 If Putin Was a 5th Column Traitor, What ... Mon Oct 03, 2022 08:47 | Anti-Empire
Fall of Liman Shows the Trajectory of Wa... Sun Oct 02, 2022 17:21 | Anti-Empire
Defender of Liberal Order No More, Russi... Sat Oct 01, 2022 16:03 | Anti-Empire
Nord Stream Explosion Removes the Chance... Wed Sep 28, 2022 22:24 | Anti-Empire
The Dysfunction of Russian Mobilization ... Tue Sep 27, 2022 14:41 | Anti-Empire Anti-Empire >>
A bird's eye view of the vineyard
Update from Andrei (hopefully the last related to Hurricane Ian) Mon Oct 03, 2022 20:10 | The Saker
Dear friends This will be my last hurricane-related post (God willing!). Tomorrow my family and I will finish moving the objects we can salvage from the house. But on Wednesday
Update from Andrei Sat Oct 01, 2022 21:36 | The Saker
Dear friends We found a home to stay. We have workable Internet. Best of all, a neighbor told us that in his opinion our house might be fixable, but it
?Biden? Fulfilled a Promise on Nord Stream 2 Sat Oct 01, 2022 20:48 | Leo V.
For those who haven’t seen this footage being reposted the past few days, ”Biden” promised to put an end to Nord Stream 2 on February 7, 2022.
Moveable Feast Cafe 2022/10/01 ? Open Thread Sat Oct 01, 2022 05:30 | herb
2022/10/01 04:30:01Welcome to the ‘Moveable Feast Cafe’. The ‘Moveable Feast’ is an open thread where readers can post wide ranging observations, articles, rants, off topic and have animate discussions of
Update from Andrei Fri Sep 30, 2022 17:57 | The Saker
My family and I are all safe. Our house flooded and is uninhabitable so we will have to relocate for a few months. I hope to return to at least The Saker >>
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
Formal complaint against Robert Watt Anthony
RTE bias complaint Anthony
Fergus Finlay and the maternity hospital ‘gotcha’ trap Anthony
Irish Examiner and fake news Anthony
Labour Party: The unvarnished truth Anthony Public Inquiry >>
A Blog About Human Rights
UN human rights chief calls for priority action ahead of climate summit Sat Oct 30, 2021 17:18 | Human Rights
5 Year Anniversary Of Kem Ley?s Death Sun Jul 11, 2021 12:34 | Human Rights
Poor Living Conditions for Migrants in Southern Italy Mon Jan 18, 2021 10:14 | Human Rights
Right to Water Mon Aug 03, 2020 19:13 | Human Rights
Human Rights Fri Mar 20, 2020 16:33 | Human Rights Human Rights in Ireland >>
|
32 County Sovereignty Movement 2008 New Year Statement
 national |
miscellaneous |
press release
 Sunday December 30, 2007 15:53 by Kevin Murphy - 32 County Sovereignty Movement sarmagh32csm at hotmail dot com
32 County Sovereignty Movement
2008 New Year Statement In extending New Years greetings to the Irish people at home and abroad let us reflect on the past year to help us move forward in the new. We extend also greetings to all republican prisoners of war (POW’S) who find themselves incarcerated in gaol because of an intransigent British Government who are unwilling to engage with the Irish people unless they are addressing a British agenda. From our perspective the Republican Unity Initiative formed a major plank of our strategic efforts to advance the restoration of our National Sovereignty. The 32CSM approached this vital area in an incremental manner so as to maximize inclusivity amongst other republican organizations. We deliberately chose a private route to engagement with other republicans given the British and media efforts to deliberately misrepresent what the Republican Unity Initiative was trying to achieve. We first circulated a discussion document simply titled Republican Unity to give a degree of focus to a debate which was already well underway within the broad republican base. As interest in the initiative grew and formal meetings were arranged the 32CSM put forward a proposal titled Preparing An Irish Democracy which was intended to act as a mechanism within which all republican organizations could collectively draft a republican blueprint of the independent Ireland we envisaged. Reaction to the initiative was predictably cautious but the mixed to poor result showing in what was ostensibly a referendum on British Policing in Ireland conclusively demonstrated that Irish republicanism needs a political initiative to move it on from its inert state. On the back of an IRSM proposal a Unity Commemoration was held at Bodenstown to honour Wolfe Tone which was widely received as a very positive development.
