A Permanent BRITISH International Team?

First topic message reminder :

Okay, Lord D brought an issue to a head a while ago in a different thread - no he didn't finally come to the final solution about the future of the Regions.  But he did twist another topic into an area that I must admit I have given thought to before on and off over the years.
From virtually the beginning of Rugby, the British Nation has been divided into the sum of its Regional parts.  And more recently these surviving Regional parts (Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales) somehow get to always have three and a quarter shots at a title in most INTERNATIONAL contests.
Lord has declared, and it is his right, that he is proud to be British and will obviously follow Team GB in the Olympics.  So far so good - no complaints from me.  

But therefore too, that exposes the truth that in the 6N or the Rugby World Cup, he always has three or three and a bit horses in the race?  If one falls, he still feels the emotional draw of being a UK citizen and can link up to the next representative to carry the flag along further still, as it were.
The rest of us - SA, Aus, NZ, Irish (Southern), USA, Japan etc, - well, we got one shot at it and then we're done

So, in emotional and political terms, you can't have it both ways.  Either Team GB represents the Nation that is the UK or fans are lying when they pretend they don't feel they have three and a bit horses in a Rugby International contest.

So  - my question - finally - well, three of them;

Should the Welsh, Scottish, English and Northern Irish be forced now to unify into one distinct and real Rugby Nation?  

Does that one Nation (UK) have an unfair advantage in International contests by breaking itself up into Regions?  And does that also deny other Nations from entering the top ten ranking and gaining frequent-play rights against the top sides?

How many 'Rugby Nations' could the USA or South Africa or Australia throw at the World Cup if they followed the same blueprint?  And could World Rugby legally stop them if they decided they wanted to?

Discuss

A basic misunderstanding of the situation in the UK here. Firstly great britain is not a country. Its a geographical entity. The united kingdom is 2 countries, a principality and a province plus some dependencies all in a union. GB refers only to the mainland of the UK plus the northern and western isles - it does not include northern ireland, the channel islands or the isle of man or various other little bits

The whole idea of a GB rugby team ( or in any other sport like football where the component parts of the UK play as single nations) then any move to a GB team for any occasion gives rise to this false idea that there should be a GB team for all occasions.

Its just simply wrong wrong in fact and shows no understanding of the complex politics on this small archipelago of islands

TJ wrote:A basic misunderstanding of the situation in the UK here.  Firstly great britain is not a country.  Its a geographical entity.  The united kingdom is 2 countries, a principality and a province plus some dependencies all in a union.  GB refers only to the mainland of the UK plus the northern and western isles - it does not include northern ireland, the channel islands or the isle of man or various other little bits

The whole idea of a GB rugby team ( or in any other sport like football where the component parts of the UK play as single nations) then any move to a GB team for any occasion gives rise to this false idea that there should be a GB team for all occasions.

Its just simply wrong wrong in fact and shows no understanding of the complex politics on this small archipelago of islands

Its just a name hang over from the old days when Ireland was one was part of the UK. Ireland was not so much as a colony but was rather part of the UK itself during the days of the empire. GB was the banner whereby sportsman from England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales drew towards at the time... which the Lions is sort of the last remnant of ... albeit now known as the B&I Lions.

UK and GB are not synonyms! The full name is " the United kingdom of Great Britain and (northern) Ireland"

If it annoys scots to be called english tho how much does it annoy anyone from the island of Ireland to be called British? :-)

A Nation gets to call itself what it is.  That's the honour of being a Nation.  It isn't told what it should be called by another Nation or group of Nations.

The Citizens of the UK do identify, and certainly have in the past at any rate with the term 'British'.  For many UK citizens it is not a strictly geographical entity but a description they give themselves as citizens or subjects of the UK.

I really do hate going down this route because it really is egg-shell sensitive (especially on this island - still).  But in order to debate an issue you simply must talk fact.  And the fact is that there is still a sizeable population in Northern Ireland that would tell you bluntly that their culture is not Irish (obviously), not Northern Irish even - but British.  They'd say that bluntly and wouldn't like anybody telling them the details about geography, which might preclude them.

So I'm simply saying that the truth is that the word 'British' certainly does identify a political reality more than simply a geographical entity for many people that still reside in a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

You couldn't exactly walk up to a patriotic Mexican and tell him he's really an American.  People determine their own names for their own identity.

