Whatevr happened to the 32 county sovereignty?

Colonel Sanders

Just after finsihing reading Peter taylor's book 'Provos'. The issue i have was published before the omagh bombing and he makes references to to the 32 county sovereignty committe and the RIRA in the final chapters. Whatever became of this crowd? Are they still keeping their heads down after the omagh bombing?

Shutuplaura

they are still knocking about as far as i know. they have a website:

http://www.32csm.org/home.html

They claim to be vibrant and growing but I'd take it with a pinch of salt...

quirk.

The 32 County Sovereignty Movement are growing in the wake of the total capitulation by the provisional movement. Republicanism has taken a long time to recover after the massive setback which was the GFA but the recovery has began and no doubt will continue. I believe that the 32CSM will be at the forefront of this.

Fenian

They are growing. A Cumann was formed in Cork last year.

They recently held a unity conference with the IRSP and an ex-POW group (Republicans Network for Unity) to discuss areas of common interest.

They also held their annual Wolfe Tone commemoration with the IRSP and the ex-POW group.

Heres a short video of the leadership of the 32CSM.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=O-MLDyLJQpY

mike65

Is this a discussion thread or 32CSM pimpage?

Mike.

Colonel Sanders

Fenian wrote:

They recently held a unity conference with the IRSP and an ex-POW group (Republicans Network for Unity) to discuss areas of common interest.

If its the same 'unity' the IRSP/INLA and the official IRA showed each other when Seamus Costello was calling for a united front of all republican groups against British rule we are in for some interesting times.

silverharp

when your ideas have the support of .1% of the population isn't it time to shut up shop. At best these clowns are a parody of the Life of Brian self styled Peoples front of Judea. At worst they are another death cult that will manage to kill some innocent shoppers going about their business.

Fenian

Colonel Sanders wrote:

If its the same 'unity' the IRSP/INLA and the official IRA showed each other when Seamus Costello was calling for a united front of all republican groups against British rule we are in for some interesting times.

There has never been any animosity between the IRSP and the 32CSM.
Both groups recognize that they differ somewhat on an idealistic level, but they are willing to discuss areas of agreement rather than focusing on idealistic differences.

Neither group feel threatened by the other. They both realize that by focusing on areas of agreement they can begin to revitalize and advance Republicanism.

It must be noted that RSF were also invited to the conference, but didn't send any representatives. At their last Ard Fheis they voted against any sort of united front initiative.

quirk.

silverharp wrote:

when your ideas have the support of .1% of the population isn't it time to shut up shop. At best these clowns are a parody of the Life of Brian self styled Peoples front of Judea. At worst they are another death cult that will manage to kill some innocent shoppers going about their business.

The 32CSM is a political organisation which struggles to achieve it's objectives through peaceful means. Instead of talking rubbish why don't you criticise their policies. And as for them shutting up because they have little support do you think Pearse and Connolly should have just done the same back in 1916.

oscarBravo

quirk. wrote:

And as for them shutting up because they have little support do you think Pearse and Connolly should have just done the same back in 1916.

Yes.

Colonel Sanders

The IRSP are a non entity IMO and if they still have links to the INLA (who are nothing but drug dealing thugs and scumbags masquerading as militant republicans) they don't even deserve discussion.

No doubt the 32CSM will see exponential growth over the next 2-3 years. Their number of supporters will probably rise for 4-5 to at least 30

silverharp

quirk. wrote:

And as for them shutting up because they have little support do you think Pearse and Connolly should have just done the same back in 1916.

That is a false argument, the turn of the 20th C had all kinds of reasons why there was the potential for constitutional change in Ireland, none of these exist now. If after the peace process has been completed and your views have little to no support, you are going nowhere. I would give you 100/1 that any of these organisations will ever get an elected TD/MLA in the next50 years

Colonel Sanders

Exactly. I'm sure the combined support base of the IRSP/32CSM/RSF is less than 0.5% of the population of the island of Ireland. However I don't underestimate them, in the danger they pose of their likelihood for trying to make a balls of the peace process. When the likes of Marion Price are supporting them a few other fringe hardliners will surely follow.

