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

SecretFly wrote:
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?

That's 5 questions!

1. Could do? Then they could play as N. England, S. England, Scotland, Wales, N. Ire, against Munster, Leinster, Connacht in an 8 team British and Irish league? Then have 4 "national" Premierships below that? Are you offering to negotiate with the key stakeholders.

2a. No, my second team in the Six Nations is Italy, because I know 1 Italian person (and he's moved back to Italy), so if they were to win at least I wouldn't have to listen to incessant bragging. France 3rd, and then Ireland, Scotland, Wales in order (same reasons). As such, I gain no "advantage" by having 3.25 teams in the race - as I don't see myself has having that many.

2b. Yes, it does. A 6 Nations with UK, Rep Ire, France, Italy, Georgia and Romania would solve the issue of how to give Georgia and Romania a shot.

3a. Theoretically, USA could go with 50, but they'd all be rubbish, as USA as a whole didn't manage a win. South Africa have gone for 6 Super Rugby franchises and I think that's spread themselves to thin. Same with Australia and their 5. Possibly 2 or 3 each? NZ might have a bit of joy with "North Island" and "South Island".

3b. They could tie it up in the courts long enough that by the time it had reached a resolution, nobody gave a sh*t about rugby or the joke it had become!

.......... three compound questions. Cheeky yes, but whoever accused me of not being an opportunistic git?

Glad you adapted to my sly deception with the a) and b) thing Top marks.

The reality is that there are no full time GB teams apart from the Olympic set up. In all other aspects of sport (as far as I’m aware) the English, Scots, Welsh and N. Irish compete as separate entities (apart from Rugby where the N Irish join up with the Republic of Ireland [if that’s the correct description]).

The Two main exceptions to this are Cricket (dunno why) and Rugby League, however in RL they seem to have a cavalier attitude to who they are, starting off as England then turning into GB and then back again into England and the others.

So the real question is not that should we merger but is the Political version of events – that the English, Scots, Welsh and N.Irish (ESWNI) are not ESWNI but actually British – the one that’s out of sync?

The political entity only came into force in 1707 and that just applied to the Kingdoms of Scotland and England, the Union with Ireland only came about in 1801. So it’s quite a modern entity, they were separate entities for centuries prior to that. Not only are the Union(s) quite modern, they were not a popular event and in the main were brought about by the Fat Cats, the plebs in most cases either did not buy into them (is it not true that the signing of the Scottish documents of Union were done in secret) or were not consulted.

This rubber stamping of Britishness has never sat well on the denizens of these Island, one bunch jumped ship last century and increasingly there are calls to split the remainder up back to the constituent parts, and personally I think it’s just a matter of time before the Scots and then Welsh sling their hook and leave behind what would be The United Kingdom of England, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and other sundry bits.

This would then trigger political pressure for Westminster to devolve powers to the Border areas to compete with these separate countries and before long you have English devolution – The Federated Counties of Angelcynn, the Mercian Middle Shires, The South Saxons and the Kingdom of Cornwall and the City of London Fat Cats and Merchant Bankers.

So why bother with such a costly exercise when the reality is that it would never work and it’s not a real reflection of our society?

TrailApe wrote:So why bother with such a costly exercise when the reality is that it would never work and it’s not a real reflection of our society?

Because some people see British nationalism as being more appealing than Welsh/English/Scottish nationalism. So thats why they would want it. Ultimately its all nationalism, and if you have an interest in supporting a team that represents a specific nation and you identify with it you are nationalistic to an extent. I am and most other rugby fans are it seems. So it's just an argument between two different types of nationalists. Two different ways of imagining our national identities.

The difference between nationalism in sport and nationalism in politics or economics, is that sport doesn't really matter. If your team under-performs you're not going to lose your job or lose access to healthcare or education for your kids. You have to distinguish between small u unionists and British nationalists. The UK is full of pragmatic small u unionists who are willing to reap the benefits of living in the UK but don't identify with any kind of pan-British nationalism, or see their neighbours as being the same nationality as them despite the fact they were born and live and work in the same nation, technically speaking. The UK and the EU work on the same basic principle; You're pooling resources, centralising legislative powers and abolishing borders but you still preserve your own national identity. So I can't see this being a popular move.

