3 ms·

A bit of a naive question as I am fascinated by what is happening. I admit I don't completely understand so my question is if the UK is made up of England, Nor

A bit of a naive question as I am fascinated by what is happening. I admit I don't completely understand so my question is if the UK is made up of England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland why aren't they represented at the European cup currently being held/played in France as the United Kingdom? Why are they playing as separate countries yet voting together to leave the EU? I don't get it.

toyg 10y ago
That's a historical curiosity due to how the relevant sports developed. Football, rugby and cricket were all formalized in the UK, so the initial arrangements reflected a vision of Scotland, England etc being "countries". The first international football match, for example, was Scotland-England. As the game expanded, other countries started their own international federations, which UK clubs eventually joined. As part of the joining, British representatives obtained clauses that safeguard their role as "custodians" of the game, which basically mean you cannot change the rules of football without UK representatives agreeing. Part of those clauses imply and require that UK countries will remain separate; so you have a Scottish authority, an English authority and so on, with separate leagues and separate national teams. The two elements (representation in rule committees and in tournaments) rely on each other; renouncing one would basically mean renouncing the other. Of course, you're never going to renounce you ability to make the rules, so here we are. In the Olympics, for example, it's different, because that institution was actually born in France and reflected a different vision from the start; which is why Britain traditionally does not compete in Olympic football.
TheCoelacanth 10y ago
They get their own football teams because the requirement to be a sovereign nation didn't exist when their teams formed and they are grandfathered in.
aryehof 10y ago
Because despite all the pointers to "definitions" to the contrary, the United Kingdom is but a single country, with a single passport, a single UN seat, one olympic team, one set of defense forces, and with a single central government only which can enter into formal agreements with foreign powers. Any dissolution of power to "regions" like Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is at the discretion of the central government, which can remove them at will. The fact that it has separate sports teams is a weird throwback to history, now intended perhaps to largely confuse foreigners. (Perhaps a clever way to allow the UK to increase its odds of winning? :)
- ck425 10y ago
  Not entirely accurate. The UK is technically a political union between England and Scotland, with both having separate legal system, currencies and a few other things. It is in many ways more one country than two countries but to say Scotland is just a region is extremely inaccurate.
  - aryehof 10y ago
    It is entirely accurate. The UK parliament is "supreme", and cannot be bound by previous parliaments. This principle is the basis of the UK constitution. http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/sovereignty/ http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/sovereignty/ Until Scotland leaves the UK, any powers enjoyed by its institutions can be repealed or changed. Of course in Scotland, the people could choose to be independent, and not be subject to UK parliamentary supremacy.
    - ck425 10y ago
      One supreme parliament that governs two countries joined by a political union, both of which have separate legal systems. Which is very different from most "regions", within most countries. Thus why your characterisation of Scotland as just a region is inaccurate.
wiredfool 10y ago
It gets worse. The Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland both have teams. They both wear green and white, They can both draw players from both sides of the border, and they're both coached by someone named M. O'Neil. And they both made it through to the knockout stages.

toyg 10y ago

That's a historical curiosity due to how the relevant sports developed. Football, rugby and cricket were all formalized in the UK, so the initial arrangements reflected a vision of Scotland, England etc being "countries". The first international football match, for example, was Scotland-England. As the game expanded, other countries started their own international federations, which UK clubs eventually joined. As part of the joining, British representatives obtained clauses that safeguard their role as "custodians" of the game, which basically mean you cannot change the rules of football without UK representatives agreeing. Part of those clauses imply and require that UK countries will remain separate; so you have a Scottish authority, an English authority and so on, with separate leagues and separate national teams. The two elements (representation in rule committees and in tournaments) rely on each other; renouncing one would basically mean renouncing the other. Of course, you're never going to renounce you ability to make the rules, so here we are. In the Olympics, for example, it's different, because that institution was actually born in France and reflected a different vision from the start; which is why Britain traditionally does not compete in Olympic football.

TheCoelacanth 10y ago

They get their own football teams because the requirement to be a sovereign nation didn't exist when their teams formed and they are grandfathered in.

aryehof 10y ago

Because despite all the pointers to "definitions" to the contrary, the United Kingdom is but a single country, with a single passport, a single UN seat, one olympic team, one set of defense forces, and with a single central government only which can enter into formal agreements with foreign powers. Any dissolution of power to "regions" like Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is at the discretion of the central government, which can remove them at will. The fact that it has separate sports teams is a weird throwback to history, now intended perhaps to largely confuse foreigners. (Perhaps a clever way to allow the UK to increase its odds of winning? :)

ck425 10y ago
Not entirely accurate. The UK is technically a political union between England and Scotland, with both having separate legal system, currencies and a few other things. It is in many ways more one country than two countries but to say Scotland is just a region is extremely inaccurate.
- aryehof 10y ago
  It is entirely accurate. The UK parliament is "supreme", and cannot be bound by previous parliaments. This principle is the basis of the UK constitution. http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/sovereignty/ http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/sovereignty/ Until Scotland leaves the UK, any powers enjoyed by its institutions can be repealed or changed. Of course in Scotland, the people could choose to be independent, and not be subject to UK parliamentary supremacy.
  - ck425 10y ago
    One supreme parliament that governs two countries joined by a political union, both of which have separate legal systems. Which is very different from most "regions", within most countries. Thus why your characterisation of Scotland as just a region is inaccurate.

wiredfool 10y ago

It gets worse. The Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland both have teams. They both wear green and white, They can both draw players from both sides of the border, and they're both coached by someone named M. O'Neil. And they both made it through to the knockout stages.