• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Holloway: I'd love to see Liverpool win the title

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hypocrisy rings true in Britain more than any other country.
I remember the London Olympics thread here a few years back where people were in tears and overjoyed when a few gold medals were won.
About two weeks later a thread started where people were moaning about Immigration.
Despite the fact that 90% of the gold medal winners were either immigrants or direct descendants of immigrants.
Hypocrites?
Please.
Maybe it does, but there can be more than one group of hypocrites in the world. People who come into threads and claim you can't refer to Northern Irish people as British, without having a clue about the person in questions opinion on the matter are definitely hypocrites.
 
Maybe it does, but there can be more than one group of hypocrites in the world. People who come into threads and claim you can't refer to Northern Irish people as British, without having a clue about the person in questions opinion on the matter are definitely hypocrites.
That's how wars start.
 
And citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland and referred to as British.


Technically wrongly. It's British and Northern Irish in a legal, constitutional sense. But 'Ukers' doesn't sound right.
 
Technically wrongly. It's British and Northern Irish in a legal, constitutional sense. But 'Ukers' doesn't sound right.
Doesn't the term British derive more from the "British Isles" than from "Great Britain", we'd be known as Britons otherwise.
 
That's how wars start.
All I'm saying is, until Brendan Rodgers says either way, can people unrelated to him stop telling us how we should refer to him based upon their own political beliefs? The default position is he's both British and Irish, he can be referred to as either, until Brendan Rodgers says otherwise, leave it be.
 
Doesn't the term British derive more from the "British Isles" than from "Great Britain", we'd be known as Britons otherwise.


Yes but that predates and has nothing to do with the Act of Union. All the Act of Union did was to call the British and the Northern Irish part of something called the UK. It didn't bother to give a collective noun to the people. So that allowed for a variety of informal terms to come into circulation, the most common by far being 'British'. The only legal constitutional term to describe the political union between the two is the UK. So if people want to call themselves one or the other, that's their choice, but there isn't a 'right' answer because there isn't a legal term encoded in the founding document.
 
Yes but that predates and has nothing to do with the Act of Union. All the Act of Union did was to call the British and the Northern Irish part of something called the UK. It didn't bother to give a collective noun to the people. So that allowed for a variety of informal terms to come into circulation, the most common by far being 'British'. The only legal constitutional term to describe the political union between the two is the UK. [hl]So if people want to call themselves one or the other, that's their choice[/hl], but there isn't a 'right' answer because there isn't a legal term encoded in the founding document.

100%, my complaint is other people telling me I can't refer to him as British because they don't like it. If Brendan Rodgers comes out and says he only wants to be called only British or Irish, then so be, until then, he's both.
 
Yes but that predates and has nothing to do with the Act of Union. All the Act of Union did was to call the British and the Northern Irish part of something called the UK. It didn't bother to give a collective noun to the people. So that allowed for a variety of informal terms to come into circulation, the most common by far being 'British'. The only legal constitutional term to describe the political union between the two is the UK. So if people want to call themselves one or the other, that's their choice, but there isn't a 'right' answer because there isn't a legal term encoded in the founding document.

Is this why people from Northern Ireland aren't technically British citizens, they're British subjects?
 
tumblr_m8ylf7KtUP1qeoijeo1_500.jpg
 
It's fairly easy to define.

If you're in England and south of Watford you're English
If you're from somewhere else in England or the rest of the UK no-one gives a fuck about you so do what you want
 
Why don't we just refer to him as Northern Irish? Job done. Works for my wife's family, as they cross the 'divide' along the Antrim coast.
 
This thread is great. Getting right back on track - Did I ever tell you about the time I got mauled by a dog while visiting Whiterocks beach just outside of Portrush? Little fucker almost had my ankles for dinner!
 
This thread is great. Getting right back on track - Did I ever tell you about the time I got mauled by a dog while visiting Whiterocks beach just outside of Portrush? Little fucker almost had my ankles for dinner!


Amazing beach though. I think I might have put you onto that one....I wasn't to know was I?
 
Yes but that predates and has nothing to do with the Act of Union. All the Act of Union did was to call the British and the Northern Irish part of something called the UK. It didn't bother to give a collective noun to the people. So that allowed for a variety of informal terms to come into circulation, the most common by far being 'British'. The only legal constitutional term to describe the political union between the two is the UK. So if people want to call themselves one or the other, that's their choice, but there isn't a 'right' answer because there isn't a legal term encoded in the founding document.


Is this why people from Northern Ireland aren't technically British citizens, they're British subjects?

Incorrect actually.

The Act of Union did not address the nationality issue but the only distinction at that time was the common law distinction between aliens and subjects. Irishmen, like Scots were subjects of a single political entity, i.e. British Subjects.

The first codification of British Nationality law was the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 which held that all the people of the empire whether Indians, English, Malays, Scottish, Welsh or Kenyans etc held equal status as British subjects.

As the empire broke up the British Nationality Act 1948 changed the name to Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC)

Under the British Nationality Act of 1981, all the people of the United Kingdom including Northern Ireland are officially and correctly known as British Citizens.

NB. The term 'British Subject' refers only to Commonwealth citizens who wished to maintain their connection to the UK. This includes, strangely, people born in Ireland before 1949 who did not take up Irish citizenship and/or applied to retain their British subjectivity. and wow I feel like a loser for actually googling this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom