Talk:Common Travel Area

Second World War

I think the history section needs a bit of info on the restrictions that were imposed during the 2nd world war. Any help out there? Seabhcán 22:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Legal Status

It is my understanding that the Common Travel Area is formally defined in the Immigration Act 1971 of the United Kingdom - i will need to confirm. Djegan 18:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually there is a legal basis for theCTA - there have been a number of orders in council setting out the conditions for entry to/from other members of the CTA> Can't be bothered to look them up right now but I can do this later.

83.94.183.28 22:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC) 18 April 06

Channel Islanders/Manxmen

Channel Islanders and Manxmen are full British citizens. It is true that they do not get EEA free movement privileges unless they have or acquire some connection with the UK itself, through descent or residence.

However, the rights of British citizens to live in the Republic of Ireland predate the accession to the then EEC of the UK and Ireland, and hence I'd suggest that Channel Islanders and Manxmen *are* entitled to live in Ireland. Is there any way to confirm this one way or another?

If this is the case it's likely a Channel Islander or Manxman living in the Republic of Ireland would need to become a naturalised Irish citizen in order to access free movement rights elsewhere in the EEA. JAJ 01:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Overseas Born Citizens

Is there any reference to support this comment?

"Technically, the zone also only applies to citizens born in Ireland or the UK. Persons who have aquired citizenship but were born elsewhere still have to carry a passport. The enforceability, and even constitutionality, of this aspect of the zone is questionable."

JAJ 02:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

No because its not correct. 83.94.183.28 22:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It's now removed. JAJ 05:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Irish border passport checks

Is there a verifiable source anywhere as to the existence of checks on buses and trains? I've never known anyone to be checked when travelling overland.

I have actually seen the Irish Immigration officers come on the Enterprise Belfast -Dublin train at Dundalk and question 2 african guys about their visas to enter the "state" (Irish republic ) this was in 2001 ...

Yep I agree was only in Dublin Last week and on the way there got stopped (we were on a Bus ) by the Garda (Irish Police ) and they got on to make sure that any Non Irish/British Citizens were not trying to get into the Republic illegally

Considering Irish citizens and British subjects don't need a passport to cross the border, how do they determine who is a potential illegal immigrant? Appearances? zoney ♣ talk 00:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

They could ask for ID card from British or Irish people, or any other paper showing they are registred with the authorities. -- 194.17.253.121 11:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please the above person NOTE, we are NOT British subjects, in the UK but, just like our neighbours across the border who are Irish citizens, we too are citizens; British ones.Just ask to see any UK/British passport for confirmation of such! Thank you! People are often asked if British or Irish. Not full proof I know! WE do not now use the word subject,by the way, to refer to British citizens. Would be nice if outsiders could at last do the same.

If you are not driving (in which case you would have Driver's Licence) you probably wouldn't have any other form of photo ID with you. zoney ♣ talk 19:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"When travelling between the Republic of Ireland and the UK it is the legal responsibility of the foreign traveller to ensure that their passport and visa is checked at the border. This can present certain difficulties if the traveller arrives to a small airport or port or a crossing point from Northern Ireland which does not have an immigration control point. In this case, the traveller should go to the nearest Garda station."

If you are an EU citizen travelling to another EU country, you normally don't get any entry stamp whatsoever in your passport when you enter any other EU country. Would it still be required to have the passport checked (e.g. at a Garda station)? And how would they be able to tell whether or not you visit the appropriate Garda stations? (Stefan2 20:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC))

Where is the source for this supposed legal requirement? I'm pretty sure travellers have to insure that have valid passports and visas if necessary. Where does it say that they have to have them checked? Caveat lector 17:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

the checking of Passports on the Northern Ireland/Ireland border is very rare but i have seen it now and then you only have to worry if you aint a EU Citizen or from a third world country....or you are a different colour (sad i know) .....

Voting

"Also, citizens of Ireland and the UK may vote in general elections of either or both countries, although British citizens in Ireland may not vote in presidential elections or referendums unless they become Irish citizens. This is because British citizens do not elect their head of state and vote in referenda only exceptionally, whereas referenda are a regular feature of Irish politics." Is there a source for this being the reason? Surely it's simply because they're not Irish citizens and something as fundamental as choosing the head of state and making changes to the constitution should clearly be reserved for citizens only? Allowing UK citizens to vote in general elections is also a way of avoiding excluding people from NI living in Ireland who only hold British passports... Also, I think it should be stressed that you have to be resident in the other country and on the electoral register. The first sentence makes it sound as though you can just pop over... :-) --Dub8lad1 21:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Your first point is right the reason is more to do with nature of the decisions being made, rather than reciprocity. As was explained by the Minister on the introduction of the ninth amendment:

"The amendment to the Constitution proposed in the Bill does not extend to granting voting rights to non-citizens at Presidential elections and referenda. The import of the advice available following the Supreme Court decision on the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1983, is that the basic concept of a Constitution is that of a fundamental law given by citizens to themselves. To give non-citizens the right in the Constitution to change the fundamental law enshrined in it would be contrary to this basic concept. To do so would be inappropriate and could constitute an in-built contradiction in the Constitution itself. Similar considerations apply as regards Presidential elections. The right to vote at such an election, which is a special election of the Head of State under the Constitution, is a right appropriately reserved to the people who gave themselves the Constitution.[1]

and your last point is also right: residence should be emphasised. However the reason for granting voting rights to British citizens in Irish general elections is reciprocity and not anything to do with Northern Ireland. Irish citizenship has long been extended to people from Northern Ireland and there was never an issue with their voting rights in the republic. Caveat lector 16:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

On further reflection, I'm not sure why an article on the Common Travel Area should refer to electoral law at all. Caveat lector 23:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point, it really has nothing to do with it. I've now cautiously removed that paragraph. How's that? It reminds me of a recent discussion I had with some Germans about the fact that new EU members' citizens do not have the right to work in Germany. They insisted it was connected to those countries not being in Schengen. But Ireland and the UK aren't either... I was able to set them straight:)--Dub8lad1 23:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Speculation

The provisions of that treaty allow for a common visa and travel area, which, if either the United Kingdom or Ireland (but not both) were to sign, would end the zone.

The paragraphs below shows that this is not going to happen, so as it is speculation not backed up by a source I think the sentence should be removed as its removal would not affect the section. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by your comment. What "is not going to happen"? The sentence isn't speculation. If either the UK and Ireland were to join Schengen, they would have to impose border and immigration controls to all non-Schengen states. Or in other words, if the Republic joined without the UK we would have to build a rather long fence along the border and perform regular passport checks at crossing points (as this is required by Schengen rules) thus ending the Common Travel Area. It would on the other hand be speculation to say that neither side will never join Schengen. Caveat lector 13:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Deportations from Britain

After adding the following sentence to "the Irish in Britain"

This right of deportation has very rarely been used.

Gaimhreadhan writes in his edit summary

If you disagree please cite 3 examples of Irish Citizens being deported from UK since 1962 - I can not find a single case!

Drug dealer Tony felloni was deported from britain, it's in the book written about his life story, that's 1, maybe otheres will help you find more194.46.176.174 (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I was always under the impression that editors have to provide sources for their own claims, rather than having to find sources to disprove other peoples. I would agree that deportations are (at least since EEC membership) probably rare, but having no source to back this up, I preferred to say nothing. But since you ask, in a footnote of his article Ryan notes that:

'Deportation to Ireland General Policy' memorandum of December 1967 (PRO, HO 344/74). It records that between July 1962 and October 1967, 233 of the 713 Irish nationals who had been the subject of deportation orders had subsequently been detected in Britain.

I think this figures as 710 examples more than you asked for. Caveat lector 11:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I like your recent re-work of the lede, CL.

As I would expect from such a productive and erudite Wikipedian, I can not fault your statement "that editors have to provide sources for their own claims, rather than having to find sources to disprove other peoples", CL. However, I'm sure you appreciate the difficulty of finding (non-existent) actual physical deportations (as opposed to paper orders) from a philosophical point of view.

I'm not physically in a position right now where I can move about to check paper sources, but is the Ryan note that you refer to clear that these are deportation orders served after 1962 or merely cases of re-entrants deported and then detected between 1962 and 1967? Is Ryan using "Britain" as a synonym of the UK or just of Great Britain? Remember that in the period 1962 to 1967 it would have been very rare to discover an Irish citizen that could not fairly quickly claim to also be British by virtue of patriality and descent! Many Irish citizens served with deportation papers simply and rapidly applied for a British passport during that period (grin).

Please feel free to delete my edit if you are sure that there have been more than three successful actual physical deportations after 1962...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 12:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't admit to have checked the paper sources either! Deportation was not possible before 1962 so the cited document could only have referred to orders between 1962 and 1967.

correct Gaimhreadhan

A claim of partiality or descent would fail as all that would have entitled them to would have been British subject status and as such they would still have been subject to immigration control (even with a British passport), by the same act.

Pardon?!? Gaimhreadhan

I would imagine that the number, 713, would probably have been those issued with deportation papers after being convicted of a serious criminal offence. The issuing of such papers is routine in Britain. On the point of forced deportations, a recent House of Lords written statement reveals that:

"Those Irish prisoners whose cases are not considered exceptional, whose sentences have expired and who are currently in custodial detention awaiting deportation will be released over the next week."[2]

Apparently the minister's name is Liam Byrne, it's always nice to have one of your own on the inside -:) The story was also covered by the BBC [3].