Like I said it would kill it for me overnight. There's no Northern Irish nationalists here, there's Irish ones and British ones and the let's get along brigade. Amazingly, everyone in these factions supports the Ireland team and supports Ulster. And I think rugby has achieved that kind of political neutrality and widespread acceptance because players can't just go and represent England, Wales or Scotland obviously, and the Ireland team has it's own flag and anthem and a culture of respecting the diversity of its players and supporters. If there was an option to play for a British team, you'd have an all-ireland team and an all-British team and as everyone in NI has the right to dual nationality, all our players would be eligible for both. Overnight the rugby community would be divided into British Ulster players and Irish Ulster players, British Ulster fans and Irish Ulster fans... suddenly rugby becomes a thing which is used to split people apart and not bring them together.

For me that's why this idea is incredibly hateful and divisive. Ironically, people in Britain of a Unionist persuasion will argue that not having a British team is divisive! Fair play to them but their situation is very different. They are in a different cultural context. It would be a disaster for us.

Nice piece of writing, Notch. 

Very articulate argument.

One query though.  Does Ulster Rugby not already have British Ulster players and Irish Ulster players? I've noticed in the past, certain Ulster internationals talking about their pride in being 'selected for the British Lions'.

As the game is a National sport and each of the Countries in question hold individual National status then there is no real question as to whether they have a right to stand alone.
Britain is not actually a country in its own right is it? surely it is just the name of a collection of islands off of mainland Europe, of which Ireland is also one.

2ndtimeround wrote:As the game is a National sport and each of the Countries in question hold individual National status then there is no real question as to whether they have a right to stand alone.
Britain is not actually a country in its own right is it? surely it is just the name of a collection of islands off of mainland Europe, of which Ireland is also one.

No, Britain is used either as shorthand for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (which is a sovereign state) or in reference to the island of Britain which is the large island that contains England, Scotland and Wales.

Pot Hale wrote:Nice piece of writing, Notch. 

Very articulate argument.

One query though.  Does Ulster Rugby not already have British Ulster players and Irish Ulster players? I've noticed in the past, certain Ulster internationals talking about their pride in being 'selected for the British Lions'.

Sure, because we're not insulated from the society in general, but ultimately it's a non-issue right now. Because everyone wants to play for Ireland and is proud to do so nationality is not a big deal. It's not a perfect settlement by any means, but nothing is perfect and its remarkable it works as well as it does. Once you start asking players to take sides that all changes. It becomes highly charged and controversial.

Agree with most of that Notch.

It is not just this hypothetical idea that is potentially hateful and divisive to Ulster rugby - exactly the same argument could be levelled against the move to have an Ireland sevens team. While it remains a marginal sporting distraction, no one cares too much about the mechanics of administering it but if becomes more serious then that could change rapidly. NI players might be forced to 'declare' for the Republic to receive funding and be classed as IQ at their province, and while that may not be a problem for the vast majority it still breaks with the tradition of Irish rugby being non-political. Nation and country are not synonymous unless you happen to live in a country that is also your nation.

Rugby doesn't need to follow modern social convention and be aligned with some political entity that wants to make some point about how great they are in the world order. It is a haven for those who would rather acknowledge their pre-political roots where tribalism brings out far more primitive emotions.

GA - are there not NI born players on the women's 7s team trying to qualify for the Olympics? They will all have to be citizens of the ROI to compete. Same as for the Belfast boxers (Paddy Barnes is carrying the flag for Ireland in the olympic games in Rio).

Strictly speaking NI isn't part of Britain so aren't really British but because of the delicate nature of the area and history some do identify as British. For the Olympics its the Uk which competes rather than GB despite the 'Team GB' name, though again NI can choose to compete for either.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Strictly speaking NI isn't part of Britain so aren't really British but because of the delicate nature of the area and history some do identify as British. For the Olympics its the Uk which competes rather than GB despite the 'Team GB' name, though again NI can choose to compete for either.

Not quite true.

we say Britain but its just a term. Britain we mean UK because back in the day (pre Irish independence) Ireland was seen as part of Britain and the UK was strictly speaking Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland, the British Isles. Technically you're right. Great Britain is the Island of England, Scotland & Wales.

We say team GB but its just a name, a hangover... like everyone calling their vacuum cleaner a hoover.

Some N. Irish sportsman do represent Ireland. If that's how they see themselves and Ireland duly accepts them then that's the way it is. I think only in boxing do N. Irish olympians actively represent Ireland because boxing is a whole island amateur organisation, like rugby.

Not now though, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Team GB is wrong but hey ho. The N Irish can still choose.

