Well at least the motion regarding submitting future motions to the committee has gone through yesterday so if they hold off on their lawsuits for a while it might not even be necessary.

A European Order on the other hand might avoid conflict within the GAA Maca .

Conflict can be a good thing sometimes though, some discussion and soul searching within the GAA might be more valuable to the organisation.
And I don't think they should be ordered, not sure if it's right.

If soccer and rugby came into Croke Park by force it would create a very unhealthy situation and I don't think either sport would be that stupid. It would also make the passing of the EU Constitution impossible in Ireland.

The decision is for the GAA to make through its own democratic structure.

Henry - from what I read of the situation by and large there is something akin to partition within the GAA with GAA 26 being less politicised and less hostile to ideas such as changing Rule 21 and Rule 42 ? Is there not a danger that the GAA could split over this if GAA 6 are forced by GAA 26 to end 42?

Davros, I doubt rule 42 would be too much of an issue between the 26 & 6. Rule 21 was a very different story than rule 42. I think.

There is no chance of a split in the GAA over this or any other issue. The situation on Rule 21 was that those people who had most experience of the British forces didn't want them in the organisation and those who had no experience of them were inclined to bow to pressure from the media and the southern political establishment. But there was no suggestion of a split and the decision of the organisation is accepted by everyone in it. As far as I know no members of the British Army have tried to join a GAA club.

To be clear on rule 42 I support change but if an attempt is made to impose change then I will oppose that imposition.

The GAA very recently facilitated the other sports by pretending it would play in a new stadium because the British had imposed that as a condition of it being built.

If the other sports responded to that gesture by using the European Court to gain access to GAA grounds then all bets would be off.

In fairness I don't believe the IRFU or even the FAI are that mad or that stupid.

I'm agianst the changing of rule 42 as i feel our association will not benefit from it in the long run.

However as an analyist, I think it's almost inevitable that the rule will change, mostly likely at the next congress.

By the way, can this European court make me open up my own house to incompetent eejits who I don't like and only want to use my house to help undermine my family?

That's one way of looking at it Patrick. But it's a house that is at least in part paid for out of public funds. Then again, even if it was your "own house" - there are limits to freedom of action.
Could You put up a sign saying "No Blacks" ?

I sort of agree with Patrick. As much as i'd love to see the Irish soccer or rugby teams play in front of a packed Croke Park I fear it could be damaging to the GAA in the long term. Maybe...

Davros.

Re 6 vs 26 - you wish!

Anyway, I'm not a legal expert, but does anyone know which European law on which the GAA might be challenged? I'd like to know exactly what legislation the GAA may or may not be in breach of.

Davros

``But it's a house that is at least in part paid for out of public funds.''

If you live in a Housing Executive house, then it's ENTIRELY paid for by public funds, but if the prime minister - no, the queen herself - came to the door, you are in no way obliged to let her in. You know that.

``Could You put up a sign saying "No Blacks"?

You probably could. You might get into trouble due to incitement to hatred legislation, but if there was no sign - just a general policy - then no-one could challenge you. Fact is, if you own your own property - as the GAA most assuredly is the SOLE legal owner of Croke Park - then you don't have to let ANYONE in if you don't want to.

Jesus, an eccentric billionaire could buy Croke Park and refuse to open it up to anyone - and there wouldn't be a single avenue of legal recourse open to anyone.

So sorry to be the one to apply the pinprick to the bubble of the fantasists, but the magic wand of `Europe' won't sort this issue out. There simply is no way of bypassing the GAA if you want to deal with the issue of Rule 42.

(In fact, when it's put like that, doesn't it strike you that this entire thread is based on the most absurd fantasy that the GAA - the OWNERS of Croke Park - can somehow be removed from the equation?)

- Incidentally, I support the ending of Rule 42 and the opening of Croke Park to soccer and rugby. I also confidently predict that when Congress meets in April this decision will be taken - the time has simply come. But I also believe the GAA has earned the right to make it's own decision, and to tell the begrudgers from the inferior organisations to feck away off with their begging-bowl indignation.

Billy - the article in the SBP explains on what grounds a challenge could be mounted.

If you live in a Housing Executive house, then it's ENTIRELY paid for by public funds, but if the prime minister - no, the queen herself - came to the door, you are in no way obliged to let her in. You know that.

Depends if you are charging for admission or running a business ? If I were to lease a council property and start a business I wouldn't be allowed to operate a "no fenians or blacks employed or served" policy Billy. If I run a hotel same thing applies.

14

Davros

``If I were to lease a council property and start a business I wouldn't be allowed to operate a "no fenians or blacks employed or served" policy Billy. If I run a hotel same thing applies.''

Yes but your analogy is all wrong. NO-ONE is banned from working at or attending Croke Park. The GAA doesn't deny access to Croke Park to any person or group. They simply insist that the GAA should be the only orgnanisation allowed to use GAA facilities in order to do business.

A more accurate analogy would be: if you owned a hotel, should you be expected to allow another hotelier to use your premises so HE can do business?

Say he's offering a good rental fee - the question remains, should you be allowed to decide whether you want to do business with the guy? Are you entitled to decide that you don't want to do the deal? Should a decision be imposed on you by a third party?

Making the analogy with whites-only restaurants or whatever is flawed. When certain sections of society are banned from the stands and terraces then you'll have a point. Until then, it would suit you better to make fair analogies, rather than inaccurate ones that might feel good but are nonetheless based in false premises.

Sorry Billy, You misunderstand me. I was responding to the claim that the owner of a property can do whatever he or she likes with or on that property. Nothing more or nothing less. No need to get snarky mate!

And as regards 6 vs 26 - Maca and others have acknowledged that there are very different attitudes .