It would appear that less people are going to be deported in future, but the reference to "custodial detention awaiting deportation" appears to confirm that forced deportations do take place. The enforceability of such deportations is another matter.

(Btw, flattery will get you nowhere -:), but then again... ) Caveat lector 13:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this quote is quite revealing:

"19 Feb 2007 : Column WS54

Since April last year, we have ensured that all nationals from European Economic Area countries who have received custodial sentences in the United Kingdom for two years or more have been considered for deportation. This has led to deportation action being pursued against a number of Irish nationals who have committed criminal offences here.

Following recent discussions with the Irish Government, I am able to confirm that the approach to be taken with Irish nationals will now be as follows.

Irish citizens will be considered for deportation only where a court has recommended deportation in sentencing or where the Secretary of State concludes that, due to the exceptional circumstances of the case, the public interest requires deportation.

In reviewing our approach in this area we have taken into account the close historical, community and political ties between the United Kingdom and Ireland, along with the existence of the Common Travel Area.

Those Irish prisoners whose cases are not considered exceptional, whose sentences have expired and who are currently in custodial detention awaiting deportation will be released over the next week. I have already asked that the necessary arrangements be put in place to ensure that these prisoners receive proper supervision on their release from the Probation Service."

The part about "taken into account the close historical, community and political ties between the United Kingdom and Ireland, along with the existence of the Common Travel Area" is politician speak for the historical pragamatism that recognised it was pointless deporting the Irish and a complete waste of public funds since they would always creep back in again.

I would agree that "the approach to be taken with Irish nationals will now" part implies that the practice was previously different (ie that the irish were deported) but I think that is just spin...Gaimhreadhan • 17:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the political speak but the phrase "custodial detention awaiting deportation" is more telling. It means that people are being detained after they completed prison sentances, solely for the reasons of deportation. The bbc article is equally telling.

The whole point of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act was that ertain people who had British nationality could be subject to immigration control in the UK. At the time different legislation applies to aliens. Caveat lector 17:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's consider the practical consequences of the legislation:

In 1962, few potential Irish deportees would have been less than 21. That means they must have been born before 1942. Most of their fathers would have been married to their mothers and born before 1922 (unless their children were conceived when the fathers were teenagers). Their fathers were, therefore, entitled to the status of British subject: Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (BS/CUKC) [created by the British Nationality Act 1948] unless they had been naturalised in a foreign state, or had made a Declaration of Alienage. Consequently most of the potential irish deportees could have claimed the same full BS/CUKC by virtue of being the first legitimate generation born overseas - a fact that was common knowledge for both criminals and police...Gaimhreadhan • 17:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

As pointed out in British nationality law and the Republic of Ireland, "for the purpose of the 1948 legislation, the United Kingdom was defined based on its post-1922 borders. Hence, birth in the Republic of Ireland before 1922 was not sufficient in itself to confer UK & Colonies citizenship." In any case I think I have provided more than enough evidence that deportations have taken place and you have absolutely no evidence that the "right of deportation has rarely been used historically". I've deleted it. Caveat lector 13:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

New Data

Today's Irish Times has an article reporting on a document obtained from the UK Home Office under the Freedom of Information. It states that 50 Irish citizens were deported from Britain in the years 2004-5. [4]

Traveling by plane

If you get on a plane from London to Dublin, are passports checked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.51.4 (talk • contribs)

From London to Dublin, yes (although if you were born in either Ireland or the UK you can show your driving license). From Dublin to London there is no check. ... Seabhcan 13:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You have to show an acceptable ID to get on any plane flying to or from a UK airport, even if the flight starts within the UK, as part of anti-terrorism procedures. If you are flying from within the UK or Irish Republic, then a Photo ID UK licence will do (I'm not sure about driving licences from other countries), but it's common for people to use passports (I usually take a passport). Simhedges (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This shows that the subject of the article isn't freedom of travel but about restrictions on it. If you want to fly within England you cannot do so without a passport or similar ID. You are thus prevented from travelling even within a country. The arrangement is thus the antithesis of a common travel area, assuming that the expression means you can travel without being checked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Mentions in the press

I think the London Times have been reading this article -:) [5] Blue-Haired Lawyer (formerly Caveat lector) 22:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Future plans

There seems to be some discrepancy between the sources cited here. The (UK) Times story quotes a UK Home Office source as saying that no passport checks would be imposed on Republic of Ireland citizens travelling to Britain, whereas the Irish Times story implies (without naming a source) that a passport would be required for all air or sea journeys within the present Common Travel Area, i.e. anyone travelling by air between two UK airports, by air between two RoI airports, or by sea between Great Britain and Northern Ireland would in future have to present a passport, in addition to those travelling between the UK and the Republic. Clearly only one of these scenarios can be correct. 217.155.20.163 21:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Overseas Born Citizens (Again)

There is no truth to the statement that:

"Persons who have acquired citizenship but were born elsewhere still have to carry a passport or some proof of their British or Irish citizenship."