Because some people see British nationalism as being more appealing than Welsh/English/Scottish nationalism

SOME people do, it would be interesting to find out who sees themselves as more British than English, Scots, Welsh, N Irish. Was it the last census when people complained they could not identify themselves as the being a member of the constituent parts as opposed to 'White British'?

TrailApe wrote:

Because some people see British nationalism as being more appealing than Welsh/English/Scottish nationalism

SOME people do, it would be interesting to find out who sees themselves as more British than English, Scots, Welsh, N Irish. Was it the last census when people complained they could not identify themselves as the being a member of the constituent parts as opposed to 'White British'?

I think its an age thing.

Those from Genx and prior I think would be more British then individual. Those raised thereafter I think are more and more seen as English, Welsh, Scottish etc.
Its just the way things are and have developed over time.

If we were taking SecretFly's point of view though, in order of fairness there should be an Rep Ireland rugby team, and a Northern Ireland rugby team, just like there is on football.

But as others have said, rugby is bringing people together, and that counts for more than anything else, so for me SF is either just making mischief, or he has a serious issue with the UK.

LordDowlais wrote:If we were taking SecretFly's point of view though, in order of fairness there should be an Rep Ireland rugby team, and a Northern Ireland rugby team, just like there is on football.

But as others have said, rugby is bringing people together, and that counts for more than anything else, so for me SF is either just making mischief, or he has a serious issue with the UK.

If it was a new sport I doubt we would be able to get a Welsh, Northern Irish, Scottish, English team in. They would state only sovereign nations allowed... i.e. UK.

I think it helps that Britain is the home of many of the sports it competes in... otherwise the "allowances" we get would IMO be refused.

I think its an age thing.

Those from Genx and prior I think would be more British then individual. Those raised thereafter I think are more and more seen as English, Welsh, Scottish etc.
Its just the way things are and have developed over time

When you think about it, the media in the 30's to the 50's told us we were 'British', and the unity of the UK was stressed ad nauseam. Given then that the media was quite strictly controlled by the ruling elite(I'm thinking Pathe News and the Broadsheets of the time) it's no wonder that people could associate with the term. You keep saying it long enough and people will believe it.

Given the recent explosion of social-media it's now a lot harder for a Government to swamp the sound-bytes with what they want us to believe and people are getting more opportunity to see what other people of the same peer group think and the 'Official' view is becoming more irrelevant.

Given the recent uncovering's of the questionable practices of past Governments, Politicians in general and organisations like the Police it's becoming more evident to the man in the street that our Lords and Masters have no better morals than a greedy school kid and will not now accept their pronouncements at face value.

That's if they ever did - how do we know what a Midlothian miner felt about Britain, the British Empire and the Monarchy back in 1905?, the press clippings will tell you everything was hunky dory and just peachy, let’s keep the 'Great' in Great Britain, we are all in it together, look at these cine-reels of the great unwashed waving flags as some High Up goes past in their carriage - see they love the Empire and everything it stands for.

Now take those flags off the kids, get them back into the Mills and you lot get back down your Pit. How do we know they felt British and loved the Queen? – because we were told they did. It was ever thus.

Modern folks now question a lot more and I can see politics moving away from our current model into a more plebiscite-vote-for-this-particular-topic area. Don’t want to wear high heels at work? – get an e-petition going and get a law passed. It’s going to take a while but Black Rod and his minions probably won’t have a job in the foreseeable future.

So where does that leave Britishness? In 30 years’ time you might ask a kid whether he wants to be British or Welsh, he probably will ask ‘what’s in it for me and who has the coolest flag’

"Britishness is a political synonym for Englishness which extends English culture over the Scots, Welsh and the Irish" - Dr Gwynfor Evans (1 September 1912 – 21 April 2005)

TrailApe wrote:

I think its an age thing.

Those from Genx and prior I think would be more British then individual. Those raised thereafter I think are more and more seen as English, Welsh, Scottish etc.
Its just the way things are and have developed over time

When you think about it, the media in the 30's to the 50's told us we were 'British', and the unity of the UK was stressed ad nauseam. Given then that the media was quite strictly controlled by the ruling elite(I'm thinking Pathe News and the Broadsheets of the time) it's no wonder that people could associate with the term. You keep saying it long enough and people will believe it.

Given the recent explosion of social-media it's now a lot harder for a Government to swamp the sound-bytes with what they want us to believe and people are getting more opportunity to see what other people of the same peer group think and the 'Official' view is becoming more irrelevant.

