Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Pichot's message
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Leonormous Boozer" data-source="post: 924640" data-attributes="member: 45598"><p>No there wouldn't, and before I continue I implore you to stop arguing something that you clearly aren't well versed in at all. </p><p></p><p>Anyway, the Isa Nacewa case backs part of my argument up, Isa Nacewa would have had the right to play for NZ but for his appearance for Fiji. </p><p></p><p>The other case you'd need is a case where an Irish employer that refused to hire a person for a position reserved for an Irish citizen based on the fact that they only qualifed as a citizen because of a grandparent, and that would have had to have happened no earlier than 1988. Bare in mind we're a nation of only 5 million and positions reserved for Irish nationals are most commonly highly skilled positions with educated people in charge of the hiring process and you have the reason why there is no case law on this exact area. In fact the most likely area this would happen in is sports and every international sport Ireland compete in allow grandchildren of Irish born people compete to the extent of my knowledge.</p><p></p><p>This is very common too, Ireland is highly influenced by English law and we use precedents set by English courts to establish our rules regularly. There are numerous examples of rules set in English courts being endorsed by Irish courts over 100 years later an example of that which I happen to be studying as we speak, the rule in Turquand's case (1856) was endorsed in Ireland in AIB ltd v Ardmore Studios in 1993 because the rule set in Turquand's case wasn't broken in the interim. There's an example of a rule which was followed in Ireland for 137 years despite there being no specific, tangible and actionable evidence that it actually applied in Ireland. </p><p></p><p>So no, there wouldn't necessarily be specific, tangible and actionable evidence other than legislation which has more or less been presented to you.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It wouldn't, I don't know how you can see any loophole in anything that's been said.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Its a much easier sell than the IRFU being allowed to <u><em>break the law</em></u> because of a WR regulation tbh. </p><p></p><p>Grandparent Rule - Has to apply to anyone born before July 2005 with an Irish grandparent due to them having the right to Iris citizenship and the Employment Equality Acts 1988 amended 2015 which provides a person can't be treated less favorably than another based on "that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or <strong>national origins</strong>". (S.6(2)(h)) The Irish rugby team reserves the right to work for them to citizens acting in compliance with WR regulations, such as Reg 8(2) BUT WR regulations are subject to Irish law and can't have a greater threshold for working in as a citizen Ireland than Irish law itself.</p><p></p><p>Switching nations - By playing international rugby, for all intents and purposes you enter a contract with an implied or express term that you cannot play for another country. It is perfectly legal to sign away legislative rights in a contract. See Isa Nacewa case.</p><p></p><p>It took me a while to be get there. Heineken was definitely far more eloquent, direct and universal than I was but if a qualified, practicing lawyer and a law graduate studying for law school entrance exams can't sway you on this nothing will. </p><p></p><p>Can I ask you why you think soccer continues with the grandparent rule despite being far stricter on their nationality requirements by all accounts?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Leonormous Boozer, post: 924640, member: 45598"] No there wouldn't, and before I continue I implore you to stop arguing something that you clearly aren't well versed in at all. Anyway, the Isa Nacewa case backs part of my argument up, Isa Nacewa would have had the right to play for NZ but for his appearance for Fiji. The other case you'd need is a case where an Irish employer that refused to hire a person for a position reserved for an Irish citizen based on the fact that they only qualifed as a citizen because of a grandparent, and that would have had to have happened no earlier than 1988. Bare in mind we're a nation of only 5 million and positions reserved for Irish nationals are most commonly highly skilled positions with educated people in charge of the hiring process and you have the reason why there is no case law on this exact area. In fact the most likely area this would happen in is sports and every international sport Ireland compete in allow grandchildren of Irish born people compete to the extent of my knowledge. This is very common too, Ireland is highly influenced by English law and we use precedents set by English courts to establish our rules regularly. There are numerous examples of rules set in English courts being endorsed by Irish courts over 100 years later an example of that which I happen to be studying as we speak, the rule in Turquand's case (1856) was endorsed in Ireland in AIB ltd v Ardmore Studios in 1993 because the rule set in Turquand's case wasn't broken in the interim. There's an example of a rule which was followed in Ireland for 137 years despite there being no specific, tangible and actionable evidence that it actually applied in Ireland. So no, there wouldn't necessarily be specific, tangible and actionable evidence other than legislation which has more or less been presented to you. It wouldn't, I don't know how you can see any loophole in anything that's been said. Its a much easier sell than the IRFU being allowed to [U][I]break the law[/I][/U] because of a WR regulation tbh. Grandparent Rule - Has to apply to anyone born before July 2005 with an Irish grandparent due to them having the right to Iris citizenship and the Employment Equality Acts 1988 amended 2015 which provides a person can't be treated less favorably than another based on "that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or [B]national origins[/B]". (S.6(2)(h)) The Irish rugby team reserves the right to work for them to citizens acting in compliance with WR regulations, such as Reg 8(2) BUT WR regulations are subject to Irish law and can't have a greater threshold for working in as a citizen Ireland than Irish law itself. Switching nations - By playing international rugby, for all intents and purposes you enter a contract with an implied or express term that you cannot play for another country. It is perfectly legal to sign away legislative rights in a contract. See Isa Nacewa case. It took me a while to be get there. Heineken was definitely far more eloquent, direct and universal than I was but if a qualified, practicing lawyer and a law graduate studying for law school entrance exams can't sway you on this nothing will. Can I ask you why you think soccer continues with the grandparent rule despite being far stricter on their nationality requirements by all accounts? [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Pichot's message
Top