I don't care how many people believe it to be the case. Blue-Haired Lawyer (formerly Caveat lector) 10:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Names

Why is it being insisted that Britain be used for the UK and ROI for Ireland? Both are highly inaccurate, which is obviously not what you want on an encyclopedia.SitNGo (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

With respect we have discussed this and Republic of Ireland was decided on. No doubt your already aware. Thanks. Djegan (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is this discussion?SitNGo (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Look in the edit history of the article. Look at talk:Republic of Ireland, WP:IMOS. Please don't waste your time but getting in an edit war. Djegan (talk)

That says nothing about using Britain for the UK and using ROI for Ireland, infact the IMOS says to use Ireland. Nowhere does it actually say to not use Ireland or the UK as names. You are inventing some form of agreement for your own personal POV. Using correct names is such a basic thing, its crazy that you're defending this.SitNGo (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I am inventing nothing. This was agreed among a number of editors. WP:IMOS only applies to location articles - i.e. city, county, town, village; thats why I am referring you to its talk page. What was agreed here through consensus applies. Djegan (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus there. You havE fabricated agreement. I have read it and there is consensus to pipelink to Ireland to represent the state unless it obviously confusing which in this case is clearly not as its in international usage. There is also no agreement to use Britian for the UK which is also wrong. You are POV pushing with no actual consensus and I shall be reverting unless you provide some actual proof.SitNGo (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been "cornered" like this before, are you User:Wikipéire? Djegan (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

So what, your argument breaks down so you accuse me of sockpuppetry? Poor show. Answer the facts and the questions regarding the material, thats what matters here.SitNGo (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. SitnGo's assertion of 'fabricated argument' is well founded. Answer the question. --Red King (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Was that a "fabricated agreement" or "fabricated argument"? In any case the article history here clearly backs up my claim for consensus. Djegan (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The article has a history of blind reverting. Anyway WP:CCC is relevant if thats your argument. This needs to be discussed intelligently so we can we get an edit which doesn't mislead the reader with the two issues we have.SitNGo (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't take "advice" from sockpuppets. Djegan (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that was 'decided' (at least for the present) is that the Ireland (state) article be called "Republic of Ireland" - despite all international bodies and the two governments stating otherwise. But there is no basis for the assertion that there is a broad consensuonly this inaccurate name be used at all times and in all circumstances. This article is about an international treaty. The signatories are The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (sic), Ireland (sic), the Isle of Man and the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey. So there is no basis other than WP:POV and WP:LPOV to make up some other names. --Red King (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

However if we stick to "Ireland" it becomes confusing; as it would insinuate the island as a whole for those who don't understand the politics; by fully specifying the "Republic of" it makes it clear there the treaty does cover travel from the south to the north. --Blowdart | ^talk 21:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There is very little mention of the island of Ireland so be correctly setting the context in those instantces that should not be a problem. Using ROI in the context however would be very confusing as thats not the name of the country and may mislead them into thinking it is.SitNGo (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

So link it to the article about the state; saying Ireland is certainly misleading for people outside the UK and Ireland. And really, considering you've been banned on numerous occasions for sock puppetry and COI on this type of issue I'm somewhat disinclined to take your suggestion in good faith right now. --Blowdart | ^talk 21:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well thats your personal opinion, it shouldnt be to the detrement of the article. Andsaying Ireland is certainly misleading for people outside the UK and Ireland is very much your own personal POV irrespective of that. Ireland is the accepted and recognised name internationally. Seeing as no international governments or bodies use ROI, it would be very much prudent to suggest that in fact using ROI is the misleading term to use.SitNGo (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess it depends what we're trying to underscore here, political entities or how cross border movements work; saying "Ireland" can/will to most indicate the entire island and ignores the fact that there's a border there whether you like it or not. --Blowdart | ^talk 22:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course there's a border. But who's to say "Ireland" can/will to most indicate the entire island. Any sources behind that? There are plenty of international sources using Ireland to mean the state rather than island. I'm happy to use ROI within the article base to clarify any confusion. But in the intro when we're indicating which states and British dependencies are involved it is misleading to