The bottom line is violence will not remove Britain from Northern Ireland and the vast, vast, vast majority of the people of Ireland both north and south would not in a million years want to see a return to the dark days ofthe last IRA campaign.

Jackie laughlin

Since when did lack of support ever discourage a blood thirsty "republican"?

Lemming

quirk. wrote:

Republicanism has taken a long time to recover after the massive setback which was the GFA but the recovery has began and no doubt will continue.

Did anyone else pick up on this rather absurd and worrying comment?

WTF? Since when did a bunch of pig-ignorant murdering scum and their equally scum-ranked apologists own a monopoly on "republicanism". Do they (or you?) even understand what that word means, as opposed to what it's been hijacked for on this island?

HOW has the GFA been a "massive setback" for republicanism? More importantly WHY?

A word on "Republicanism", taken from wikipedia. I've taken the liberty of highlighting some points that should be noted in reference to those deluded muppets that blight this country with ignorant teachings of what republicanism is. Corruption is mentioned several times, so that rules out pretty much every single paramilitary group and its associates on this island.

Republicanism is the ideology of governing a nation as a republic, with an emphasis on liberty, rule by the people, and the civic virtue practiced by citizens. Republicanism always stands in opposition to aristocracy, oligarchy, and dictatorship. More broadly, it refers to a political system that protects liberty, especially by incorporating a rule of law that cannot be arbitrarily ignored by the government. Much of the literature deals with the issue of what sort of values and behavior by the citizens is necessary if the republic is to survive and flourish; the emphasis has been on widespread citizen participation, civic virtue, and opposition to corruption.

While republicanism is incompatible with a powerful monarchy, scholars point out it is compatible with a constitutional monarch holding symbolic roles (as in modern Britain, Canada and Japan). In recent years Australians have been debating whether their commitment to republicanism is compatible with their status as a constitutional monarchy.

Advocates of republicanism argue that it demands a citizenry that puts a premium on civil virtue and opposes corruption. Most authors argue that republicanism is incompatible with office holders using public power for personal gain. Many dictatorships have called themselves "republics," but none ever protected liberty or the rights of their citizens.

Fenian

sliverharp wrote:

I would give you 100/1 that any of these organisations will ever get an elected TD/MLA in the next50 years

The 32CSM will never have an elected TD/MP/MLA becuase they are not a political party. They do not stand canidates in elections.

Fratton Fred

Fenian wrote:

The 32CSM will never have an elected TD/MP/MLA becuase they are not a political party. They do not stand canidates in elections.

then what is their purpose?

Fenian

Fratton Fred wrote:

then what is their purpose?

Taken from their constitution.

The objectives of the 32 County Sovereignty Movement are -

(a) The restoration of Irish National Sovereignty.

(b) To seek to achieve unity among the Irish people on the issue of restoring National Sovereignty and to promote the Revolutionary ideals of Republicanism and to this end involve itself in resisting all forms of colonialism and imperialism.

(c) To seek the immediate and unconditional release of all Irish Republican Prisoners throughout the world.

Lemming

Fenian wrote:

The objectives of the 32 County Sovereignty Movement are -

(a) The restoration of Irish National Sovereignty.

Last time I checked this [the Republic of Ireland] was a sovereign state. Not to mention also a R.E.P.U.B.L.I.C.

So what are they whining about exactly?

(b) To seek to achieve unity among the Irish people on the issue of restoring National Sovereignty and to promote the Revolutionary ideals of Republicanism and to this end involve itself in resisting all forms of colonialism and imperialism.

See point #1 about the whole national sovereignty thing. As for the revolutionary ideals of republicanism, which set of ideals would they be referring to? Republicanism covers quite a bit of ground.

As for "resisting" colonialism and imperialism, I guess they'll be happy to stop drinking Guinness or shopping in Tesco since both could be interpreted as economic colonialism by imperialist powers :rolleyes:

(c) To seek the immediate and unconditional release of all Irish Republican Prisoners throughout the world.

