Exactly. Well said.

Again, this makes no sense. There is no logic.

How can GB and Ireland represent the sovereign state of the UK, but not the sovereign state of the Republic of Ireland?

You do realise that the term "Great Britain" is just an island, like Ireland is just an island.

Therefore, the term "Great Britain & Ireland" either represents two separate islands (so no sovereign nations), or the two sovereign nations that encompass them. You can't just pick one and say the other isn't a part of it any more than you can pick the other. It is completely illogical (especially as saying it represents the UK and the island of Ireland means you've included NI twice).

You do also realise that the term "Eire" (misspelled) can mean both the Republic of Ireland and/or the island of Ireland (including NI).

The term "Great Britain and Ireland" refers either to two islands, or the two states encompassing them. What you have said is just daft.


So it's pointless and achieves nothing.


How? Because their national sides aren't good enough?

In the period of 2011-2013, Wales will have played in the highest competition available to them. They're hardly being excluded.

And what of France? No one seems to care about them. They're "excluded" (translation: haven't been good enough to qualify) from the 4N sometimes.

It's the nature of sport. Does having England rather than Europe lack incentives for players and development in France, Italy, etc? How far do you go with this?

If Wales, Ireland and Scotland want to incentivise playing for their nations, try need to increase the development there, increase their competitiveness in the competitions they're in and move up the international RL ladder. They do not and should not need a pseudo-national team one step above them to provide them with heritage players. France don't have that luxury. Neither does any other nation.

If you read my posts, you'd see that I'm not actually that bothered about Cektic Tigers, and don't see a need for them at this time. I just see their inclusion being as logical as the inclusion of GB and Ireland.

So it's you that has missed the point.


You're confusing your opinion with fact. Not everyone loves GB. Get over it.

To argue that everyone loves GB as a point to bring then back shows your lack of arguing ability. It is as affective as me arguing that "everyone loves England so keep them!"

Everyone does love GB though, there's a century of tradition behind the rivalry. You're basically arguing that the sky isn't blue...

Come up for air Wellsy, you've lost sight of where up+down is.

The OP doesn't. I don't. The vast majority of people discussing the GB subject on TotalRL.com don't.

So again, if that's your only argument, you really are going to struggle as everybody doesn't love GB. You're trying to claim a fact that is just an opinion, and actually the fact is that everybody doesn't love GB. Some people do, some people don't.

And the sky is grey from where I'm looking!

oh i love GB... i cried when we won in sydney in 2006,i own many a GB jersey...i own 3 of the "classics" jersey from 2001-2003 lol...but i'm also a internationalist,i see the value of having 4 home nations in the spot light.....but now i don't see GB being of any value until it contains actual english,scots & welsh (ireland want nothing to do with GB btw)......the whole point of "combination sides" like GB, the union lions & barbarians..is that they are a sum of their parts..ie players from multiple nations becoming as one!


people are forgeting why we became,firstly,northern union 13, then the lions,then GB (late 1940s)...its so england could beneift the welsh & odd scots union coverts....GB now and for the next generation won't contain any genuine welsh or scots players(or irish that won't be playing for GB anyway)....thats why bringing GB back is pointless.....yet a celtic tigers combination team for welsh,scots & irish players makes more sense.



and to that aussie who keeps saying the aussie public have no interest in seeing england.........2 things...the biggest cricket series you play is against england.......and you RL commentators always called GB " the english" anyway...lol

Because the Ireland side, isn’t the national side of the ROI. It is the representative side of the Island of Ireland.
It is referred to as GB for ease of use. Like the Team GB Olympic team


We are including NI twice, because they are eligible as British Citizens and also as representatives of the island of Ireland.

This is what you are not seeming to understand. The Ireland in the GB&I doesn’t refer to the Republic. It isn’t GB (inc NI) and the Republic of Ireland. It is GB as a nation, and Ireland as a representative side of the island of Ireland.
Thats a nice peice of pointless trivia you've invluded.
Why you insist on this false dichotomy i dont know.
Or it refers to the country of Great Britain, and the Rugby League team Ireland (which isnt a sovereign nation but a representative side of ROI and NI) Which is what it is, because thats what it does.
No more pointless than the England side not having representatives from everywhere in England
Because they dont play them.

Yes, that two year period is entirely representative. Problem Solved!!

France should play more games aswell. As for your dig about them not being good enough to qualify. Remind me what England do to qualify?

You go forever. England, Aus and NZ arent the be all and end all of international RL. It doesnt start and stop with them. Everyone, should play everyone else.
Its not about providing them with Heritage players. Its not about incentivising them. Its about Rhys Evans having the choice the play for the land of his birth in irregular 2nd tier competition, or playing for England in regular top tier competition. The choice should be England or Wales, which do you feel you represent best and thats it.

Yes it is, because England is a national side, not an amalgamation of several national sides. By your reasoning we might as well create an 'England, Singapore and Bermuda' combination team, all the players would be from England but that would be ok because the England team doesn't contain players from every region.
Don't play what? If Ireland or Scotland had won the European Cup, they would have played in the Four Nations. The fact that they didn't do so is irrelevant, they now have the same opportunities as every other nation whereas they didn't before.
You said that Wales and other nations were being excluded from top-level internationals. This is clearly not the case.
It's not a 'dig' at France to say they weren't good enough to qualify, they didn't win the European Cup which was clearly designated as a 4N qualifying tournament. I don't particularly like the fact that England, Australia and NZ are afforded a higher status but it's logical, we can't have a 20 nations competition that everyone automatically takes part in every year and IIRC England, NZ and Australia are the owners of the 4N concept. The World Cup is a different story where everyone should have to qualify.
Agreed. This is not consistent at all with bringing back GB. Bringing back GB creates disparity and segregation within the international game that is not there currently.
If Rhys Evans had chosen Wales, he would have played in the exact same competitions and had the exact same opportunities as with England. The fact that he didn't is his problem.

:3isutjg4Only if we fundementally misunderstood ther relationship between England, The UK and the UK Crown Dependancies. :3isutjg4Australia, England, and NZ dont play Ireland, Scotland and Wales in regular top tier internationals.

:3isutjg4We dont need to. Nor do we need to have a 4 nations every year. Nor do we have to treat games against Wales, Scotland and Ireland as warm ups. I wouldn’t want a twenty team tournament every year. I just don’t think that games against England, Australia, and NZ being a ‘reward’ for other nations is right. I don’t think it sets the right tone, I don’t think it treats countries equally. International RL is international RL whether it is England v Australia or Wales v Serbia. It is as important that England play Wales regularly, as it is that England play Australia regularly and that goes for every nation.

That two year period isnt representative of international RL. It doesnt acheive anything to pretend it was. GB isnt a replacement for Wales, Ireland, Scotland or England. It is in adittion to it.

I don't want to get into that. The fact is that if we accept England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland as national teams, then GB is effectively an amalgamation of national teams. And if that amalgamation contains players from only one of the four national teams involved then there really isn't any point, we might as well just play as that one national team.
They don't play Lebanon or Canada either. The point is that all the nations have the opportunity to reach that level. The fact that they don't is because they are not good enough on the field. In football, Wales do not regularly play at the World Cup because they aren't good enough to warrant that status, that's just the way sport is. If Scotland RL found 20 world class players, under the current system they would play regular top-tier internationals. Just as France, Italy or anyone else would. And if they were unable to do so, then the system would need to be changed, but it would need to be a system that was fair and relevant to all nations. 'Bringing back GB' doesn't help anything in this regard.
I agree completely, and again that is totally inconsistent with the idea of bringing back GB and relegating the likes of Wales and Ireland to second-tier status.
It's evidence that nations are not being excluded. Obviously England are more likely to play in bigger matches and win trophies, because RL is much bigger in England than it is in Wales, you will never get a fair comparison between the two for that reason. If someone like Evans wants to abandon his nation in favour of playing in bigger games then there isn't really much we can do. It's the same situation as Uate and Australia, should we create a combined 'Aus-Fiji' team so he can play for both? What needs to be done is to bring in standardised international payments so there is no financial benefit from committing to a certain nation, and of course the whole structure of the RLIF and governance of the international game needs to be reformed. But I don't see how bringing back GB helps in any way or achieves anything other than muddying the waters.

GB isnt an amalgamation of 4 (or 5) national sides. It is GB in and of its own right. It doesnt matter if all the best players are English, just like it wouldnt matter if we had an England side solely represented by players from the North.