Given the recent uncovering's of the questionable practices of past Governments, Politicians in general and organisations like the Police it's becoming more evident to the man in the street that our Lords and Masters have no better morals than a greedy school kid and will not now accept their pronouncements at face value.

That's if they ever did - how do we know what a Midlothian miner felt about Britain, the British Empire and the Monarchy back in 1905?, the press clippings will tell you everything was hunky dory and just peachy, let’s keep the 'Great' in Great Britain, we are all in it together, look at these cine-reels of the great unwashed waving flags as  some High Up goes past in their carriage - see they love the Empire and everything it stands for.

Now take those flags off the kids, get them back into the Mills and you lot get back down your Pit. How do we know they felt British and loved the Queen? – because we were told they did. It was ever thus.

Modern folks now question a lot more and I can see politics moving away from our current model into a more plebiscite-vote-for-this-particular-topic area. Don’t want to wear high heels at work? – get an e-petition going and get a law passed. It’s going to take a while but Black Rod and his minions probably won’t have a job in the foreseeable future.

So where does that leave Britishness?  In 30 years’ time you might ask a kid whether he wants to be British or Welsh, he probably will ask ‘what’s in it for me and who has the coolest flag’

Yet isn't that how identity is formed generally speaking? Unless people stay the same, things stay the same then identity will change. People are more mobile, have more access to information, listen to music all around the world, chat to people 10000 km away on a rugby blog. Before we all watched the same tv shows because we only had 4 channels, only had 3 radio stations, wore clothes only stocked in UK stores and ate food only stocked in local supermarkets.
These days any trend can be copied and move around the world within days. Its pretty quick. In some ways its a real shame. Go to any town around the developed world and it all looks the same... KFC, Starbucks, MacDonalds, Burger King, Nandos, M&S. Everyone stocks Guinness, Stella, Smirnoff, JD.

In the old days when you travelled abroad beyond Europe and the US... if you didn't like the local cuisine you didn't eat. Today most people may have local cuisine 1 day out of 14.

People think it was devolution which put Scotland on the road to independence.. that's not true. Literally it was Braveheart the movie. Its not a joke. That did more to spark feelings of difference and a wanting for independence then anything else.

LordDowlais wrote:If we were taking SecretFly's point of view though, in order of fairness there should be an Rep Ireland rugby team, and a Northern Ireland rugby team, just like there is on football.

But as others have said, rugby is bringing people together, and that counts for more than anything else, so for me SF is either just making mischief, or he has a serious issue with the UK.

You're right.  I'm a grenade-fingered war-boy of HATE and VENGENCE!  That's me.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...you've been doing an Irish jig for the last six or seven years.  
Lord of the Dance.  

"I'm in - I'm out
I'm out - I'm in
- I'm back again, but I want to leave.  
We shouldn't join - but we should try to get in.  
We are our own unique selves - but that's because we are all the one.  
We're different 'coz we is identical.  
We should all want the same thing - but you guys need to do more changing than us to get us there.  
We might be wrong - but that doesn't make you right for saying so.  
You're cheats, we just get bad refs."

There is so much You V Me in your debate style Lord that taking lectures from you on the Unification of the Peoples of the World for the betterment of all Mankind and to bring about an instant solution to Global Warming................  hmmmmm - allow me to take a long rain check on that guff.  

I like difference.  Different folks can still be friends.

PenfroPete wrote:"Britishness is a political synonym for Englishness which extends English culture over the Scots, Welsh and the Irish" - Dr Gwynfor Evans (1 September 1912 – 21 April 2005)

I actually disagree on this. Its pop-lite

I recall in 2005 when all 3 political parties were led by non English leaders; Tony Blair, Michael Howard, Charles Kennedy. Think of Gordon Brown, John Smith, Michael Heseltine, Neil Kinnock from the 80s-90s.  

Scotland has contributed well about its fighting weight politically, Wales too has had its very prominent British parliamentarians. Yes all regions speak English and indigenous languages have gone but in truth many of those in South Wales, in Southern Scotland etc have English heritage (whom travelled to the region for work in the industrial era... and they kept their traditions. They see themselves as Welsh, Scottish now but much of their blood is English.

fa0019 wrote:

PenfroPete wrote:"Britishness is a political synonym for Englishness which extends English culture over the Scots, Welsh and the Irish" - Dr Gwynfor Evans (1 September 1912 – 21 April 2005)

I actually disagree on this. Its pop-lite

I recall in 2005 when all 3 political parties were led by non English leaders; Tony Blair, Michael Howard, Charles Kennedy. Think of Gordon Brown, John Smith, Michael Heseltine, Neil Kinnock from the 80s-90s.  

