjoyment, persecuted anyone not Puritan (Anglican, Prodestant or Catholic), killed more of his own citizens than the black death, ran the Monarchy out the country and then beheaded the King after a trial so blatantly unfair that it would make a Judge from Alabama in the 60s blush.


----------



## peelaaa (19 Aug 2009)

ney001 said:


> I would definitely put the union jack down as British. To me, it always brings back memories of dodgy package holidays years ago when we would frequently roll our eyes at the 'Brits abroad' with their Union jack shorts, towels, tatoos, tee shirts etc! - I would never once put them down as being Welsh or Scottish!


 
It's almost as bad as the Irish with their rugby/Football/GAA/celtic tops on when on holiday


----------



## terrontress (23 Aug 2009)

Ha ha, looking around youtube and heard a reference to Republic of Ireland football team, or is it Repubalic and it reminded me of this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxD0qAe2dUU


----------



## MandaC (24 Aug 2009)

Union Jack - Totally 100% English and for some reason it reminds me too of the pie-n-chips brigade, Blackpool, Magalluf, etc.


----------



## terrontress (24 Aug 2009)

MandaC said:


> Union Jack - Totally English and for some reason it reminds me too of the pie-n-chips brigade, Blackpool, Magalluf, etc.


 
I think such raw patriotism is very unpalatable abroad. Be it a British Bulldog tattoo, Tricolour hung off a hotel block balcony in Benidorm or a family all in stars and stripe t-shirts.

If your own country is so great, why did you leave it to come to wherever you have come on holiday?

I suppose the people to be found expressing their national identity abroad, like the GAA tops mentioned above, are usually the lowest common denominator, going to the Costa del Muck for a week because it costs €199 including tax and they get to drink from 11 in the morning until 6 the following morning.


----------



## Betsy Og (24 Aug 2009)

I wouldnt have thought of GAA jerseys or English club jerseys are being too low brow or provocative. I suppose the Celtic & Rangers ones have their sectarian baggage but other than that they wouldnt bother me.

National flags abroad are generally a bit of cringe - like at Glastonbury etc, big deal you have a Welsh/Scottish/Irish flag on a 20ft poll, whoooppee for you.


----------



## so-crates (24 Aug 2009)

Terrontress, while I'd agree that the overt and explicit use of national symbols (such as flags) while on holidays in another country is a little unpalatable especially in the absence of any reason to do so; I would have to point out though that plenty of children (and adults) would have club and national jerseys as part of their day-to-day wear and there is nothing specifically jingoistic in their wearing them on holidays. They may also have jerseys related to other sports or schools.
I'd take exception to the tone of your comment. It is, dare I say, a little snobbish. You seem to equate being only able or willing to afford a cheap holiday with "lowest common denominator" and binge drinking. Plenty of people go on cheap holidays because they provide good value for money, an opportunity to enjoy some sunshine, an opportunity for children to have a good holiday abroad. There are also those who go on cheap holidays because they are students or otherwise on a limited budget. If they wish to let their hair down and do so without running afoul of the local authorities then where is the harm in it being cheap? Tarring all budget holidaymakers with the same brush is quite unfair of you.


----------



## Caveat (24 Aug 2009)

+1 so-crates.


----------



## samanthajane (24 Aug 2009)

Caveat said:


> Enjoying all this Samantha?


 
yeah some interesting point....but i got lost when it turned to football!


----------



## terrontress (26 Aug 2009)

so-crates said:


> Terrontress, while I'd agree that the overt and explicit use of national symbols (such as flags) while on holidays in another country is a little unpalatable especially in the absence of any reason to do so; I would have to point out though that plenty of children (and adults) would have club and national jerseys as part of their day-to-day wear and there is nothing specifically jingoistic in their wearing them on holidays. They may also have jerseys related to other sports or schools.
> I'd take exception to the tone of your comment. It is, dare I say, a little snobbish. You seem to equate being only able or willing to afford a cheap holiday with "lowest common denominator" and binge drinking. Plenty of people go on cheap holidays because they provide good value for money, an opportunity to enjoy some sunshine, an opportunity for children to have a good holiday abroad. There are also those who go on cheap holidays because they are students or otherwise on a limited budget. If they wish to let their hair down and do so without running afoul of the local authorities then where is the harm in it being cheap? Tarring all budget holidaymakers with the same brush is quite unfair of you.