use an unofficial and incorrect name for the state in question.SitNGo (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, that sounds like a decent compromise to me; of course of we were being very fussy we're use United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland where Britain is used in a political context here rather than Britain as is currently there. --Blowdart | ^talk 22:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I cannot believe the contrived construction of the opening sentence of this article, presumably designed to appease those with a phobia about the perfectly reasonable and appropriate term Republic of Ireland. The obvious text is to refer to the United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. It is nonsensical to say the "United Kingdom (including Northern Ireland)" ... of course it includes Northern Ireland. It does so by definition. Mooretwin (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's contrived; but I ended up adding it for clarity. Like it or not the Irish state is not the Republic of Ireland, but simply Ireland. Now that is confusing for readers who do not understand the political and geographical context of that loaded word. The revert wars are stupid and damaging, hence yet another attempt at a compromise. At least with this there is a clear statement that the north stands separate from the south. --Blowdart | ^talk 10:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Some common sense please! The Irish state is called Republic of Ireland day and daily. The "official name" may be "Ireland", but that does not preclude the use of Republic of Ireland, especially in contexts such as this in which you accept that it is "confusing for readers"!! Mooretwin (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree up to a point; but then we're in the same sort of territory of Burma versus Myanmar where frankly the name is a political point scorer rather than an indication of any degree of accuracy; much like the whole stroke city debate. --Blowdart | ^talk 10:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't accept that for a minute. "Republic of Ireland" is a perfectly acceptable and "neutral" term. (If anything "Ireland" is the contentious term, given that it implies jurisdiction beyond the legal boundaries of the state.) Replacing a perfectly sensible and well-constructed sentence with the crazy bodge job that we have now is ridiculous and unreasonable. Common sense turned on its head. Mooretwin (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Whilst this isn't a location article there is always [[WP:IMOS] which requires it to be Ireland, but linked to the Republic of. I'm sure you're well aware that The Republic of Ireland is not a neutral term at all, and has no legal standing, and tends to be used by one side in the debate. --Blowdart | ^talk 10:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's complete nonsense to say that Republic of Ireland has "no legal standing", given that it is the statutory "description" of the state, as provided for by the state's own legislature! There is no reasonable case to argue that Republic of Ireland is not neutral (as I said above, if any term is not neutral it is "Ireland"). Rather, there is a campaign by an organised group of editors with an irrational dislike of the term to purge it from Wikipedia. That is not reasonable, and force of numbers should not dictate WP policy. As for WP:IMOS, as you admit, it doesn't apply to this article. You may also be aware that WP actually uses Republic of Ireland as the name of the article on the state! There is a task force looking at whether that should be changed, but in the meantime there is no reason to censor the term in this article. Mooretwin (talk) 10:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What's the name of the state in the constitution and the Republic of Ireland act? Heck the Republic of Ireland article makes it perfectly clear; Legally, the term Republic of Ireland (Irish: Poblacht na hÉireann) is the description of the state but Ireland is its name. A description is not a name. I can't refer to Tony Blair as a slimy slippery sod and expect to move the wikipedia article to that article name. --Blowdart | ^talk 10:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

So, while previously you said Republic of Ireland has no legal standing, now you say that it is a statutory description in the Republic of Ireland Act. You're contradicting yourself. Semantics aside, the "description" is, for all intents and purposes, an alternative name. (PS. Note that the article name in WP is Republic of Ireland.) Mooretwin (talk) 10:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

How is a description an alternative name? Do you say "Red flower" or "A rose"? How on earth you can claim a description is equivalent I have no idea; and if you're using the article name as an argument then WP:IMOS also becomes an argument. If you're so hung up on names then why aren't you changing United Kingdom to its full and proper name, which would also clarify the separation? --Blowdart | ^talk 11:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I see you fail to withdraw your comment that there "is no legal basis" for the Republic of Ireland. Do you stand over this comment, or withdraw it? Mooretwin (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

In this case, there are several clues as to how the "description" is, in effect, an alternative name: (a) it is constructed as such in the legislation "Republic of Ireland" as opposed to "republic"; (b) it has been, and is, used as a name; (c) evidence from the time demonstrates that it was intended as a name, but legislators wished to avoid a referendum to amend the constitution - read Scolaire's piece on the task force page. Mooretwin (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if you wish to make semantic arguments about the difference between a "name" and a "description", the reality is that there is both an official "name" and "description" for the 26-county state and, in this context, it makes perfect sense to use the latter rather than the former. Mooretwin (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As for the name of the WP article, I do not use it as an argument. I merely point out to you (1) that it makes no sense to cite WP policy (which doesn't, in any case, apply here) when WP actually uses the name you claim its policy rejects; and (2) that your Tony Blair analogy doesn't work, since the WP article is, in fact, named by the "official description". Mooretwin (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Finally, your last sentence makes no sense. I am not "hung up on names": quite the opposite. I am content to use sensible alternatives to the "official name" where that makes sense. Hence I'm content both with Republic of Ireland (rather than Ireland) and United Kingdom (rather than United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). Mooretwin (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