Eh ... good f*cking luck on that one old boy ... why should other countries around the world release violent, murderous gombeen muppets for breaking their laws?

Fenian

"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience"

FTA69

oscarBravo wrote:

Yes.

I disagree with you OB, but you're a gas man.

quirk.

silverharp wrote:

That is a false argument, the turn of the 20th C had all kinds of reasons why there was the potential for constitutional change in Ireland, none of these exist now. If after the peace process has been completed and your views have little to no support, you are going nowhere. I would give you 100/1 that any of these organisations will ever get an elected TD/MLA in the next50 years

As republicans we would never seek to get elected to British or free state parliaments. The 32CSM is not a political party anyway and so doesn't participate in elections.

Fratton Fred

quirk. wrote:

As republicans we would never seek to get elected to British or free state parliaments. The 32CSM is not a political party anyway and so doesn't participate in elections.

so if it dosn't seek to get elected, then what does it do, sit around talking? why don't they get off their arses and do something rather than sit around whining?

Jackie laughlin

Fred,
Don't go encouraging these fantasists. If they don't contest elections, then ... yep, here we go again! They will speak for the "Irish People" - not the real living ones but the dead generations and the generations to come. I bet they recognise the revolutionary Dail and nothing subsequent to that.

What could sovereignty possibly mean when Ireland and the UK (needle, needle!) are both members of the EU?

They're talking through their bearna baol!

quirk.

Fratton Fred wrote:

so if it dosn't seek to get elected, then what does it do, sit around talking? why don't they get off their arses and do something rather than sit around whining?

To be active you do not have to be a political party. When the 32CSM was formed a decision was taken not to become a party which contested elections but rather be an organisation which united republicans of differing views on other issues around the common aim of Irish sovereignty.

The 32CSM made a submission to the U.N. contesting the legality of the British presence in Ireland and has recently been highly active in the republican unity initiative. We also were at the forefront of opposing the normalisation process in the 6 counties and opposing the acceptance of the British police force. Indeed if I am not wrong we were the only group to actually offer an alternative to accepting the RUC/PSNI.

Lemming

Fenian wrote:

"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience"

Congratulations on discovering the ability to quote other users signatures. Clearly the mark of a towering intellect ...

In other news, your inability to answer the refutal of the 32SC wankfest that they call a constitution and instead resort to a purile attempt at throwing insults shows just how morally, ethically, and philisophically bankrupt your "republican" value set is.

Fenian

Lemming wrote:

Congratulations on discovering the ability to quote other users signatures.

Thank you.

Lemming wrote:

Clearly the mark of a towering intellect ...

I'm the one lacking intelligence?

Lemming wrote:

wankfest

Congratulations on discovering the vocabulary of a 12 year old.

Lemming wrote:

In other news, your inability to answer the refutal of the 32SC wankfest that they call a constitution and instead resort to a purile attempt at throwing insults shows just how morally, ethically, and philisophically bankrupt your "republican" value set is.

The reason I didn't "refute" any of your absurd counter-points to the 32CSM constitution is becuase you have no wish to discuss the subject. Your only wish is to insult and degrade Republicans.

I have no problem debating my Republican ideals or the 32CSM, but only in a civilised manner. You, I'm afraid, are unwilling to do so.

Rock Climber

Lemming and Fenian banned for a month.

The above exchange is a clear example of whats not acceptable around here.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055133811

Fratton Fred

quirk. wrote:

To be active you do not have to be a political party. When the 32CSM was formed a decision was taken not to become a party which contested elections but rather be an organisation which united republicans of differing views on other issues around the common aim of Irish sovereignty.

The 32CSM made a submission to the U.N. contesting the legality of the British presence in Ireland and has recently been highly active in the republican unity initiative. We also were at the forefront of opposing the normalisation process in the 6 counties and opposing the acceptance of the British police force. Indeed if I am not wrong we were the only group to actually offer an alternative to accepting the RUC/PSNI.

So they are a waste of space then. Talking is useless, getting involved in a process of democratic change is the only way forward.

Sleepy

Just tell me these guys haven't got the wherewithall for another Omagh.

quirk.

Fratton Fred wrote:

So they are a waste of space then. Talking is useless, getting involved in a process of democratic change is the only way forward.

Depends what you aim to achieve. If you seek to remove the British from Ireland then participation in constitutional politics is certainly not the way forward. Republicans cannot accept the GFA within it's framework the British presence can legitimately become permanent.

quirk.

Sleepy wrote:

Just tell me these guys haven't got the wherewithall for another Omagh.

Omagh was a terrible tragedy and hopefully something like this will never happen again. However the 32CSM as a political organisation had nothing to do with it.

Fratton Fred

quirk. wrote:

Depends what you aim to achieve. If you seek to remove the British from Ireland then participation in constitutional politics is certainly not the way forward. Republicans cannot accept the GFA within it's framework the British presence can legitimately become permanent.

so you seek to impose your will on the majority by any means necessary.

that makes you better than Imperial Britain how exactly?

quirk.

Fratton Fred wrote:

so you seek to impose your will on the majority by any means necessary.

that makes you better than Imperial Britain how exactly?

The majority of people want to see a united and independent Ireland. And who ever mentioned imposing our will by any means necessary?

oscarBravo

The majority of people voted for the GFA.

Jackie laughlin

What does it mean to oppose the "normalisation process" in N.I?

What alternative is there to calling the police when, say, your car is stolen?

Do these "republicans" steer clear of all government, e.g. company and land registration, use of the courts, payment of taxes, acceptance of welfare, use of the NHS etc?

Assuming that they accept the need for government, what exactly do they recognise?

Colonel Sanders

oscarBravo wrote:

The majority of people voted for the GFA.

Exactly, and you state the 32CSM want to destroy this agreement.

Also claiming 32CSM have nothing to do with the RIRA is pure fantasy. I checked their website and in their 'Photo Gallery' are many photos glorifying RIRA. Are we supposed to believe that the 2 organisations are in NO WAY linked? You can tell us that til the cows come home but I reckon no one with a brain cell in their head will believe you.

oscarBravo

quirk. wrote:

Omagh was a terrible tragedy...

I think the phrase "disgusting atrocity" is a more appropriate description. I haven't heard a similar phrase from too many in the so-called Republican movement.

quirk.

oscarBravo wrote:

The majority of people voted for the GFA.

They were not given the choice of a united Ireland. Also as the GFA was sold to one side as ensuring the union and to the other as a stepping stone to a UI, one side was therefore lied to.

quirk.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

What does it mean to oppose the "normalisation process" in N.I?

What alternative is there to calling the police when, say, your car is stolen?

Do these "republicans" steer clear of all government, e.g. company and land registration, use of the courts, payment of taxes, acceptance of welfare, use of the NHS etc?

Assuming that they accept the need for government, what exactly do they recognise?

See our documents on the policing issue No Other Law and The Necessity of Policing & The Necessity for Constitutional Change

quirk.

Colonel Sanders wrote:

Exactly, and you state the 32CSM want to destroy this agreement.

Yes

Colonel Sanders wrote:

Also claiming 32CSM have nothing to do with the RIRA is pure fantasy. I checked their website and in their 'Photo Gallery' are many photos glorifying RIRA. Are we supposed to believe that the 2 organisations are in NO WAY linked? You can tell us that til the cows come home but I reckon no one with a brain cell in their head will believe you.

Well they are not linked and they are certainly not the same organisation. Both have the same goals and we support the IRA's right to engage in armed struggle. Thats as far as it goes.

quirk.

oscarBravo wrote:

I think the phrase "disgusting atrocity" is a more appropriate description. I haven't heard a similar phrase from too many in the so-called Republican movement.

Yes it was and it was also disgusting how British and free state intelligence knew about it before hand and let it happen anyway.But I dont hear too many people condemning that.

flogen

quirk. wrote:

They were not given the choice of a united Ireland. Also as the GFA was sold to one side as ensuring the union and to the other as a stepping stone to a UI, one side was therefore lied to.

