Do you see the union jack as being an english flag?
- Thread starter samanthajane
- Start date
terrontress
Registered User
- Messages
- 138
But it isn't. It is called "Republic of Ireland", which you repeatedly stated it is not, quoting your experience in international sporting matters.
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.
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.
But that is not FIFA governed.
DrMoriarty
Moderator
- Messages
- 5,173
Sheesh, don't you hate it when people drag sports into politics? 
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.
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 223
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.
Subtle difference between "description" and "name" (Article 4 of the Constitution)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland_Act_1948
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland_Act_1948
aonfocaleile
Registered User
- Messages
- 223
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.
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.
"Republic of Ireland" is the description, "Ireland" is the name.
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.
Z
z104
Guest
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 .
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 .
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
“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.
recognised in each country.
-----
5.
Each of the four British Associations is recognised as a separate Member of
FIFA.
terrontress
Registered User
- Messages
- 138
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?
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.
With very good reason, they are part of the Kingdom of Denmark.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 223
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.