deindent - because it's getting silly I clarified it, if you're going to descend into wikilawyering. There is no basis for it being a name; it's a description, nothing more. Again it's a political statement to change it to the Republic of when the country's name is simple Ireland. My main concern is that there will be confusion for people who do not realise the separation and to avoid an edit war over yet another damned stupid naming dispute. Of course you're content with using the Republic of Ireland; but others aren't; and both sets of people (admittedly including Wikipiere and his constant trolling) bat back and forth between their preferred names. As for article nameing for the republic of, I'd venture that's because there is an article on the geographic island rather than any "official" blessing of a description as a name. --Blowdart | ^talk 11:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(1) Thanks - you have accepted that there is, indeed, a legal basis for Republic of Ireland. (2) As for your statement "there is no basis for it being a name", clearly you didn't read my contribution above. (3) This is a clear example of an article where "Republic of Ireland" (the "description" if you prefer) is preferable to "Ireland" (the "name" if you prefer) because of the very reason that you cite above! It is not a "political statement": it is simple common sense. The "politics" comes from those campaigning to purge the name from Wikipedia. For a quiet life, you have caved into the campaign, and to accept a dreadful, contrived sentence instead of a simple, clear one. I prefer to stand up for common sense. (4) You note that the Republic of Ireland article exists because of the need to disambiguate from Ireland (meaning the island). The same argument applies here: you have already conceded that using "Ireland" is potentially confusing to readers. Mooretwin (talk) 11:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have NOT accepted there is a legal basis for it being used as a name. As for (3) using "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is equally a way of using the legal names you seem to desire and removes confusion; you're simply hung on up on ignoring a country's official name and pushing your own POV. Using the full expansion of the UK removes the ambiguity as well, and yet you're not happy with that. Adding "The Republic of" turns it into a dreadful, contrived sentence with a political POV. However I'm not going to start yet another pathetic little revert war simply because I disagree with your POV; I just wish you would do the same --Blowdart | ^talk 11:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(1) Now you're being disingenuous. You said: "... The Republic of Ireland is not a neutral term at all, and has no legal standing". In reality, of course it has very clear legal standing as the statutory "description" of the state. But now - faced with that fact - you change the goalposts, saying there is no legal basis "for it being used as a name". First, I do not accept that, for the reasons given above; and second, even if we accept the "official name" argument, it does not follow therefore that the "official description" has no legal standing. Pure sophistry. (2) Using the full-length "official name" of the UK is unnecessary and convoluted. There is no reason why the sentence cannot refer to United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland - this is unambiguous and straightfoward. (3) I am not pushing POV. Please adhere to WP:AGF. (4) The use of the term "Republic of Ireland" is not contrived - it is perfectly sensible and normal, and - in any case - you have already conceded (10:04, 4 November 2008) that the current construction is contrived, and was only introduced to appease the ROI-objectors. (4) You say you're not going to start a "pathetic little revert war", but you have no need to - the text has already been reverted to the current contrived construction. (5) I suggest that you remain civil, take a step back, read the sentence again, and ask yourself honestly whether you believe it is really the most sensible way to express what is being said. Mooretwin (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Acknowledging your point, but pointing it it's not valid as a name is moving the goalposts? That's an interesting way to take it. You still labour under the attitude that a description is a name when it simply isn't. (2) Using a description of a country instead of its name is unnecessary and convoluted too; but it appears to be blatant POV pushing to demand what you consider to be a full name of one country, but dismiss the full name of another simply because it's too long. It is a political statement to demand a description rather than acknowledge an official name; and it is POV. --Blowdart | ^talk 13:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(1) Yes, it is moving the goalposts to say Republic of Ireland has no legal standing and then switch to no legal standing "for it being used as a name". (2) Re. your repeated point about names and descriptions, you still appear not to have read my contribution of 11:12, which addresses your concerns. It may not the "name" in the specific, narrow legalistic sense attributed to the word in the ROI constitution, but it is a name in the every-day meaning of that word, and very persuasively in a legal sense, too, given the points noted above. (3) Using the "description" Republic of Ireland is not unnecessary (on the contrary, it is necessary to avoid the confusion that you accept arises from using the "name" Ireland). (4) Using Republic of Ireland is not convoluted: it is, on the contrary, straightforward. (5) It's not "POV pushing" to request a straightforward, unambiguous sentence construction: the "POV pushing" comes from those who wish to substitute such a sentence simply to censor a term which they do not like (presumably for POV reasons). (6) I refer you again to WP:Civility and WP:AGF. Please take note of both. There is no need for ill-mannered and ad hominem attacks. Mooretwin (talk) 13:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It is most certainly POV pushing to attempt to enforce a contentious term where has already been the subject of one set of guidelines, and we both know there are political problems with any Ireland related naming argument. Rather than narrowly applying them surely it would be better to widen the scope slightly to avoid the edit war that will certainly follow. Nothing is an ad hominem attack here; you are making personal concerns clear, these cannot be addressed without addressing what are your concerns; if you take that as "attack" on yourself it is not meant as such. However, as originally stated my concern is really to stop people assuming that there is no border in Ireland; and to avoid the edit war that continues to rage throughout other Ireland/Northern Ireland articles; I'd rather seem somethign slightly long winded than see daily changes and reverts. --Blowdart | ^talk 14:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

In the real world, Republic of Ireland is not contentious, except perhaps in the minds of an organised group of Wiki editors. Even if you believe that ROI is contentious, then you must concede that "Ireland" is also contentious. Ireland, however, has the added disadvantage of being ambiguous, and hence is not appropriate here. You have conceded that, yet accept its usage, and seek to prevent the usage of the unambiguous Republic of Ireland. Logic is lacking from that position, as it does from your initial defence that ROI has "no legal standing", despite it being a term provided in statute. You say it is "most certainly POV pushing" to include the term ROI, yet you have failed to support this allegation - what "POV" is being pushed?? The guidelines to which you refer are not appropriate in this context. Mooretwin (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well the real world hopefully excludes the naval gazing that NI exhibits; *shrug*. I tried to appease everyone to no avail here, so I'm bowing out, mainly because I'm way too hated over it. Although there is some amusement that User:Wikipéire now reverts calling it consensus rather than contentious as it appears to be. I don't agree in using the description of the state as a name; but I'm more concerned about mistaken assumptions that the island itself doesn't have any borders. --Blowdart | ^talk 12:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't hate you. Mooretwin (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Aggh! I meant heated :) --Blowdart | ^talk 13:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

British isles

Copied from my talk page:

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Common Travel Area, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please stop removing the template. The page is part of the template, it's part of a series on the British Isles which as you well know includes the island of Ireland. If the name of the template bothers you so much then propose a rename for the template rather than removing it from articles where it soundly belongs. Blowdart | ^talk 10:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"British Isles" is an offensive term and it's use on Wikipedia should be as minimal as possible. This is an article about the Common Travel Area. The correspondence of the CTA to the British isles is entirely coincidental. This article is not part of a series or articles.

Claiming that removing the {{British Isles}} template is vandalism is frankly ludicrous and if nothing else violates WP:CIVIL. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Great we've reached chutzpah, Wikipéire has accused me of vandalism!! — Blue-Haired Lawyer 20:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, I'm Wikipéire now?! Look the article is part of the template; instead of removing it, argue for the category name to be changed --Blowdart | ^talk 20:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No, this is Wikipéire. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What about calling it the "Near Abroad". -:( — Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The names put into the text have no sources to verifiability to back up their inclusion. The island group is verifiably called The British Isles and the country is not called the Irish Republic. In order to keep the article at a NPOV the correct names need to stay; that is unless consensus changes. Not liking the names for whatever reason is not a reason to remove them.194.125.126.49 (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You woke him up; did you say his name 3 times? Look the thing is the naming dispute is not under question; it's right there in the template itself, but regardless of that you shouldn't be piping templates like that. If it is a true bone of contention then you need to propose the move for the template itself; and announce it over the UK, NI and Ireland project home pages. --Blowdart | ^talk 18:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The end of the Common Travel Area?

I've removed the following from the lead a few times now:

"This will not see the introduction of passport checks for British and Irish citizens, but will authorise police and immigration authorities to request passenger information (such as ship passenger manifests) and further allow authorities to request identification and immigration status if required."

Or in other words, British and Irish citizens will need to carry identity documents in order to prove that they don't need to carry them. After this new system comes into effect, it will for all purposes be impossible to cross the Irish Sea without some kind of identity document. It may well be that airline personnel will be required to check instead of immigration officers but a identity check is still an identity check.

"Both governments have no plans to introduce fixed border controls with the new proposals mainly applying to air and some sea transport from the Republic to mainland Britain."

A contradiction in terms. Air and sea borders are still borders and they will have fixed controls. (Btw appalling grammar: should be "Neither government has any plans...").

"No additional border controls on the land border the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland are planned."

The introduction of what are described as "ad hoc" controls are in fact planned.

"The new measures have been described as a 'strengthening' of the CTA, not its removal, by both countries."

How exactly a passport free zone can be strengthened by the imposition of passport controls, is something I'll never know! — Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It might be, and this is supposition of course, that a photo driving license is all that is required; as the EU licenses have birth country on them. Also in the UK when documents are demanded you have something like 7 days to produce them at a nominated police station (this includes drivers licenses, I've had to do that before when stopped at an NI checkpoint). I guess it's arguable that because there are no formal border controls between the north and south it's still an open border there, even if airports are closed. I'll be interested to see how ad-hoc works, and if we end up with roving border patrols again. Goodness knows what they'll do about the fields; they can't go back to closing those!