To augment our existing proposals and to build on this positivity the 32CSM now launch Dismantling Partition, A Unified Republican Approach.. Here we outline where and how we believe this project should develop. We introduce timeframes and achievable goals coupled with a realistic appraisal of our current strengths. But as with our previous proposals the 32CSM strongly urge a parallel response from other republicans so as to make the Republican Unity Initiative truly representative of the broad republican family. 2008 will offer republicans an opportunity to both consolidate and advance our goals and the 32CSM herein publicly declare our intention of working tirelessly to achieve this end.
The 32CSM strongly believes in political engagement with our opponents. We have sought this engagement on a number of fronts but focused squarely around the issue of our national sovereignty. Through this engagement we have sought to advise that national sovereignty is not confined to the national question as that pertains to partition but to all other questions of national concern. Issues such as Shell To Sea and the Save Tara project are all urgent matters of national sovereignty and as such are deserving of intense republican involvement. The impending EU Constitution referendum in the twenty six counties is one such issue that deserves republican attention. Whether it is called Constitution, Treaty or whatever its essential components remain the same. The 32CSM communicated with a variety of republican and nationalist organizations with a view to citing Partition as valid grounds for its rejection. We circulated Six Points of Objection that we believed could form the basis of a strong separatist No Campaign without alienating other valid objections which may also exist. The 32CSM will be pursuing this correspondence in 2008 seeking definitive responses to our circular.
Following on from our AGM in December the incoming National Executive will be tasked with implementing the changes and policies mandated by that AGM. These will include political policies as outlined above, organizational changes and proposals for updating our print and electronic publications as well as the launch of our newly revamped website. We look forward to the challenges we have set ourselves.
Again we have it demonstrated that British Policing in Ireland will never change no matter what titles are invoked and no matter how many token nationalists sit on token Policing Boards. The Hoey debacle laid bare both the unchanging nature of British policing and the facile arguments from those who would plead with us that it can.
Notwithstanding the importance of these issues and their relevance to Irish republicanism the 32CSM is of the firm belief that the most salient issue which will face republicans in the coming year will be the issue of criminalisation. We say this because those in the driving seat of this policy are Provisional Sinn Fein, acting under obligation to the agreements which they entered into with both governments. History, both ancient and modern, has taught us that the occupier will always covet an indigenous political voice to do its dirty work. PSF have stepped into this breech. Following recent acts of armed insurgency there came an almost panicked response from the PSF leadership. They publicly called for informers to be activated against insurgent forces claiming a lack of electoral mandate invalidated their right to rebel. The glaring hypocrisy of this stance was designed to distract republicans from the fact that it was political challenges to the PSF position which forced this outburst and not merely criticism of them.
We have sought engagement with PSF since 2005 wherein the 32CSM were greeted with duplicity, subterfuge and lies. Our persistence however has been rewarded with the political exposure as to exactly what signing the Good Friday Agreement entails for them. Whereas political criticism theorizes, political challenges demonstrate. These challenges must continue, and emanate from broader quarters, because the resources behind the criminalisation policy far exceed the resources of those whom the policy is directed against. As before when the British government were the direct vanguard for this policy manipulation, deceit and murder were the hallmarks of this campaign. Coupled with a media who afford republicans scant exposure to air our views the only resources open to Irish republicanism are those which we already possess and the argument for republican cooperation on this issue is self evident. The policy of criminalisation will pay scant heed to technical differences of position amongst us as it seeks a broad labeling for those opposed to the current political direction.
The emergence of seemingly new armed groups making threats of a kind which give succour to the PSF call for informers is yet another dimension of this dirty war. All of this requires a political response from Irish republicans which removes any semblance of cover or distraction for any group pursuing the criminalisation agenda. There can be no place within republicanism for a civil war mentality. Such a mentality is a British device. The 32CSM response is first and foremost a call on PSF to forward to us their alleged written response to our Submission to them in 2005 and for them to outline the lawful basis upon which they call for informers to be activated against those who struggle against British Parliamentary activity in our country. We respond also by seeking engagement with other republicans on the national issues which are relevant to our struggle. And we respond by stating that we will never allow the republican struggle to be criminalized no matter how treacherous the status of those who would try.
|
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (14 of 14)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14Sadly 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.
The 32CSM has today launched a new document entitled "Dismantling Partition" which can be found here: http://www.freewebs.com/32csmdocuments/dismantlingparti...n.htm
Bring this on the road.
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 .
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.
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 .
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.
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.
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.
"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?
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.
I'm sure that the Unionists feel that they've been sold out down the line too.
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.
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.