They should.again, international RL is the aim, whether that be between Scotland and Norway or England V Australia. Beating England, Australia, and NZ isnt the aim. International RL is. We need to get away from looking at the international game as Australia, England, NZ and then everyone else. These teams have a right to compete. They have a right to test themselves against any other nation, and you are right 'Bringing back GB' doesnt help in this regard, nor does it hinder, but that isnt the reason for bringing back GB. Bringing back GB would always have to be in addition to this.

But it doesnt have to.
GB isn’t instead of Wales, Scotland and Ireland any more that it is instead of England. It is in addition to them.
It isnt, it is an unrepresentative small sample.If fiji were playing regular international competition then (forgetting origin) Uate would likely be playing for them. THere is something we can do, there is something obvious that we can do. Play more international competition.

For me GB is practical more than romantic. Scotland, Wales, Ireland aren’t likely to tour Australia anytime soon. They cant afford it, and if they could the money would probably be better spent elsewhere. That’s where GB comes in, as a touring side. I would include them in the four nations as well, but I think that happens too often at the moment and it dominates international competition too much

I aren't talking about the Ireland national side. I'm talking about the Great Britain & Ireland Lions side.
The Lions aren't just GB. They include Ireland as a whole. I'm not sure if you realise this, and the more you talk about it, it appears you think that the Republic of Ireland aren't included in the Lions side. They are. Brian Carney was from the Republic of Ireland. He represented the Great Britain & Ireland Lions.

It is referred to GB because it is easier. It is NOT like the Team GB side. Team GB don't represent the Republic of Ireland. The Lions (in both union and league) do, as well as the UK.



British Isles = Great Britain (island) and Ireland (island). The Lions are not the team of the UK alone.
Therefore, the Lions represent TWO sovereign states. It really isn't that difficult.


Well you appeared to be trying to use it as some way of distinguishing between Republic of Ireland and the island of Ireland, which was pointless.


Great Britain isn't a country. It's an island.
Ireland isn't a country. It's an island.
Just because you keep repeating this, it won't make it any more true.

The UK is a country. It is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The Lions are an amalgamation of the two islands of Great Britain and Ireland. They make up the British Isles, which is why the badge says "British Isles XIII". It is a representative side of two sovereign nations. That is a fact. It's not opinion.


I'll agree to disagree on the rest, because we'll just go round in circles and it's based on opinions mainly.
But the earlier part of your post is just plain incorrect.

Wrong.


You think England, Australia and New Zealand should play against a team of mainly amateurs on a regular basis? Not only is that a poor idea financially, it's bloody dangerous for the players!
I played in a game against a Maltese rep side last year, which included a lot of the Maltese internationals. We won. I now play in a side that are bottom of the Hull & District Division 1 league, so I'm hardly some high level player. To put recommend that that side plays the best teams in the world (and on a regular basis) is irresponsible and would do nothing but potentially injure a lot of players who simply are not at a level anywhere near good enough to play a side that much physically better. It's a ridiculous suggestion.

Not only that, it is pretty much impossible to play ALL international teams on a regular basis. There simply isn't enough time in the season.


They have to earn that right, just like any other nation. Brazil don't play American Samoa regularly in football, nor should they.
They can attempt to arrange friendlies if they like. There's nothing stopping that happening. But if they want to be involved in competitions, they need to earn the right to get there.

It's as much an amalgamation as a 'Europe' team would be. Regardless, if England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland are national teams, then GB would be a super-national entity. And I'm not a fan of anything other than national teams taking part in international competition. I wouldn't be a fan of an Anzac side, or a Pacific Islands side or a 'Celtic Tigers' side for the same reason, because it muddies the waters. And if you consider GB to be a national side, then again that causes problems because we have interchangeable national teams and players automatically qualifying for more than one nation, it just creates a mess, we need a standardized international setup. If we accept England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland as independent entities in RL terms (which we do, given their separate governing bodies and memberships of the RLEF), then they should compete as such.
Agreed. This is why the RLIF needs to be urgently reformed. However, I'm not sure it would have made any difference in Uate's case. Fiji are less likely than Australia to play in major international matches just because of the difference between the two nations. Australia have a good chance of making the World Cup final, Fiji have less of a chance. The same goes for Rhys Evans with England. This happens in all sports, in football we see African players committing to nations like France because they are more likely to play in big games, it's something that is unavoidable.
When is the last time anyone 'toured' anywhere? Tours are archaic. I'm not against the idea of GB being used as a touring side every so often, but I don't really see a situation where that would need to occur. As things stand, we are set to play a Northern Hemisphere 4N, a Southern Hemisphere 4N and a WC in a four-yearly cycle. I agree that nations other than England, Australia and NZ should be given more opportunities and be playing more regular, high-profile internationals, but the matches between England, NZ and Australia are the biggest money-spinners for the international game and so it's logical for them to dominate the international calendar at the moment.