Scotland has contributed well about its fighting weight politically, Wales too has had its very prominent British parliamentarians. Yes all regions speak English and indigenous languages have gone but in truth many of those in South Wales, in Southern Scotland etc have English heritage (whom travelled to the region for work in the industrial era... and they kept their traditions. They see themselves as Welsh, Scottish now but much of their blood is English.

Isn't that extending Englishness ??
I'm Welsh, first, last and middle

PenfroPete wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

PenfroPete wrote:"Britishness is a political synonym for Englishness which extends English culture over the Scots, Welsh and the Irish" - Dr Gwynfor Evans (1 September 1912 – 21 April 2005)

I actually disagree on this. Its pop-lite

I recall in 2005 when all 3 political parties were led by non English leaders; Tony Blair, Michael Howard, Charles Kennedy. Think of Gordon Brown, John Smith, Michael Heseltine, Neil Kinnock from the 80s-90s.  

Scotland has contributed well about its fighting weight politically, Wales too has had its very prominent British parliamentarians. Yes all regions speak English and indigenous languages have gone but in truth many of those in South Wales, in Southern Scotland etc have English heritage (whom travelled to the region for work in the industrial era... and they kept their traditions. They see themselves as Welsh, Scottish now but much of their blood is English.

Isn't that extending Englishness ??
I'm Welsh, first, last and middle

Many English with Welsh, Scottish, Irish blood too.

How many White British English people do you know who don't have a Welsh, Scottish, Irish granny etc. Isn't that extending Welshness, Scottishness, Irishness?

Most have something.

Who we are is generally what we identity with. I used to work with a Jewish chap whose 4 grandparents were born in Eastern Europe. Still listed himself and saw himself as White British.

Britishness is a political synonym for Englishness which extends English culture over the Scots, Welsh and the Irish" - Dr Gwynfor Evans (1 September 1912 – 21 April 2005)

Well he would say that wouldn't he - he's a chippy Welshman...


Seriously though, is Britishness not so much about nationality but more about class?

Who benefits from being British?

TrailApe wrote:Who benefits from being British?

We all do.

Code:

We all do.

I'm not sure about that.

If we benefit because added together makes a bigger market, then perhaps, but why be British when we can be European?

Just think, if the Welsh became independent you lot would not have to fork out money for all of those English and Scottish MP's.

Anyway...all you British people get onto your MPs and pressure them to have that poor eejit with the Nazi saluting dog freed - without trial - charges dropped.

Je Suis P!ssed Off

LordDowlais wrote:

TrailApe wrote:Who benefits from being British?

We all do.

Who's 'we', LD?

Who's 'we', LD?

Obviously not you or your Ilk you scurrilous knave. You lot walked away from their Britannic Majesties and the Empire On Which The Blood Never Dried.

Pot Hale wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

TrailApe wrote:Who benefits from being British?

We all do.

Who's 'we', LD?

I assume those labelled as British.

I assume those labelled as British

But who's doing the labelling?

Can I have my label saying 'English and up yours Yer Majesty'?

To be honest I am not nationalistic at all. Couldn't care less about being English/British/European etc.

I support the England rugby team because supporting a team makes it all more fun and they are clearly the ones I should support, but I find talk of "English NOT British" or "British NOT Scottish" etc. a wee bit dull frankly. If you're Welsh/Scottish/English you are British too whether you like it or not (NI I will simply ignore because that's way too complicated!)

I dislike the idea of permanent British team though. Mainly because I like the current set up and the history, plus the bickering that happens every lion's tour about the make up of the team would be even worse and permanent.

fa0019 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

TrailApe wrote:Who benefits from being British?

We all do.

Who's 'we', LD?

I assume those labelled as British.

As in The British and Irish Lions?

We had to struggle for a few years to get our pals across the way to recognise it was in there and to name it... and plenty times got ridiculed for bringing up such a small detail.  "Oh don't be so precious about yourselves.  We're all British aren't we - in the end, when all things are considered?"

No.  No, we ain't.  Mutual respect for Two Nations fighting together yes - but not fighting as One.  