 
Well, if it is unfair then I apologise.

I wouldn't really know because I have not been on one of these types of holidays before.

The lowest common denominator do go on these type of holidays more often than other types, the filthy swine that they are. I have seen Ibiza Uncovered and that kind of programme. And there were plenty of Irish in it.

That is not to say that the people who go on those holidays are all of the lowest common denominator.


----------



## so-crates (26 Aug 2009)

Good grief Terrontress, I point out the snobbishness of your comment and the generalisation you have made with regards to budget holidaymakers and you come back with an even more offensive comment? "filthy swine" is a pretty pejorative comment about people you have never met.


----------



## Purple (26 Aug 2009)

terrontress said:


> I have seen Ibiza Uncovered and that kind of programme.


 Balanced programme making at its best. Yes, that's all you need to make an informed judgement.


----------



## terrontress (27 Aug 2009)

Well they are filty swine! At least they act like it in these programmes.

They are all probably on the dole as well. How they get all the money for the holidays and the booze when they are not working, I'll never know. It's an absolute disgrace.

All I can say is that one of the advantages of growing old is that my age precludes me from an 18-30 holiday! And I don't need to go on one to know the kind of thing which goes on there, the dirty beggars!


----------



## Purple (27 Aug 2009)

terrontress said:


> Well they are filty swine! At least they act like it in these programmes.
> 
> They are all probably on the dole as well. How they get all the money for the holidays and the booze when they are not working, I'll never know. It's an absolute disgrace.
> 
> All I can say is that one of the advantages of growing old is that my age precludes me from an 18-30 holiday! And I don't need to go on one to know the kind of thing which goes on there, the dirty beggars!



Are you Victor Meldrew?


----------



## terrontress (27 Aug 2009)

Purple said:


> Are you Victor Meldrew?


 
Well, I think that similar to Homer Simpson, a lot of men can see a lot of Victor in their own character!

But this is a serious point.


----------



## Caveat (27 Aug 2009)

Aside the bizarre apoplectic ranting _terrontress_, you seem to believe that bad behaviour on holiday, whatever form it takes, is limited to a certain class?! 

There are plenty of so called middle class people, who with a few drinks in them, think nothing of shagging in the street and vomiting into their 18th cocktail. Maybe even at the same time.


----------



## Mpsox (27 Aug 2009)

terrontress said:


> Well they are filty swine! At least they act like it in these programmes.
> 
> They are all probably on the dole as well. How they get all the money for the holidays and the booze when they are not working, I'll never know. It's an absolute disgrace.
> 
> All I can say is that one of the advantages of growing old is that my age precludes me from an 18-30 holiday! And I don't need to go on one to know the kind of thing which goes on there, the dirty beggars!


 
I lived in England for 10 years, and made a good career and life there at a time when my own country couldn't offer me anything. I never went on a package holiday(too busy flying home for weddings/funerals/hurling matches etc) but most of the people I worked with did. These were ordinary working class English people who were some of the most decent, nicest and honourable people you could meet. Yes they let their hair down on holidays, yes, they got up to wild things and it is not everyone's cup of tea, but to describe them as filthy swines? I'd much prefer to spend my time with people like that then with stuck up snooty people with pretentions of grandeur.


----------



## Graham_07 (27 Aug 2009)

Would this be time for a troll alert ?


----------



## Purple (27 Aug 2009)

Well said Mpsox


----------



## terrontress (27 Aug 2009)

Mpsox said:


> I lived in England for 10 years, and made a good career and life there at a time when my own country couldn't offer me anything. I never went on a package holiday(too busy flying home for weddings/funerals/hurling matches etc) but most of the people I worked with did. These were ordinary working class English people who were some of the most decent, nicest and honourable people you could meet. Yes they let their hair down on holidays, yes, they got up to wild things and it is not everyone's cup of tea, but to describe them as filthy swines? I'd much prefer to spend my time with people like that then with stuck up snooty people with pretentions of grandeur.


 
It was not me who bought this issue up! Someone raised Magaluff and Union Jack boxer shorts earlier, it's a very negative stereotype and it is one I tend to agree with.