However if the phrase remains and it's still referred to as the CTA then it doesn't end, even if it's tightened. --Blowdart | ^talk 23:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, passports are rarely the only kind of id accepted as passport checks. Very few US citizens have passports and as a result driving licences are accepted on the US-Canadian border, but we'd hardly claim that the US and Canada constitute a passport free zone, would we?

It is and as far as I know will remain (for most practical purposes) an open border. The catch is that the CTA will, in practice, be limited to the island of Ireland. But changing the lead to that really would be original research. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 00:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

1923 Agreement

Just wondering about this sentence:

• The Common Travel Area was suspended on the outbreak of war in 1939, when travel restrictions were introduced between Britain and Ireland.

Does this refer to the UK (the state) and Eire (the state), or to Great Britain (the island) and Ireland (the island)? Mooretwin (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I should have seen that before. The restrictions were introduced between the islands. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The use of Ireland is correct, then, and I see you have changed Britain to Great Britain, which is also correct. Does this, however, mean that the section title "British citizens in Ireland" is misleading and ought to be changed to "British citizens in the Republic of Ireland"? If so, can I ask someone to change this, as an ROI-phobic editor reverted my edit yesterday. Mooretwin (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better as "at the outbreak..." rather than "on the outbreak". Does this vary much between different dialects? "At the outbreak of WWII", etc etc etc.

Ireland is very contentious, I have someone bumbling about it in my talk here about it, but I think here is correct if it refers to the island and not the state (and that is rather the point). I don't know how this can be resolved except by discussion; I find in practice nothing ever happens on discussion until you make an edit, then instantly people wake up. Wikipedia has two contradictory policies, take ik to dicussion and be bold, and I head for the latter. Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The 1923 agreement

No passport controls?

"Before the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922 no passport controls had existed between the islands of Ireland and Great Britain".
This seems to me a rather sweeping and misleading statement. It implies that prior to 1923 there were no migration controls between the two islands, which was not always the case (Settlements and Removals, DORA, etc . The 'international passport system' as we know it now, did not come into existence until the mid 1920s, and so crossing national frontiers without 'a passport' was not as unusual as might be inferred from this sentence. Comments please. RashersTierney (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Why, and on what basis, would there have been any migration controls between Ireland and Great Britain before 1922?? Mooretwin (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

On the same basis as nearly always; 'problematic economic migration', and 'security concerns'. RashersTierney (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I must say I've never heard of migration controls within a state before, and certainly not within the UK. It seems like an odd concept. Mooretwin (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It certainly does seem odd to our present view of migration control, but if you are interested in how the Old Poor laws affected internal migration use "law of settlement and removal" as a google search term. Include 'ireland' to see how Ireland's lack of a 'law of settlement' specifically affected Irish migrants to England and Scotland.

Will do. Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Prior to 1922 the (present day) Republic was an integrated part of the United Kingdom (albeit more in theory than in practice). I think we're more than safe to assume that there were no freedom of movement restrictions between Ireland and Great Britain. If you have any sources to the contrary I'd be interested to see them. As far as I know identity for people entering the UK were instituted, albeit in a limited form, in 1906 by the Aliens Act 1905. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend 'The Key in the lock' (1969) by TWE Roche for a look considerably further back than 1905 for immigration control in 'England'. Includes a very interesting mention of a 3 month transition period when British immigration officers continued to regulate entry to Southern ports, with the approval of the 'Irish authorities'. Will add shortly.RashersTierney (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

minimal identity documents

The premise is propaganda. I don't need any identity documents to go on foot from Hertfordshire to Bedfordshire. To be encyclopedic the article needs to be couched in terms of the restrictions placed on movement in the area, such as the need for a passport to take a plane from Bristol to Newcastle. This regime is actually about restriction on movement within a country, not "common travel". --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 29 April 2011 (talk • contribs) 80.189.103.145

It is written in the "Border controls" section that there are border controls between UK and the republic (not along N.Ireland land border), and that this formally concerns only non UK or Ireland citizens, but the latter still need a passport to prove that they don't need one. This does (I assume) not concern domestic UK flights. --BIL (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Passport needed ?

It is written in the top "although the use of a full passport is often required by airlines or ferry companies." and in the "In Ireland" section: "While British citizens are not required to be in possession of a valid travel document as a condition of entry to Ireland, they are required to satisfy immigration officials of their nationality." Does this mean that passports have to be brought at least on ferries and airlines, as the UK and Ireland do not have any national identity card stating citizenship ? --BIL (talk) 10:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ryanair require passports and refuse to accept driving licences, I don't think any other carrier require this [6]. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 11:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

From an immigration point of view, as opposed to arbitrary carrier requirements as pointed out by BHL, this link from Ireland's Citizen Information Board should answer your questions on officially acceptable ID docs. at least from that state's perspective. RashersTierney (talk) 11:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)