32csm UN submission

[john kerr]

This topic deserves it own section, rather than being stuck in the middle of the david ervine is dead topic.

Firstly, the 32 csm submission was rejected by the free state gov as being pie in the sky as it basically said that the submission failed to recognise agreements between the irish and british that were legal and recognised by the UN.

merle's opinion on the GFA is irrelevant to the questions posed in the submission as is the current location of the UN submission and what stage it is at going through the UN. As i think edifice pointed out the UN doesn't operate on a qeueing system but rather each submission will go further in porportion to the amount of weight added to it or put behind it. The more groups add their support to it the further it will go, the first step to getting that support is to debate on the issues contained. The submission was accepted by UN officials and as yet has not been thrown out, i will endeavour to answer find out who recieved it and what body on behalf of. My guess is that due to the lack of debate on it, intervention from both Britain and the Dublin government and our inability to go to the UN HQ and follow it up (what with being deemed a foreign terrorist organisation) that it is probably gathering dust in an in tray. This however does not invalidate the contents of the submission nor its addendum submitted in 2001 in geneva.

[edifice.]

This topic deserves it own section, rather than being stuck in the middle of the david ervine is dead topic.

Firstly, the 32 csm submission was rejected by the free state gov as being pie in the sky as it basically said that the submission failed to recognise agreements between the irish and british that were legal and recognised by the UN.

merle's opinion on the GFA is irrelevant to the questions posed in the submission as is the current location of the UN submission and what stage it is at going through the UN. As i think edifice pointed out the UN doesn't operate on a qeueing system but rather each submission will go further in porportion to the amount of weight added to it or put behind it. The more groups add their support to it the further it will go, the first step to getting that support is to debate on the issues contained. The submission was accepted by UN officials and as yet has not been thrown out, i will endeavour to answer find out who recieved it and what body on behalf of. My guess is that due to the lack of debate on it, intervention from both Britain and the Dublin government and our inability to go to the UN HQ and follow it up (what with being deemed a foreign terrorist organisation) that it is probably gathering dust in an in tray. This however does not invalidate the contents of the submission nor its addendum submitted in 2001 in geneva.

That's not true. Firstly the British government has not addressed it. Secondly the FS governments recognised our right to put forward the submission but said that such an option was not open to them because of previously concluded treaties with the British. They were pressed on how this constraint squared with their constitutional committments vis a vis Articles 2&3 and they replied that the articles were aspirational, later rebuked by their own Supreme Court rendering them Constitutional Imperatives.

[john kerr]

[quote=edifice.]

This topic deserves it own section, rather than being stuck in the middle of the david ervine is dead topic.

Firstly, the 32 csm submission was rejected by the free state gov as being pie in the sky as it basically said that the submission failed to recognise agreements between the irish and british that were legal and recognised by the UN.

That's not true. Firstly the British government has not addressed it. Secondly the FS governments recognised our right to put forward the submission but said that such an option was not open to them because of previously concluded treaties with the British. They were pressed on how this constraint squared with their constitutional committments vis a vis Articles 2&3 and they replied that the articles were aspirational, later rebuked by their own Supreme Court rendering them Constitutional Imperatives.[/quote:11xtmlwe]


If i remember right, then art 2+3 were already out of the question via the gfa, when the submission was made.

So why should the brit gov address it when they have concluded treaties with the irish ?

[edifice.]

[quote=john kerr][quote="edifice.":2d6cgmdu]

This topic deserves it own section, rather than being stuck in the middle of the david ervine is dead topic.

Firstly, the 32 csm submission was rejected by the free state gov as being pie in the sky as it basically said that the submission failed to recognise agreements between the irish and british that were legal and recognised by the UN.

That's not true. Firstly the British government has not addressed it. Secondly the FS governments recognised our right to put forward the submission but said that such an option was not open to them because of previously concluded treaties with the British. They were pressed on how this constraint squared with their constitutional committments vis a vis Articles 2&3 and they replied that the articles were aspirational, later rebuked by their own Supreme Court rendering them Constitutional Imperatives.[/quote:2d6cgmdu]


If i remember right, then art 2+3 were already out of the question via the gfa, when the submission was made.

So why should the brit gov address it when they have concluded treaties with the irish ?[/quote:2d6cgmdu]

Wrong again. The Submission was made prior to their removal.

[john kerr]

Wrong again. The Submission was made prior to their removal.

When was the submission made exactly ?
was the submission answered before or after the gfa ?
was the submission answered before or after the omagh bomb ?
why should the brit gov address it when they have concluded treaties with the irish ?

[edifice.]

[quote=john kerr]

Wrong again. The Submission was made prior to their removal.

When was the submission made exactly ?
was the submission answered before or after the gfa ?
was the submission answered before or after the omagh bomb ?
why should the brit gov address it when they have concluded treaties with the irish ?[/quote:3n5xdgqy]

Do you not think you should inform yourself of basic facts before you try and engage in debate with them?

[john kerr]

[quote=edifice.][quote="john kerr":1rme0jsk]

Wrong again. The Submission was made prior to their removal.

When was the submission made exactly ?
was the submission answered before or after the gfa ?
was the submission answered before or after the omagh bomb ?
why should the brit gov address it when they have concluded treaties with the irish ?[/quote:1rme0jsk]

Do you not think you should inform yourself of basic facts before you try and engage in debate with them?[/quote:1rme0jsk]

lets establish the basic facts then, simply by replying to my simple questions.

None of my questions can be answered by reading the 32 csm website so why cant you give a simple answer, or do you not know yourself ?

[edifice.]

lets establish the basic facts then, simply by replying to my simple questions.

None of my questions can be answered by reading the 32 csm website so why cant you give a simple answer, or do you not know yourself ?

Actually they can which reinforces my view that you haven't bothered that much. And if you look at my previous post further up you'll find answers there also. If you have a point come out and make it.

[john kerr]

[quote=edifice.]

lets establish the basic facts then, simply by replying to my simple questions.

None of my questions can be answered by reading the 32 csm website so why cant you give a simple answer, or do you not know yourself ?

Actually they can which reinforces my view that you haven't bothered that much. And if you look at my previous post further up you'll find answers there also. If you have a point come out and make it.[/quote:yrlsxuae]


what another arrogant answer ! You simply don't know.
The point is that the 32 csm submission is a waste of time unless the fs gov make the submission themselves.

[qtman]

I'd imagine the UN is probably a bit preoccupied with other things at the moment, you know, like the impending nuclear conflict between Israel and Iran.

I somehow doubt if you'll be hearing from them any time soon.