The British Isles was named in Ancient times.  But that is no reason at all to be held to the same definitions today in this changing world.  
Ireland sees itself as Ireland, and it sees that both as a Political identity and as their name for the geographic island they live on.  Ireland is Ireland.  Britain is Britain in as much as its inhabitants wants it to be known as such.

fa0019 wrote:

Its just a name hang over from the old days when Ireland was one was part of the UK. Ireland was not so much as a colony but was rather part of the UK itself during the days of the empire. GB was the banner whereby sportsman from England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales drew towards at the time... which the Lions is sort of the last remnant of ... albeit now known as the B&I Lions.

You simply do have to read more history, fa.  We were very much a colony.... with the methods of colonisation used on us, the very same as those used when white people decided America was theirs for the taking.  Planting loyal stock in land that isn't yours - defined pattern and government sanctioned - and then pushing the indigenous peoples from rich lands out to barren lands or making them serfs on that fertile land. Suppression of spiritual beliefs, suppression of language, suppression of culture, restriction of voting based on Religion and then on how much wealth a Catholic had - which obviously was little given that their land was taken from them.


The past is the past.  Friends now.  But the past doesn't change to accommodate it.

SecretFly wrote:A Nation gets to call itself what it is.  That's the honour of being a Nation.  It isn't told what it should be called by another Nation or group of Nations.

The Citizens of the UK do identify, and certainly have in the past at any rate with the term 'British'.  For many UK citizens it is not a strictly geographical entity but a description they give themselves as citizens or subjects of the UK.

I really do hate going down this route because it really is egg-shell sensitive (especially on this island - still).  But in order to debate an issue you simply must talk fact.  And the fact is that there is still a sizeable population in Northern Ireland that would tell you bluntly that their culture is not Irish (obviously), not Northern Irish even - but British.  They'd say that bluntly and wouldn't like anybody telling them the details about geography, which might preclude them.

So I'm simply saying that the truth is that the word 'British' certainly does identify a political reality more than simply a geographical entity for many people that still reside in a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

You couldn't exactly walk up to a patriotic Mexican and tell him he's really an American.  People determine their own names for their own identity.

The British Isles was named in Ancient times.  But that is no reason at all to be held to the same definitions today in this changing world.  
Ireland sees itself as Ireland, and it sees that both as a Political identity and as their name for the geographic island they live on.  Ireland is Ireland.  Britain is Britain in as much as its inhabitants wants it to be known as such.

How big is this sizeable population that wouldn't consider their culture 'Northern Irish'? Have to say that as someone from Northern Ireland, I haven't met many who think that way.

When it comes to the real objective history of this part of the world, the people from this part of the world have absolutely nothing to fear when it comes to heritage. A rich heritage indeed.
It isn't that we don't like anybody telling us details about geography. Simply not true. It's more that as a people, from both sides, who have actually had to live through the conflicts of the more recent history, we understand the futility of picking at past hurts, and the necessity of allowing time to heal, in the hope of a maintained brighter future.

On that note, that's all from me  

Munchkin wrote:

SecretFly wrote:A Nation gets to call itself what it is.  That's the honour of being a Nation.  It isn't told what it should be called by another Nation or group of Nations.

The Citizens of the UK do identify, and certainly have in the past at any rate with the term 'British'.  For many UK citizens it is not a strictly geographical entity but a description they give themselves as citizens or subjects of the UK.

I really do hate going down this route because it really is egg-shell sensitive (especially on this island - still).  But in order to debate an issue you simply must talk fact.  And the fact is that there is still a sizeable population in Northern Ireland that would tell you bluntly that their culture is not Irish (obviously), not Northern Irish even - but British.  They'd say that bluntly and wouldn't like anybody telling them the details about geography, which might preclude them.

So I'm simply saying that the truth is that the word 'British' certainly does identify a political reality more than simply a geographical entity for many people that still reside in a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

You couldn't exactly walk up to a patriotic Mexican and tell him he's really an American.  People determine their own names for their own identity.

The British Isles was named in Ancient times.  But that is no reason at all to be held to the same definitions today in this changing world.  
Ireland sees itself as Ireland, and it sees that both as a Political identity and as their name for the geographic island they live on.  Ireland is Ireland.  Britain is Britain in as much as its inhabitants wants it to be known as such.

How big is this sizeable population that wouldn't consider their culture 'Northern Irish'? Have to say that as someone from Northern Ireland, I haven't met many who think that way.

When it comes to the real objective history of this part of the world, the people from this part of the world have absolutely nothing to fear when it comes to heritage. A rich heritage indeed.
It isn't that we don't like anybody telling us details about geography. Simply not true. It's more that as a people, from both sides, who have actually had to live through the conflicts of the more recent history, we understand the futility of picking at past hurts, and the necessity of allowing time to heal, in the hope of a maintained brighter future.

