other press
user preferences
|
Recent
articles by Paula Geraghty
Sarkozy visit aimed at subverting Irish democracy Jul 21 08 Sarkozy visit opposed - Demonstration / picket Jul 15 08 Women, young people, manual workers voted No - Lisbon survey Jul 10 08 Non C'est Non: Sarkozy's Irish visit met with protests
national | eu | news report
Monday July 21, 2008 23:56
by Paula Geraghty
mspgeraghy at yahoo
dot ie  Anti Globalisation protestors took to Government buildings to highlight the WTO impact on Irish farming, workers and human rights and fisheries. Each group was divided and coralled into three different sections in a state move to institutionalise supposed differences in those who articulated a NON in the Lisbon Treaty referendum. He came, he saw, kissed Cowen and left after a whirlwind
5 hour tour.  printable
version with
comments
 
RSS and atom feeds allow you to keep track of new comments
on particular stories. You can input the URL's from these links into a rss
reader and you will be informed whenever somebody posts a new
comment.hide help
|
make this your indymedia front page
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (27 of 27)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27(c)
MEP
Brendan Ogle- Unite
(c)
First Bertie...........................
The IFA - the largest contingent - did NOT turn out to protest about the Lisbon treaty. They were there to SUPPORT Sarkozy in his oppositon to the Mandelson line at the WTO talks. In fact Sarkozy clapped in support of Padraig Walsh of the IFA at the reception when he spoke against the WTO. The farmers, as usual, are primarily interested in their own well being.
.
mon secret: un moral de vainqeur!
hm....hm....
Comment? c'est un scandale!
is that a real pig's head? That's disgusting
Farmers aren't the only group in Ireland primarily interested in there own well being!
Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign photos.
Also, Sean Clinton of the IPSC and the Lisbon Campaign for Middle East Justice and Peace was interviewed briefly on RTE Radio 1's News at One - listen here: http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0721/news1pm_av.html?2401291,null,209
The voice of the children
IPSC contingent
Euromed = A Green Light...
No to EU collaboration with Israel's destruction of the Palestinian people
IPSC's Philip O'Connor addresses the rally
A couple of snaps of banners hung along the M1 leading from Dublin airport into the city. Hopefully Sarkozy got the message.
1st banner on M1
Second banner on m1
éirígí at Merrion Square protest
Fair Play to all of you. Please God both he and the World Media got the message.
It was great to see the Tara activists there with all the other anti Lisbon groups. I sometimes think that the Tara activists are the real patriots in this country when it comes to protecting our identity and heritage. The EU will eventually want to destroy any symbols such as Tara if they are to go for full EU "integration" in the not too distant future.
does one honestly think that the the political establishment will have a rerun of Lisbon coming up to euro elections 2009.
given the fact that this year there will be 440million in public cutbacks.
with 1.5 billion in cut backs next year.
5o% of labour voters opposed the referendum
that in December the Czech government will host eu presidency
message is loud and clear Lisbon is dead.
“The EU will eventually want to destroy any symbols such as Tara if they are to go for full EU "integration" in the not too distant future.”
That is an utter falsehood and a libel. There is not a shred of truth in it. Insofar as European Union legislation deals with the natural environment and built heritage it is positively biased towards conservation. To take one Irish example the restoration of St Johns’s Castel in Limerick was almost entirely financed from EU sources – it would not have happened at all otherwise. There are numerous other examples in Ireland alone. The question of economic integration ha nothing to do with the historical heritage of Europe nor is it a threat. Europe needs both its rich historical heritage and also the unlocking of the economic potential offered by intra community trade. One does not in any way exclude the other.
"unlocking of the economic potential offered by intra community trade"
Unlocking of the economic potential by opening up ever more channels of greed-driven corruption you mean?
Its basic economics and it is beyond dispute that prosperity is enhanced under an EU style economic area. Opting out of international markets and returning to economic nationalism and autarky would lead to an overall much lower level of economic welfare including revenue to pay for social services and the like.
"Rampant corruption and state-sponsored bullying is also enhanced under an EU style economic area" -- which completely destroys the small chance we have of ever achieving genuine democracy, and in addition makes a complete mockery of our justice system as well.
Related Link: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=EU+Corruption%2C+Ireland&btnG=Google+Search
Are you against cross border trade and free movements of people and other factors in principle which are the hallmarks of the single market? Would you rather have an EFTA arrangement like Norway which participates in the single market without being in the community? Or do you want Ireland not to be in any trading block or community of nations co-operating economically?
If you want isolation that will greatly diminish national income. And I don't see how it would prevent corruption. Ireland is actually quite corrupt by northern European standards (E15 members + Iceland and Norway). If anything we a lot less corrupt than we would be outside the community.
I'm against corruption because it destroys all hope of genuine democracy -- as in "government of the people, by the people, for the people".
Also, and although I don't really see the connection, I'm not against "cross border trade and free movements of people".
In fact, I'm all for such things.
Are you a libertarian on free trade? Like you would be in favour of globalization but not trading blocks or international bodies to organize it and to regulate it? Also are you against just the EU or also other blocks like ASEAN, APEC and EFTA and why? Would you be in favour of a European common market but not an economic union? These questions are important – the structure of international governance in the area of trade is vital in the absence of a completely free market as per an Ayn Rand vision of extreme libertarianism and individualistic capitalism.
Corruption is a fact of life – a facet of the human condition. All right thinking people are against corruption but why do you set representative government in counterpoint to the EU which you equate with corruption? This thesis of yours requires an explanation.