And that's actually a nice way of bringing this thread full circle - as it was initially written in reply to a Lord comment when I suggested on another thread that Warburton should be honoured and respected as a 'Welsh' player rather than what some publications prefer to call certain players on these islands -  ie 'B&I Lions' players.

If the B&I Lions is not remotely symbolic of a National team - and this thread proves how heated and offended people become when a National British side is mentioned (as I expected - yes, it was a cheeky experiment) - then why on these islands does this ancient idea persist in some quarters that The Lions is a higher honour, and that allegiance to it should be stronger than to the Nation you belong to.?

I guess I can't truly speak for and wouldn't try to speak for Welsh, Scots or English rugby fans.  They've helped themselves to their own opinions here - but the idea of a Lions team being considered a Grander Achievement and a more Honourable Record than the one you achieve for your International Nation - it's completely alien to me - an alien emotion.  I could never contemplate such a feeling.  

It makes me so uneasy when I have to listen to people who obviously Do regard the Lions as a Nation-of-a-kind side - something to pledge your allegiance to, something not to criticise, something to doff a hat to, something not to publically disrespect.

To me Warburton is a Welsh International.  To me Brown is an English International.  To me Hogg is a Scottish International.  And when I call them that, in my eyes at least, I'm honouring them more than the title of B&I Lion would ever get to.

So this British International Side Thread was a good experiment.  You get to see how people feel about what sensitises them or offends them in a debate of this kind, which hasn't really happened all that often if ever on these pages.  I have a lot of research picked up that I can fall back on whenever someone gets a little too cocky about the B&I Lions concept in the future.

Thank you all for contributing with honest often heartfelt opinions - it's all anyone can ask. .

But being a Lion is a step up on being a Welsh interntainal or an English, Irish, Scottish international.

There you go. That's an opinion that isn't even on my planet.. But there you go - that's humanity.

Why wouldn't it be? It's obviously harder to gte into the Lions team than any individual nations team. Therefore the press etc will use that as a compliment more than anything.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why wouldn't it be? It's obviously harder to gte into the Lions team than any individual nations team. Therefore the press etc will use that as a compliment more than anything.

It's actually quiet easy to get into the Lions....especially if you travel with Clive and his band of merry men... I think only essential medical workers were left on the islands when he was in charge

But seriously, a few injuries to the real stars or a little bit of under-form from real stars and a good few lesser men show up or take over half way through. Only fifteen a side of course but if injuries kept happening at an industrial rate, the logic is that any player that can put on a shirt would be chosen next.

It's not a debate though.  My opinion is in my blood. Ireland is my Nation - I honour Irish players much deeper in my mind and remember their exploits all the deeper too when they are in Green Shirts.  Some of them also wore Red and that's grand.... akin to the Barbarians...a splattering of Irish often to make the games that little bit more interesting.

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.

I think the Lions is quite unique. Injury and form have more to do with it then quality. In a set side coaches will often go with experience more often than not. For the lions form is paramount.

Dec 2008 Shane Williams was world player of the year. Jun 2009 he was Ugo Monye's boot boy.
Often you see people being called up to tours late such as Mike Catt (97), Martin Corry (01), Ryan Jones (05), Alex Corbisiero (13) who go onto get test caps because they bolt through the midweek games at the expense of other assumed superior players who have been suffering a little on tour.

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.

I'm being as serious as I get on any subject.  Yes, throw away humour (or lack thereof!), which is just my natural style, but I only write very few Threads and everyone of them has serious intent.

I'd suspect Rory Best would also make the Ireland side quicker than he's get a slot on the Barbarian's side.  If a team is selected from many players, then it's natural that the number of places are reduced and not all good or great players would make it.  But then the choice of what is best players even in that situation is - as the many arguments over the years on this site attest to - very subjective and reliant on the coach or coaches at the helm at the time.

The Lions is high entertainment - especially those battles about personnel and coaches, incidents in games etc.  But it really is for me a time to enjoy rugby as entertainment rather than be under constant risk of cardiac arrest - as happens whenever I watch Ireland play.   Even if they are well ahead, I curl and twist and sweat and shout at them that they're doing it all wrong...all wrong!!!.  

Lions v Ireland is just two violently different experiences for me.  If I'm feeling it - if my family and friends feel it (and they do) - then I suggest there is a good chance that a lot of International players from these islands feel it too, when in those ferociously emotive International games and hearing those crowds.