Spot on, the home nations will only be taken seriously by the populace of those countries when we have players born in and speaking with the accents of those places, yes 2 or 3 ' ringers ' with an Aussie twang is probably acceptable, but ultimatly real Welsh,Scots and Irish

As for combination teams? , no, the only potential one would be the ' Exiles ' ,IMO of course, I can see the benifit of them

I really hope you're not referring to me.
If you are maybe you should go back and actually read what I've posted because not once have I said anything about England...

Online forums are tiny minority of fans though, even then it's what, a few people in one or two threads. Hardly an overwhelming majority of posters on either site.

GB is a loved brand. Go post on any Aus/NZ forum or email the media people in Aus/NZ or talk to the ARL. See what they want and if anyone at all cares if GB has one non-English player or 13. It makes no difference to the fans if Scotland has a pro team or not.

British RL fans are kind of known for their navel gazing and imo this whole topic is missing the point, which is that fans love GB tours and the players love GB tours. A couple of dozen posters on internet forums won't change that...

You seem to assume that the only people that prefer the England brand are the ones that post about it online, and everyone else is staunchly in favour of GB. Can't you just accept that there are a lot of people that prefer how it is now, and it has made very little difference to our national set up except a different shirt and badge.

As for the Aussies loving the British brand, yeah right! They barely know the difference in the media! The amount of times I heard commentators calling GB "England" and "the English".

Instead of trying to tell me that everyone loves GB and trying to argue a majority you can't prove to be some kind of fact, why don't you try and use some logic as to why it's better to have GB rather than England?

but GB won't contain ANY welsh,scots or irish

The ROI arent in the GB&I side. The entire island of Ireland is. It was a deliberate distinction which was chosen because of the political situation there.

we dont a GB&ROI do we. We dont have GB&NI either. We have GB&I because we arent referring to the country ROI, we are referring to the rep side Ireland. It is exactly like Team GB because it was the national team of the UK, then we added the rep team of Ireland in aswell.

No it was the national side of the country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and NI and was for 80+ years before we added the rep side of Ireland.
No i was using it to distinguish between the north and the republic and the island as a whole. The context made it pretty clear for anyone but a moron.

Great Britain is a country, i am citizen of it. I am a British Citizen, I have a British passport check your history. More pertinently check your rugby league history. In our game, our national side for the vast majority of our games history was the GB side. Their flag was the union flag, their anthem was God save the queen, and they included players from all over the UK. Northern Irish players have always been eligible. Like Team GB, the GB lions were a UK representative side. The reason they were called GB is for ease of use, and that GB can be used, and often is, as a synonym for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (as is 'the uk') Until and Ireland was added Brian Carney, who, as a citizen of the ROI didnt qualify for GB, did as a member of the Island of Ireland rep side.

No, it is opinion. The GB lions had a British Isles X111 on their crest for about 80 years when players from the republic werent eligible. Back when the GB lions were the national side of the UK.
This is what you seem to have missed completely. GB was the national side. It was the UK's national side. It included NI. It always did. It was created to represent that nation. Not the republic.

The fact it represents one nation, the nation it always represented, the United Kingdom of GB and Northern Ireland, and one rep side, a whole of Ireland side, is a deliberate choice. It is a deliberate decision that neither Northern Ireland, nor the Sovereign nation of the Republic of Ireland are mentioned.

Just as another example for you, Rory McIlroy will likely represent Team GB at the 2016 olympics, he represents the all Ireland team at the golf World Cup, and represent GB&I in the Seve Trophy. Or Paul Mcginley who would play for the Republic of Ireland in the olympics, Ireland in the Alfred Dunhill cup and GB&I in the Seve trophy.

