32 County Sovereignty Movement 2008 New Year Statement

by jimmy flynn Sun Dec 30, 2007 16:15

Sadly the 32CSM doesnt seem to realise that because they are focused on the irps, Republicans will wisely give it the cold shoulder. being permitted to have a speaker at the irps Bodenstown does not Republican unity make, but perhaps break.

by Kevin Murphy - 32CSM Sun Dec 30, 2007 19:21

The 32CSM has today launched a new document entitled "Dismantling Partition" which can be found here: http://www.freewebs.com/32csmdocuments/dismantlingparti...n.htm

by Gan ainm Tue Jan 01, 2008 13:24

Bring this on the road.

by Barry - 32 csm Thu Jan 03, 2008 00:52

ive no doubt at all it will be brought on the road , thus far its being positively received in many republican quarters although its early days yet .

by Nonrepub Thu Jan 03, 2008 05:27

Aha, I spotted that much used description "the Irish people" in the opening paragraph of their New Year statement: "... intransigent British Government who are unwilling to engage with the Irish people unless they are addressing a British agenda."

Are the incarcerated republicans and their supporters (who didn't get any candidates elected in the 2007 elections) "the Irish people" and the rest of us who don't support them only add-ons? Like extras in a Hollywood bible epic who cheer the gladiators from the circular viewing stands but don't make things happen?

Was the Good Friday Agreement, ratified by 72 per cent in the NI referendum, and by 94 per cent in the republic, "a British agenda"? I thought the Irish Government, the SDLP and Sinn Fein among other interested parties negotiated this agreement and worked for the electoral endorsement represented by the above mentioned voting percentages.

But the issuers of the New Year statement use language in their own way, it seems.

by Barry - 32 county sovereignty movement Thu Jan 03, 2008 10:25

The language of the statement is very clear , concise and to the point . The statement did not purport to be from the Irish people or anything of the kind , It very clearly didnt so I can only assume the author of the above comment is being deliberately dishonest and attempting to confuse readers in his/her insinuation that it did .
Its also very clear that the British governemnt had and has no interest in engaging with the Irish people except on the basis that the British claim of sovereignty over Irish territory be accepted by the Irish people . Otherwise its " out out out" as the lady once said to a miserable garrett . In public too . Another example would be British insistence on cross border security assistance for their troops while simultaneously refusing to assist calls to co-operate with the dublin monaghan investigation .British interests are the only interests the British have any interest in persuing .

As regards being extras in a hollywood epic the description is a bit dramatic , but Irish politics is characterised by the disempowerment of the Irish people as regards the practise of a fully national democracy in their own country, making such a notion subject to whatever undemocratic vetoes a British constitution and British parliamentary activity decide should be in place .

As the negotiations for the GFA proved , the entry fee into the negotiations demanded that the issue of the full and unquestioned legitimacy of British sovereignty in Ireland and the unionist veto be accepted by the participants beforehand , otherwise they were barred from negotiations . This ensured the outcome of the negotiations was itself predetermined by the acceptance of British preconditions . That is clearly a British agenda . Irish people were powerless to change that agenda and sat on looking as spectators as the outcome of negotiatons was decided by British governemnt preconditions beforehand , And as their politicians aquiescence to those preconditions .

and as regards percentages it was a percentage of votes cast and not the overall elecorate . One should be careful with your language . That however did not ultimately prevent the GFA from being set aside and replaced with a later treaty negotiated at some golf club in scotland .

by Ghandi of North Strand Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:17

Nonrepub

For the record the people of the 26 Counties did not vote for or against the agreement, as the agreement was not put before them, they were simply given a choice in relation to one part of it, ie to remove articles 2 & 3 or not.

by ????? - question mark Sat Jan 05, 2008 21:39

gandi is half right and half wrong. The 26 county referendum was in relation to implementing strand 3 of the agreement.