I'm with Fly on this (bet he's REALLY relieved with that )

Some players are definitely worthy of a Lions place but quite a few get taken along merely because of which set of players the Lions coach feels comfortable with, this is especially relevant to the modern era where a scratch team of skilful and talented players will have a hard time against a mediocre but well drilled side.

So to say X is a Lion is not necessarily to say X is the best player in his position from the 4 Unions that get involved.

Always a degree of luck in it. Some players are at their peak for two seasons only in their careers, where they really are fantastic, and that can happen in a Lions year or not and thats the determining factor.

TrailApe wrote:I'm with Fly on this (bet he's REALLY relieved with that   )

Some players are definitely worthy of a Lions place but quite a few get taken along merely because of which set of players the Lions coach feels comfortable with, this is especially relevant to the modern era where a scratch team of skilful and talented players will have a hard time against a mediocre but well drilled side.

So to say X is a Lion is not necessarily to say X is the best player in his position from the 4 Unions that get involved.

I'll accept all the help I can get on this one, Trailape.  I think I'm cornered and quickly running out of ammo.  The bastards flanked me when I was waffling.

SecretFly wrote:

TrailApe wrote:I'm with Fly on this (bet he's REALLY relieved with that   )

Some players are definitely worthy of a Lions place but quite a few get taken along merely because of which set of players the Lions coach feels comfortable with, this is especially relevant to the modern era where a scratch team of skilful and talented players will have a hard time against a mediocre but well drilled side.

So to say X is a Lion is not necessarily to say X is the best player in his position from the 4 Unions that get involved.

I'll accept all the help I can get on this one, Trailape.    I think I'm cornered and quickly running out of ammo.  The bastards flanked me when I was waffling.

Who was that Welsh eightman with the goatee and a tendancy to ride golf buggies? Man he was so Poopie*e in 09 and blantant got in because he was a tour boy aka a great laugh with a pint in his hand. Bit like Maitland in 13.

SecretFly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why wouldn't it be? It's obviously harder to gte into the Lions team than any individual nations team. Therefore the press etc will use that as a compliment more than anything.

It's actually quiet easy to get into the Lions....especially if you travel with Clive and his band of merry men... I think only essential medical workers were left on the islands when he was in charge

But seriously, a few injuries to the real stars or a little bit of under-form from real stars and a good few lesser men show up or take over half way through.  Only fifteen a side of course but if injuries kept happening at an industrial rate, the logic is that any player that can put on a shirt would be chosen next.

It's not a debate though.  My opinion is in my blood.  Ireland is my Nation - I honour Irish players much deeper in my mind and remember their exploits all the deeper too when they are in Green Shirts.  Some of them also wore Red and that's grand.... akin to the Barbarians...a splattering of Irish often to make the games that little bit more interesting.

Lions not really important yet there was a god almighty furore when BOD was dropped for JD2.
I cant really be bothered to research your own comments about it at the time but I doubt they were very complimentary to Gats or JD2.

I loved the BOD show!!!...best time I've had in rugby for a generation I think. And I said so numerous times.... numerous times.

It was a blast of great drama... The emotions were high all round. The world was alive with the sound of the battle cries. It was a classic period of International rugby.

Why? Ireland V Wales... Ireland V Wales 2ndtimeround. Nothing to do with the Lions

BODGATE. GATLANDGATE Ahhh ....the memories.

Sin é wrote:GA - are there not NI born players on the women's 7s team trying to qualify for the Olympics? They will all have to be citizens of the ROI to compete. Same as for the Belfast boxers (Paddy Barnes is carrying the flag for Ireland in the olympic games in Rio).

I've no idea why you mention Paddy Barnes who AFAIK has never played rugby? As for the ladies 7s - I don't care where someone is from, nor do I think it should matter. I won't support the team in proportion to the number of NI players in the squad.

Many outside NI cannot appreciate that a key element of being Northern Irish is the shared influence from both UK and Ireland. To deny any UK influence denies the very DNA of the province as indeed does denying any Irish influence. People are not either Irish or British to the exclusion of the other as the media would like to simplistically portray them. If sport forces players to choose between the North and South poles, it is certain the two sides will be as far apart and as cold towards each other as possible. Forcing players to side with one or the other requires them to deny part of their heritage and thankfully was something that Rugby Union in Ireland has hitherto always managed to avoid.

Never in a million years. Wales is it's own country so is Scotland as is England. I take no real joy from any other country winning apart from Wales. Anyway it would ruin the game.