And they do, and would compete as such. There is no reason to pretend that anyone who is English is anymore English than they are British. I would have no problem with a 'European' team playing an 'Australasian' side. Anzac, Pacific Isles, and Celtic tigers would be different.
Fiji are less likely to play in major international matches because they are included in fewer major international tournaments. That is the main reason. One of the things international football gets right, is that every two years, the clock is reset. It doesnt matter if you are france, Germany, Brazil, or Ecuador, San Marino or the Ivory Coast. You start back at the same point, with regular competitive international football. Everyone starts back at the same point. Which massively limits the impact compared to RL
2007 isnt that long ago and Tours would solve that problem. A four year cycle leaves a year, a year for a Tour. A year when GB and france can tour the Southern hemisphere, playing against the pacific island sides in their homes, and Aus NZ or Aus, nZ and a pac isles team can come north and play the home nations and france.

Does the island of Ireland not include the Republic of Ireland? The Lions represent the ROI, and the UK. It really isn't that difficult. To say that GB&I doesn't include the ROI is just plain incorrect.


We don't have a GB&ROI because that would be stupid. It would exclude NI.
GB&NI would be the UK, which is a sovereign nation. Team GB are actually the Great Britain & Northern Ireland Olympic Team. Team GB is just its brand name. It's just easier to say. It has evolved from the time they have entered the Olympics being called "Great Britain & Ireland". Why they were entered as that back in the 19th century and not UK I don't know. The region has that many different names and been through that many transitions.

When saying GB&I, we are referring to the countries in these regions. Great Britain was the brand, and still is. They didn't want to drop that part of the brand, and added the rest necessary to keep it whilst still representing the areas. GB&I represent the UK and the ROI combined. There is no denying this. This is a fact. British Isles XIII, as it says on the badge, is the islands of Great Britain and Ireland combined. It encompasses two sovereign nations. It represents these two sovereign nations. To say that it doesn't is just plain incorrect.

"Great Britain" may be used loosely to describe the UK, but it isn't correct. GB is just England, Scotland and Wales.


Have you just made that up? 80 years ago we were just called The Lions. Before that, we were the Northern Union. Australia weren't even Australia a lot of the time. They toured as Australasia and included Kiwi players. They weren't Great Britain until the late 40s.

They didn't just add the rep side of Ireland, they added the correct tag that would allow them to keep Great Britain in the name.


I understood it. It was just completely pointless to use a word that can represent both to distinguish from the two!


No it bloody isn't! It's an island that includes England, Wales and Scotland. Until you can understand this, you are forever digging yourself a whole. It is loosely, but incorrectly, used to mean United Kingdom.


You are not. You are a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.


British and Irish nationality laws are very complex. Being a British citizen means you hold a connection with the UK and the crown dependencies. being an Irish citizen means you hold a connection with the island of Ireland. Being born in Northern Ireland means you can hold both British and Irish citizenship.
By saying being British means Britain is a country would also mean that being Irish means Ireland is a country. Both are wrong. Neither Great Britain or Ireland are countries.


Yes you're right. GB was for ease of use, as that is what it was originally called. It's easier than saying GB&I. GB is often used, incorrectly, to mean the UK.
Brian Carney qualified for the team that represented him, Great Britain & Ireland. The fact that you think GB is a country is why you are struggling to understand the rest of this. You need to be either a British citizen or an Irish citizen. If they made a Pacific Isles team, it would be a similarly contrived multi-national rep side. It really isn't that difficult.


Did the GB Lions have a British Isles XIII crest for 80 years? I'm pretty certain it was added in the late 90s. Most of the shirts in the 90s didn't have "British Isles XIII" on it. And 80 years ago the team were just the Lions, not GB.


Yes, to keep the GB brand. What you are saying is that the side added a second sovereign nation, ROI, and used the correct terminolgy to keep the name Great Britain (the brand) in the title. I can't believe you're still trying to dig yourself into this hole.


Rory McIlroy (Belfast born) represents Team GB (officially called the Great Britain & Northern Ireland Olympic team) is hardly a shock.
It is also hardly a shock that he would represent an All Ireland side, being Irish.
It is also hardly a shock that he would represent a GB&I side, being from Ireland.
What is your point here?

Paul McGinley (Dublin born) represents Ireland at the Olympics is also hardly hard to comprehend.
Nor is it that he represents Ireland in the Alfred Dunhill Cup.
Or GB&I in the Seve Trophy.
He is Irish. He qualifies for them all.
I don't get what you're trying to prove here, other than an Irishman represents an Irish side, and also a GB&I side. None of them are nations. They are geographical areas which he represents.