And let's be fair, it was not me who bought class in to it. I said that the people going on these holidays spend €199 on them, I had tacky tower blocks in Benidorm in mind.

Someone else bought up class saying that the people who can only afford €199 holidays aren't all scum etc. etc.

People with a few quid are just as likely to go on these sorts of holidays as those who go as it is all they can afford.

I used to have one friend who goes on such a holiday and then spends about two grand when he gets there on cocktails, parascending, bungee jumps and all that sort of nonsense.

So I think words are being placed in my mouth if people are saying that I am labelling the working classes (which I am not sure even exist in Ireland) as swine.

The swine are those who hang their flag over the balcony of their fire-trap of a hotel, drink till they're sick, have multiple sexual partners in the one day, spend the whole time in a foreign country looking for someone who can speak English to them, have a series of dodgy tattoos which clash with their lobster red skin.

They can come from the poshest homes in the land to the gutter as far as I am concerned. They are all dirtbirds.


----------



## samanthajane (27 Aug 2009)

terrontress said:


> The swine are those who hang their flag over the balcony of their fire-trap of a hotel, drink till they're sick, have multiple sexual partners in the one day, spend the whole time in a foreign country looking for someone who can speak English to them, have a series of dodgy tattoos which clash with their lobster red skin.


 
well it's not on football anymore 

wooohoooo for me I have 1 year 7 months and 2 weeks and 6 days before i wont be allowed on an 18-30 holiday. 

€199 for all of that...bargin i say!!!!! Althought in fairness i wouldn't care if he could speak english or not


----------



## Mpsox (27 Aug 2009)

samanthajane said:


> well it's not on football anymore
> 
> wooohoooo for me I have 1 year 7 months and 2 weeks and 6 days before i wont be allowed on an 18-30 holiday.
> 
> €199 for all of that...bargin i say!!!!! Althought in fairness i wouldn't care if he could speak english or not


 
you could also waste your money on parascending, drinking cocktails and bungess jumping. What a dreadful habit people have, going on holidays and enjoying themselves. Down with that sort of thing !!!!!!!!!!


----------



## terrontress (27 Aug 2009)

Mpsox said:


> you could also waste your money on parascending, drinking cocktails and bungess jumping. What a dreadful habit people have, going on holidays and enjoying themselves. Down with that sort of thing !!!!!!!!!!


 
You are misrepresenting me again.

The point I was making there was that people may go on such a holiday which is inexpensive to book but when they get there they'll spend an absolute fortune in the space of a week and enjoy themselves doing so. They may consider their accomodation to be somewhere to leave the bags and get a couple of hours kip between pubs and clubs.

My point is that just because someone is on a €199 package deal it does not mean that it is all they can afford.


----------



## Mpsox (27 Aug 2009)

terrontress said:


> You are misrepresenting me again.
> 
> The point I was making there was that people may go on such a holiday which is inexpensive to book but when they get there they'll spend an absolute fortune in the space of a week and enjoy themselves doing so. They may consider their accomodation to be somewhere to leave the bags and get a couple of hours kip between pubs and clubs.
> 
> My point is that just because someone is on a €199 package deal it does not mean that it is all they can afford.


 
How can I be misrepresenting you? You're the one who called such people "swine", "filthy swine" and "dirtheads", those are your words not mind. You also described such people as being of "the lowest common denominator" and assumed that they were on the dole. Again, your words, not mine


----------



## terrontress (27 Aug 2009)

Mpsox said:


> How can I be misrepresenting you? You're the one who called such people "swine", "filthy swine" and "dirtheads", those are your words not mind. You also described such people as being of "the lowest common denominator" and assumed that they were on the dole. Again, your words, not mine



Well they all are, if you ask me.


----------



## mathepac (27 Aug 2009)

samanthajane said:


> ... wooohoooo for me I have 1 year 7 months and 2 weeks and 6 days before i wont be allowed on an 18-30 holiday. ...


Back to the Future II, you'll be 16 again.


----------



## Sue Ellen (28 Aug 2009)

Thread closed.


----------



## mufc77 (2 Sep 2009)

terrontress said:


> Well they all are, if you ask me.