On that note, that's all from me  

Like that, Munchkin. Nicely put.

Interesting.

Split up Ireland and join up Britain.

I guess the OP has his reasons.

No 7&1/2 wrote:But seriously without the jokes, the Lions is seen as a step up for the players as they have to compete against a larger pool of players. Yes you're Irish and feel strongly etc but it's easier for Rory Best to make the Ireland team than make a Lions team hence you will get the tag - Lion.

Except they don't really have a larger pool of players. It is rare for Lions to be chosen who aren't starters for their nation, so the pool size has four players in it for each position.

You could argue that the quality of the 4N Test pool is better but that is very subjective. To get chosen for (say) England, Hartley will be playing against his direct competition for the Test side regularly in the AP in a range of conditions and circumstances. OTOH he will only be against Best, Ford and Baldwin in the triple crown games (some so there is far less evidence to compare different Lions candidates directly.

Then there's the politics of the Lions selection that has excluded the "best" players for all sorts of reasons - most never aired in public. The Lions aren't the 'best' players and never have been because there is no way to accurately measure what that means. Sometimes the 'best' is being in the right place at the right time - just ask Tom Court.

Cyril wrote:Interesting.

Split up Ireland and join up Britain.

I guess the OP has his reasons.

Keep Ireland, join up Great Britain.

TJ wrote:A basic misunderstanding of the situation in the UK here.  Firstly great britain is not a country.  Its a geographical entity.  The united kingdom is 2 countries, a principality and a province plus some dependencies all in a union.  GB refers only to the mainland of the UK plus the northern and western isles - it does not include northern ireland, the channel islands or the isle of man or various other little bits

The whole idea of a GB rugby team ( or in any other sport like football where the component parts of the UK play as single nations) then any move to a GB team for any occasion gives rise to this false idea that there should be a GB team for all occasions.

Its just simply wrong wrong in fact and shows no understanding of the complex politics on this small archipelago of islands

You talk of basic misunderstandings then call Wales a Princilality! Hasn't been one since the 16th century!

Griff wrote:

TJ wrote:A basic misunderstanding of the situation in the UK here.  Firstly great britain is not a country.  Its a geographical entity.  The united kingdom is 2 countries, a principality and a province plus some dependencies all in a union.  GB refers only to the mainland of the UK plus the northern and western isles - it does not include northern ireland, the channel islands or the isle of man or various other little bits

The whole idea of a GB rugby team ( or in any other sport like football where the component parts of the UK play as single nations) then any move to a GB team for any occasion gives rise to this false idea that there should be a GB team for all occasions.

Its just simply wrong wrong in fact and shows no understanding of the complex politics on this small archipelago of islands

You talk of basic misunderstandings then call Wales a Princilality! Hasn't been one since the 16th century!

Yeah - and you call Northern Ireland a... splutter...province!

The Great Aukster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:But seriously without the jokes, the Lions is seen as a step up for the players as they have to compete against a larger pool of players. Yes you're Irish and feel strongly etc but it's easier for Rory Best to make the Ireland team than make a Lions team hence you will get the tag - Lion.

Except they don't really have a larger pool of players. It is rare for Lions to be chosen who aren't starters for their nation, so the pool size has four players in it for each position.

You could argue that the quality of the 4N Test pool is better but that is very subjective. To get chosen for (say) England, Hartley will be playing against his direct competition for the Test side regularly in the AP in a range of conditions and circumstances. OTOH he will only be against Best, Ford and Baldwin in the triple crown games (some so there is far less evidence to compare different Lions candidates directly.

Then there's the politics of the Lions selection that has excluded the "best" players for all sorts of reasons - most never aired in public. The Lions aren't the 'best' players and never have been because there is no way to accurately measure what that means. Sometimes the 'best' is being in the right place at the right time - just ask Tom Court.

They still have a larger pool. You could argue England don't pick their best etc but Lions is harder to get into so again fair enough journalists etc will pick it out.

Griff wrote:

TJ wrote:A basic misunderstanding of the situation in the UK here.  Firstly great britain is not a country.  Its a geographical entity.  The united kingdom is 2 countries, a principality and a province plus some dependencies all in a union.  GB refers only to the mainland of the UK plus the northern and western isles - it does not include northern ireland, the channel islands or the isle of man or various other little bits

The whole idea of a GB rugby team ( or in any other sport like football where the component parts of the UK play as single nations) then any move to a GB team for any occasion gives rise to this false idea that there should be a GB team for all occasions.