You've written a lot of b*llocks on here to try and argue something that just isn't true. Great Britain isn't a country. It hasn't been since 1801. The fact it used to be a country and is used to describe a geographical area is most likely why people still refer to the nation. But it is incorrect.

The Lions do not represent one country alone. They are a multinational side (which includes the UK and ROI).
These are facts. These aren't opinions. I'm not surprised though that you keep dragging this on though as you can never admit when you get something wrong.

No, it deliberately doesnt. It includes an all-ireland side. One which doesnt represent either the ROI or NI, but the Island of Ireland. There are some pretty obvious reasons why somoene from NI wouldnt want to play for a team which represented the ROI and vice versa.

Exactly like the GB lions.
Why you keep equating ‘ireland’ with the republic of Ireland, I don’t know. It clearly isn’t.
If people understand it, it is correct. It is the beauty of the English language, it keeps evolving.
My apologies, we have been GB since the 1940’s. which is 65 years ago, not 80+, that makes a huge difference.
No, according to your logic, the name would GB and NI and ROI because that is where it represents. But it doesn’t, because it isn’t. It is called GB and I a team of people eligible to represent Great Britain, including those from Northern Ireland, as it was before and those eligible to represent the all Ireland team.
Except you understood it. If you understood it, it acheived its aim perfectly.

No, it can be used to describe sovereign nation of Great Britain and often is, as you yourself admit.

Yes, I am a citizen of the UK, GB, The united Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They can all be used to describe the same thing.

Thanks for this, I, along surely with everyone else was wondering what citizenship meant. Erm, no it doesnt.

Except it wasnt GB&I originally. The I was added later, and yes, it is a good thing you have accepted that GB is often used, for ease of use, to mean the UK, those two abbreviations can mean the same thing.
Brian Carney wasnt eligible because he isnt British. He can however represent the Island of Ireland, not the ROI because there is no ROI team, there is no ROI RL administration. There is an all-Ireland administration and all-ireland rep side. Which is what made Carney eligible.

.And.........

No, Im not. What im saying, is what I said originally. That GB & NI are a sovereign nation, and the GB Lions were the national side of that nation. However, NI is now administered as part of an all-ireland RL league and representative side. Ireland. This encompases Northern Ireland and The Republic of Ireland but for obvious political reasons isn’t either or both. It is a rep side, for the Island of Ireland, not the de factor ROI side. So what the GB&I side was referring to, deliberately, was the former national side of GB&NI ‘the GB Lions’, and the all-Ireland rep side.
It is simply an analogue to this situation. Where the Ireland in GB&I doesn’t refer to the republic but to the all-ireland side they both represent.
I honestly don’t know how to explain this any simpler for you. There was and is a deliberate decision for Ireland to be administered and represented on an all Ireland basis, where it represents no sovereign nation but the Island of Ireland to avoid any political considerations, and this is what forms the ‘ireland’ in GB and Ireland, it isn’t meant as another name for the republic. GB was the national side for the UK, for ease of use it was referred to as GB. These teams were then merged. This is why we have one nation GB (which was used as an analogue of GB, as you admit) and one island, Ireland.

If the Autumn International summary has been moved to International board, can this one go the same way?

The dissection of some posts is so very tedious.

I've cut out the parts where you're just repeating the same incorrect nonsense and thought if look at your new ways of digging yourself further into the wrong:


Not really my logic at all. However, it is exactly the same as saying GB & I. It's exactly the same as saying British Isles. And it's exactly the same as the UK& ROI. But they wanted to keep GB in the title, and GB & I is shorter.


In spite of, not because of. Don't pat yourself on the back.


Absolute nonsense. Earlier in this thread, you were (incorrectly) accused me of calling the ROI "Ireland" (when really you were confusing GB as meaning the UK). Many people refer to the ROI as Ireland. Does that make it correct? Because you've just tried telling me off for it, which is a huge contradiction on your part!

Maybe, just maybe, you are wrong on this and you're being disingenuous in trying to convince me that I'm wrong to save yourself the blushes.

Apparently if people keep saying things incorrectly, it's correct? So the fact that so many refer to the UK as England means Scotland and Wales are also England. That's what you're saying.

Great Britain is not a country. It's an island.