That's not exactly true. People in the Republic of Ireland were asked if they wanted to accept the GFA and give up their claim on the 6 counties - 94% of them said yes. Had they wanted to claim a United Ireland as the 32CSM does they would have looked to continue the claim on the 6 counties instead.

I'd like to add to the point of people here referring to themselves as the sole republicans on this island - you're not.
If you actually understand the meaning of a republican you'd realise that it is someone who is a citizen or supporter of a Republican democratic model, as opposed to a Monarchy, dictatorship etc.

Whether it's the exact type of republic you'd like to see you're only displaying ignorance to refer to the 26 counties of this island as the "free state" - the same kind of ignorance many Unionists in NI show. Ireland is nationally and internationally recognised as a Republic, there's no arguing with that fact.

quirk.

flogen wrote:

That's not exactly true. People in the Republic of Ireland were asked if they wanted to accept the GFA and give up their claim on the 6 counties - 94% of them said yes. Had they wanted a United Ireland they would have look to continue their claim on the 6 counties.

The people were not given a choice of a united Ireland and you know that.

flogen wrote:

I'd like to add to the point of people here referring to themselves as the sole republicans on this island - you're not.
If you actually understand the meaning of a republican you'd realise that it is someone who is a citizen or supporter of a Republican democratic model, as opposed to a Monarchy, dictatorship etc.

I never once said that the 32CSM were the only republicans on this island. I do understand the meaning of republican and also that an Irish republican is someone who wants to see a republic consisting of the entire 32 counties of Ireland. Ireland does not only consist of the 26 counties you know. Our problem with others (not everyone) who claim to be republicans is that their stated political position of being Irish republicans does not correspond to this position set against their political actions. We have sought to engage with other in an attempt to get them to address these fundamental contradictions through our document Irish Democracy - A framework for Unity.

Wikipedia defines Irish Republicanism as

an ideology based on the Irish nationalist belief that all of Ireland should be a single independent republic, whether as a unitary state, a federal state or as a confederal arrangement.

quirk.

flogen wrote:

Had they wanted to claim a United Ireland as the 32CSM does they would have looked to continue the claim on the 6 counties instead.

A survey has revealed almost four out of five voters want to see the country as one, with almost a quarter (22%) believing that achieving a united Ireland should be the Government’s first priority.

http://breaking.tcm.ie/2006/04/02/story252182.html

A 1999 survey found 86% of Irish voters still wanted to unite the island - despite a massive "Yes" vote in the May 1998 referendum approving the Good Friday agreement, which required the republic to renounce its constitutional claim on the north.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Northern_Ireland/Story/0,2763,540092,00.html

A majority of voters in the Republic believe the IRA ceasefire is permanent, but more than a third suspect the IRA has not given up violence for good. More than four-fifths of those polled would like to see a united Ireland in the future, with only 13 percent having no interest in unity. 28 percent of those who favored unity would like to see it occur in the next 12 months

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5089/is_199410/ai_n18501101

Colonel Sanders

quirk. wrote:

Well they are not linked and they are certainly not the same organisation. Both have the same goals and we support the IRA's right to engage in armed struggle. Thats as far as it goes.

no offence but I don't believe you.

Did Francie Mackey not give the graveside oration at the funeral of the first RIRA 'martyr', Ronan Mac Lochlainn? I find it hard to believe this would happen had the 2 organisations not been linked.

Really reminds me of all the times when SF denied having any link whatsoever to the Provisional IRA.

flogen

quirk. wrote:

The people were not given a choice of a united Ireland and you know that.

Had there been a on a straight vote on a United Ireland it would have passed in the 26 counties and failed in the 6 counties. You know that.

I never once said that the 32CSM were the only republicans on this island. I do understand the meaning of republican and also that an Irish republican is someone who wants to see a republic consisting of the entire 32 counties of Ireland.

Wrong - an Irish republican is an Irish person who believes that a Republic is the best mode of Government for the people.

There are Irish republicans who believe the 32 counties should be a united nation but they are not indicative of the term 'republican' or 'irish republican' despite the fact that they are both of these things.

Ireland does not only consist of the 26 counties you know.

The island of Ireland does not, no. The nation of Ireland, according to our own constitution, the EU, the UN and the entire world does, however.

Our problem with others (not everyone) who claim to be republicans is that their stated political position of being Irish republicans does not correspond to this position set against their political actions.

Your problem is based on a misconception about what an Irish Republican is. It has no real connection to all-island unity - that is something that could be the wish of a feudalist, a monarchist, a totalitarianist, a communist (and so on). It just so happens that those who support Irish unity tend to simultaneously support the Republican form of Government.

Wikipedia defines Irish Republicanism as

You'll notice that I didn't reference Wikipedia in my definition of a republican because I do not believe it to be infallible. In this case I think that belief is justified.

A survey has revealed almost four out of five voters want to see the country as one, with almost a quarter (22%) believing that achieving a united Ireland should be the Government’s first priority.

Firstly, let's take the spin off that second figure - 78% of people don't think Irish unity should be a top priority for Government.

Secondly, I don't doubt that people in Ireland support an all-island state, nor am I surprised that British people feel similar. The problem is the people who will make the decision are not based in Ireland or England, they're based in Northern Ireland.

I accept that you believe the NI state to be nothing but a gerrymandered slice of a population manufactured to appease a minority and I happen to agree with you. The difference is I think the situation has progressed past simply re-writing history, as unfortunate as it is.

What supporters of a United Ireland now need to do is accept NI, as undemocratic as its foundations may be, seek to find out why Unionists are unionists and try to find ways of proving their fears and oppositions to be unfounded. I think those looking to remind them of their minority status and force them into a country they do not support only encourage their opposition to unity with the rest of the island.

quirk.

Had there been a on a straight vote on a United Ireland it would have passed in the 26 counties and failed in the 6 counties. You know that.

Yes I do. One of the problems with Sinn Fein's acceptance of the GFA is that as what you have stated looks likely to remain so the British presence can now become legitimately permanent under the terms of the GFA.

Wrong - an Irish republican is an Irish person who believes that a Republic is the best mode of Government for the people.

There are Irish republicans who believe the 32 counties should be a united nation but they are not indicative of the term 'republican' or 'irish republican' despite the fact that they are both of these things.

Ireland consists of 32 counties and so an Irish republican is someone who want to see a republic encompassing those 32 counties. I think all the political parties and the majority of the people would accept this definition.

As the British illegally occupy the 6 counties there removal must be an aim of Irish republicans as a first step in establishing an Irish Republic.

Your problem is based on a misconception about what an Irish Republican is. It has no real connection to all-island unity - that is something that could be the wish of a feudalist, a monarchist, a totalitarianist, a communist (and so on). It just so happens that those who support Irish unity tend to simultaneously support the Republican form of Government.

Our problem is not based on a misconception and these other Parties/individuals tend to have the same conception of republicanism as ourselves. Our problem is that their stated posistion (Irish republican - call it seperatist if you please) does not correspond to their political actions.

Firstly, let's take the spin off that second figure - 78% of people don't think Irish unity should be a top priority for Government.

But that wasn't the point I was making. I was just giving a survey to back up my claim that the majority would like to have a united Ireland.

What supporters of a United Ireland now need to do is accept NI, as undemocratic as its foundations may be, seek to find out why Unionists are unionists and try to find ways of proving their fears and oppositions to be unfounded. I think those looking to remind them of their minority status and force them into a country they do not support only encourage their opposition to unity with the rest of the island.

So the problem is the unionist now and not the British? As for forcing them into a country they don't support do you not have a problem with partition being forced on the majority of the people.

The 32CSM have been engaging with Unionists and we have put it too them that given the probability of a United Ireland at some time in the future would it not be politically expedient for them to plan for such an outcome. You see we seek for them to enter into it on shared terms rather than force them as you seem to think.

flogen

quirk. wrote:

Yes I do. One of the problems with Sinn Fein's acceptance of the GFA is that as what you have stated looks likely to remain so the British presence can now become legitimately permanent under the terms of the GFA.