Its just simply wrong wrong in fact and shows no understanding of the complex politics on this small archipelago of islands

You talk of basic misunderstandings then call Wales a Princilality! Hasn't been one since the 16th century!

Errmm - I believe that officially its still a principality. willing to be corrected tho if you have summat to back it up.

Pot Hale wrote:

Griff wrote:

TJ wrote:A basic misunderstanding of the situation in the UK here.  Firstly great britain is not a country.  Its a geographical entity.  The united kingdom is 2 countries, a principality and a province plus some dependencies all in a union.  GB refers only to the mainland of the UK plus the northern and western isles - it does not include northern ireland, the channel islands or the isle of man or various other little bits

The whole idea of a GB rugby team ( or in any other sport like football where the component parts of the UK play as single nations) then any move to a GB team for any occasion gives rise to this false idea that there should be a GB team for all occasions.

Its just simply wrong wrong in fact and shows no understanding of the complex politics on this small archipelago of islands

You talk of basic misunderstandings then call Wales a Princilality! Hasn't been one since the 16th century!

Yeah - and you call Northern Ireland a... splutter...province!

Again willing to be corrected but NI is not a country in the way scotland is is it?

wiki wrote: Northern Ireland is also referred to as a "province".[40][41] With regard to Northern Ireland, the descriptive name used "can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences."[42]

the more I look at this the more confused it seems - and political views seem to colour what terms one uses. Neither Wales nor NI have ever been separate countries using the current borders tho have they? When did wales join england? 1000 or more years ago?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminology_of_the_British_Isles

TJ wrote:]the more I look at this the more confused it seems - and political views seem to colour what terms one uses.

No f---ing shoite!

Northern Ireland though has always had it's own parliament since it was formed- long, long before Scotland or Wales ever did- so in a sense it is a 'country'.

Just a country where there is no agreed flag, no agreed anthem, no universally agreed terminology for referring to the 'country' ('North of Ireland' versus 'Northern Ireland'), and no shortage of people willing to disagree completely with everything I just said on the basic principle of disagreeing with things.

And not forgetting ulster! even tho northern ireland is only 2/3 of ulster

TJ wrote:

Griff wrote:

TJ wrote:A basic misunderstanding of the situation in the UK here.  Firstly great britain is not a country.  Its a geographical entity.  The united kingdom is 2 countries, a principality and a province plus some dependencies all in a union.  GB refers only to the mainland of the UK plus the northern and western isles - it does not include northern ireland, the channel islands or the isle of man or various other little bits

The whole idea of a GB rugby team ( or in any other sport like football where the component parts of the UK play as single nations) then any move to a GB team for any occasion gives rise to this false idea that there should be a GB team for all occasions.

Its just simply wrong wrong in fact and shows no understanding of the complex politics on this small archipelago of islands

You talk of basic misunderstandings then call Wales a Princilality! Hasn't been one since the 16th century!

Errmm - I believe that officially its still a principality.  willing to be corrected tho if you have summat to back it up.

"Generally recognised surviving sovereign principalities are Liechtenstein, Monaco, and the co-principality of Andorra. Extant royal primogenitures styled as principalities include Asturias (Spain), and Wales (UK). The term "principality" is often used informally to describe Wales as it currently exists, but this has no constitutional basis. The Principality of Wales existed in the northern and western areas of Wales between the 13th and 16th centuries; the Laws in Wales Act of 1536 which legally incorporated Wales within England removed the distinction between those areas and the March of Wales, but no principality covering the whole of Wales was created. Since that time, the title Prince of Wales (together with Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay, among other titles) has traditionally been granted to the heir to the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom, but it confers no responsibilities for government in Wales. Wales is, however, no longer considered a principality. Within Wales the term 'Principality' would be understood as referring to the Building Society of the same name rather than a term of geo-political meaning. It has country status and is one or four countries in the United Kingdom."

Fairy snuff. I thought I had this nailed

TJ wrote:Fairy snuff.  I thought I had this nailed

Pot Hale wrote:

Cyril wrote:Interesting.

Split up Ireland and join up Britain.

I guess the OP has his reasons.

Keep Ireland, join up Great Britain.

Split both?

I don't like the Lions, I enjoyed the 1989 and 1997 tours. But since then I'd rather we scrap them altogether and have a European Cup instead.

Me personally, I am British among other things. But I'm certainly not British in the context of sport. I'm Welsh followed by neutral. I support Wales and once we go down in traditional plucky fashion ( ) I like to just watch the rugby without the need to invest myself emotionally in the outcome.

The Lions are an exception to the rule.