interesting statement by the way. Traditionaly this time of year p ra c ra and ri ra releace there new years statments. Maybe i missed them but haven't heard any so far. could be over reading it. early easter this year. This one is from the 32 county movement and it's calling on people to get involved in S2S and tara etc shows there broadening out, good for them.

thaught the civil war mentality bit was interesting. If there is any members on here whats the position on the threat on martin meheen before he died. Is it a jesuitical in principle (shh) yeah(sHH) in practice, where not that stupid Mi5 are sturring it. or is it a clear yes/ no we support /don't support such actions.

by Nonrepub Sun Jan 06, 2008 01:26

Ah yes, another candidate for the Jesuits, but you'll have to do a gruelling 30-day silent retreat to test your spiritual tenacity before they'll take you. The people of Eire/Ireland voted for the repeal and substitution of Articles 2 & 3 of the 1937 Bunreacht because it was an essential part of the GFA. By voting thus they were voting for the entire Agreement. It was a quid-pro-quo for the British Government repealing the 1920 Government of Ireland Act which brought Northern Ireland into existence.

By changing Arts. 2 and 3 and removing 1920 Act the basis of consent was laid for the eventual unification of Ireland i.e. unity shall be voluntary and not by means of war. The timing of such unity can be left to God, not jesuitical hairsplitters in republican dissident garb.

by Under Whelmed Sun Jan 06, 2008 03:03

"This one is from the 32 county movement and it's calling on people to get involved in S2S and tara etc shows there broadening out,"

In respect to the Tara campaign, apart from a few badly placed words and the means to spot potential future sympathises for their own means, what actually have the republicans brought to this struggle?

by Frank Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:24

The Belfast Agreement, in clause 2, under the heading Constitutional Issues, states: "the participants also note that the two Governments have accordingly undertaken in the context of this comprehensive political agreement, to propose and support changes in, respectively, the Constitution of Ireland and in British legislation relating to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland."

This was an attempt by the two Governments to present the abolition of Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution as a quid pro quo for the removal of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 (known to Irish people as the 'Partition Cut') from the Statute Book. This was a classic case of political deception on the part of Westminster and Leinster House, as it is a basic political and historical fact that, in relation to the partition of Ireland, the 1920 Government of Ireland Act had already been made redundant by subsequent legislation which superimposed it, viz. the 1949 (Ireland) Act, the 1973 Sunningdale Agreement and the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Under the terms of the Government of Ireland Act, it was possible that the constitutional position of the Six Counties could have been changed by legislation at Westminster. The 1949 (Ireland) Act, however, stated that the constitutional position of Northern Ireland (sic). could not be changed without the consent of the majority of the population of Northern Ireland (sic). This in effect was the constitutional embodiment of the Unionist veto. This Act was endorsed by the 1973 Act and further amended by the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement in which for the first time the Dublin Government accepted the legitimacy of partition. The manner in which the Dublin Government, opposition parties and the Northern Nationalist parties, who supported The Belfast Agreement, presented the deletion of Articles 2 and 3 as a quid pro quo for the removal of the Government of Ireland Act of 1920, was nothing less than a confidence trick.

by N. Stein Sun Jan 06, 2008 13:10

I'm sure that the Unionists feel that they've been sold out down the line too.

by Nonrepub Sun Jan 06, 2008 14:11

According to Frank: " The manner in which the Dublin Government, opposition parties and the Northern Nationalist parties, who supported The Belfast Agreement, presented the deletion of Articles 2 and 3 as a quid pro quo for the removal of the Government of Ireland Act of 1920, was nothing less than a confidence trick."

Everybody was deceived except the dissident republican-garbed jesuitical hairsplitters of course. They are the real Irish people and the other 99.98% of us are living on a shamrock mirage. Wave your magic wand hard enough and that mirage will disappear.

I'll stick to reading Harry Potter books. Athbhliain faoi mhaise dibh go leir.

by Frank Sun Jan 06, 2008 17:56

That doesn't address the flaw in your original contention that there was a quid pro quo trade off regarding constitutional claims on the North.