I see no problem with a United Ireland only coming about through consent. If Republicanism and an all-island political identity is as good as many believe it is then it should be a far easier way to do it than threatening at gun point or denying that the past happened.

Ireland consists of 32 counties and so an Irish republican is someone who want to see a republic encompassing those 32 counties. I think all the political parties and the majority of the people would accept this definition.

Again, the island of Ireland consists of 32 counties, not the internationally recognised Republican state.
And again, Republican ideals are completely independent of theories on national unity (or otherwise).
I'm not sure what all the political parties might accept as the definition of 'Irish Republican' but the reality is that an Irish Republican only differs from a German Republican by his citizenship. It is true that many parties and organisations, including the one you advocate, have tried to turn the term 'Irish Republican' into a shorthand for supporters of Irish unity but that doesn't make it the reality.

Let me put this very hypothetical scenario to you - imagine if there was a referendum across the UK tomorrow which asked citizens to vote on the disestablishment of their monarchy in favour of a republic. The referendum is passed with 100% support from every citizen of the UK, including those in NI.

So everyone in Northern Ireland is a republican and they're Irish too. They're Irish Republicans. But the majority of them still don't support Irish unity.

My point (in case it's not obvious)? You can be an Irish republican and not support Irish unity - you and the 32CSM can't even begin to suggest otherwise because Republicanism doesn't begin and end on your terms.

As the British illegally occupy the 6 counties there removal must be an aim of Irish republicans as a first step in establishing an Irish Republic.

There is an Irish Republic, I live in it. I'm an Irish Republican too and I'd also love to see a united Ireland but only a viable one and one built on total consent, not the 50% +1 plan of some.

Our problem is not based on a misconception and these other Parties/individuals tend to have the same conception of republicanism as ourselves. Our problem is that their stated posistion (Irish republican - call it seperatist if you please) does not correspond to their political actions.

Fianna Fáil, for example, refer to themselves as The Republican Party - I've not yet seen them try and replace our Republican democracy with something else so I'm happy enough that their political actions correspond with their stated position.

But that wasn't the point I was making. I was just giving a survey to back up my claim that the majority would like to have a united Ireland.

I never said the majority of people in Ireland wouldn't want a United Ireland, I said their opinions are irrelevant as they don't hold the balance.

So the problem is the unionist now and not the British?

Problem? I wouldn't refer to unionists as a problem.

As for forcing them into a country they don't support do you not have a problem with partition being forced on the majority of the people.

I've already stated my opposition to the gerrymandering which occoured in Ireland in the 1920s but a wrong can't be solved by another wrong. It's about time that people accepted (and most do, I should add) that while the partitioning of this island was illegal it is a reality that cannot be wiped from history now.

The 32CSM have been engaging with Unionists and we have put it too them that given the probability of a United Ireland at some time in the future would it not be politically expedient for them to plan for such an outcome. You see we seek for them to enter into it on shared terms rather than force them as you seem to think.

I have to laugh at what you call engagement - it seems to consist of you telling Unionists that a United Ireland is coming and they'd better deal with it.

It's the same level of engagement shown between the USA and Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion - we're coming, get ready.

I hate to advise a group that should have been thinking about this long ago, but I would suggest a programme of allaying Unionist fears while simultaneously detailing the benefits that would come their way when playing on an all-island basis.
For example it could be pointed out that being a voice of 1m amongst 6m is far better than being a voice of 1m amongst 60m. The economic benefits (including a lower corporate tax rate which all parties in Northern Ireland want) speak for themselves.

Fratton Fred

quirk. wrote:

Yes it was and it was also disgusting how British and free state intelligence knew about it before hand and let it happen anyway.But I dont hear too many people condemning that.

You do of course have something that backs up your claim.

oscarBravo

quirk. wrote:

As the British illegally occupy the 6 counties...

What law are they breaking?

quirk. wrote:

As for forcing them into a country they don't support do you not have a problem with partition being forced on the majority of the people.

The majority of people voted to accept partition when it was put to them in a referendum.