 
Don't judge until you've been on one of these holidays.  You sound like a bag of laughs you do.


----------



## terrontress (8 Sep 2009)

mufc77 said:


> Don't judge until you've been on one of these holidays. You sound like a bag of laughs you do.


 
If I am being honest, I think that these Ibiza Uncut style TV shows, of which there were plenty, were filmed to be as offensive as possible. People swilling drinks, having multiple sexual partners, vomiting, urinating in street corners, getting arrested and lauging about it, Union Jack boxer shorts, GAA tops in nightclubs, drugs, fighting etc. etc.

Fair enough, it is only television.

But then there was an expectation from people going to these resorts that this kind of behaviour was acceptable. And people going on such 18-30 type holidays felt they had to live up to this behaviour because they had seen it on the TV.

VD clinics are full of people having been on these holidays. Others get sunburnt by getting so drunk they fall asleep in the sun. Foreign Police are starting to crack down more heavily on troublemakers than before. Never mind the bodily damage from abuse of alcohol, drugs or the likelihood of falling off a wall or getting knocked down.

There are very real consequences to the kind of behaviour which can go on in these resorts and I make no apology for placing any insulting label on those who go with Ibiza Uncut on their minds.


----------



## Latrade (8 Sep 2009)

terrontress said:


> If I am being honest, I think that these Ibiza Uncut style TV shows, of which there were plenty, were filmed to be as offensive as possible. People swilling drinks, having multiple sexual partners, vomiting, urinating in street corners, getting arrested and lauging about it, Union Jack boxer shorts, GAA tops in nightclubs, drugs, fighting etc. etc.
> 
> Fair enough, it is only television.
> 
> ...


 
Apart from the sunburn and union jack boxers, it sounds like any night at Coppers.

The most annoying thing for me about those programmes is when I was that age I never saw any of that debauchery. And trust me, I looked hard enough for it.


----------



## micmclo (8 Sep 2009)

I've skipped right to the end of thread 

The Union Jack is the navy flag isn't it?
Different to what most people think the flag is.


----------



## Graham_07 (8 Sep 2009)

micmclo said:


> I've skipped right to the end of thread
> 
> The Union Jack is the navy flag isn't it?
> Different to what most people think the flag is.


 
This name came, I think, from the hoisting of the flag on the "jack staff" at the bow of navy ships. Any flag flown on that pole is called a "jack".


----------



## Pique318 (9 Sep 2009)

Latrade said:


> Apart from the sunburn and union jack boxers, it sounds like any night at Coppers.


LOL, exactly! Or any nightclub around the country too btw.



micmclo said:


> I've skipped right to the end of thread
> 
> The Union Jack is the navy flag isn't it?
> Different to what most people think the flag is.


Yup 


Pique318 said:


> In the interests of accuracy, it's the Union Flag.
> It only becomes the Union Jack when flown from a ships mast.



Scumbags are from all walks of life, and don't need to have a Union flag/Stars'n'Stripes/Tricolour/etc. tattooed on their person to make them so. Neither does such a tattoo a scumbag make.

It's like saying everyone who's a vegetarian/has long hair/smokes spamspamspam is a good-for-nothing hippy who should be arrested on sight


----------



## ice (14 Sep 2009)

csirl said:


> Allowing Wales and Scotland to play in world cup qualifiers would be no different to allowing Bavaria, Quebec, Texas, Canton, Brittany *or even Cork field their own teams*.


 
Don't start them off


----------



## Bronte (16 Sep 2009)

terrontress said:


> People swilling drinks, having multiple sexual partners, vomiting, urinating in street corners, getting arrested and lauging about it, drugs, fighting etc. etc.
> 
> .


  You remind me of part of my youth in Cricklewood and Kilburn.  Those were the days in the National.........


----------



## Bronte (16 Sep 2009)

In relation to SJ's original post, I see the Union Jack as being an English flag though I am aware it is not.  I am Irish and was born in Ireland so I would see it that way.

I consider Scotland and Wales to be nations whatever the legalities. 

I worked in London for a time and I though the English that I met were really nice, very well mannered people.  Really polite with their driving as well.  

I don't think Csirl should send any emails, sport and politics etc and we are where we are and have a kind of peace so let's leave well enough alone.


----------