The EU is involved in dispensing funds in large volumes for farming, structural funds etc. Naturally there will be efforts by some to defraud it – which is why there are auditing and investigative bodies. But the fact of some wrongdoing does not necessarily invalidate the whole system any more than the planning corruption in Ireland over the year’s means that the Republic of Ireland should be rolled up and abolished.
In fact government and commerce is less corrupt in Europe outside of southern Italy, the Balkans and Russia, than almost anywhere else in the world. The EU institutions are not systemically corrupt or anything like it. High expenses for MEPs or excess claims notwithstanding – if one is concerned about that vote for MEPs beyond reproach or press for reform of the EP. But is not good enough to make a bald and exaggerated claim of “corruption” for the entire European project as if this assertion alones somehow clinches the argument about the future or status of the project.
I'm for independent soverign states, democracy (genuine democracy that is, of the kind I have outlined above), and "the rule of law" -- where the "law" in question includes the actual enforcement of constitutional law and human rights law: and not just the "lip-service" type of damaging, deceitful and meaningless "enforcement" we have (in these two particular areas of law) in the Republic of Ireland and many other places besides at the present time.
How is international trade to be regulated or arranged with neighbouring states in the region or globally? Can you not see that there is an important role for regional trade bodies or blocks which in turn can negotiate common tariffs and elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers? You also ignore the question - are you just opposing the EU or also other regional trade blocks like APEC? Its not good enough or authentic or plausible to call for the tearing down of what there now without having a worked out position about what should replace what is there now and how feasible this might be.
You seem to be an antique style economic nationalist who would favour something like the policy adopted by the Irish State between the early 1930s and late 1950s. If that is your position you and others should be aware that there would be a tremendous reduction in national wealth and welfare as a result. A renwed depopulation would be another result.
You can write for as long as you like about your various theories and comparisons, but unless the two basic building blocks of 1) democracy, and 2) the rule of law, are both firmly put in place (of the kinds defined above), there is no proper foundation to build a healthy society on.
Try as you might, without these two basic building blocks first being in place, you will always end up with a dysfunctional society of one kind or another: which no amount of tinkering with, theories, comparisons (and so on) can ever fix.
Nobody doubts the importance or value of the rule of law or democracy but are you saying that EU membership is incompatible with both democracy and the rule of law? Why? And therefore there has been no rule of law in Ireland since accession to the EEC in 1973? Did both cease on 31 Dec 1972?
Should Ireland withdraw from the WTO as well or do you accept that as a basis for multilateral trade agreements? Is this international trading body incompatible with democracy and the rule of law in your view as well as the rest of the UN bodies?
You have not justified your position – all you repeat is that democracy and the rule of law are vital but you have not explained how membership of international bodies automatically negates these if that is your view.
I'm saying that I can see very little evidence in the world (anywhere) at the present time of democracy of the kind I have referred to above -- i.e. DEMOCRACY as in "government of the people, by the people, for the people" -- and "RULE OF LAW" of the kind which includes the actual enforcement of constitutional law and human rights law (as set out by the United Nations).
For example, I do not see any of the many "democratically elected dictatorships" we have at the present time as representing genuine democracy of the kind I have in mind.
Neither do I consider any "rule of law" system which prevents (or disables by any means) the actual enforcement of large sections of human rights law, and constitutional law, to be a genuine "rule of law" system. Such systems would be better described as "rule of corruption" legal systems (in my view) -- on account of the fact that such broken-up systems represent a corruption of the legal systems in question, whereby corrupt (i.e. illegal) law can easily be produced and sustained: and, far more importantly, easily used for grossly corrupt purposes.
Unless and until we can agree on definitions for "democracy" and the "rule of law", I don't think this discussion between us is likely to get much further?
You are our hope because you are few, so you can speak together, and contact yourselves, without media.
In France, we have propaganda and it works quite enough in part of people that doesn't imagine that communication is a whole (or whore ) job.
Examples of Propaganda we have, actually, in France :
TV messages, telling best about actual politique of purchasing power.
People going to meet us, on beach, to sing the praises of Sarkozy'politique. (I have heard)
Call "modernism" what is from Middle Ages. ... etc...
I notice one of the posts at the above French web site address (part of Tue Jul 29, 2008 10:16 post) states:
"It (the no vote for Lisbon Treaty) arrived like a courted woman says no; so, why is it necessary to insist?"
"A good gentleman understands these things well (but not our Mr Sarkozy).
"If one insists in connection with such matters, one generates unwanted results."
Well said!!
Are you a Utopian or are there places where your particular conception of these concepts, human rights and the rule of law, are actually practiced?
I subscribe to the "progressive measures", and to the "teaching" and "education" commitments contained in the United Nations excerpt from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provided below:
"Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction."
The full text of the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS can be found at: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Incidentally, I'm very conscious of the fact that on July 31st 2008, almost SIXTY years after the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights came into existence (on December 10th 1948), I don't know of a single school or college (anywhere) which makes -- or ever has made -- any attempt whatsoever to meet the "teaching" and "education" commitments referred to in the above excerpt.
There continues to be far too much "talking the talk", and not nearly enough "walking the walk" coming from our leading politicians and lawyers perhaps? -- regarding this core-issue matter of the basic human rights of individual human beings being responsibly respected by our "trusted public servants", and the United Nations member states (and bodies) which they represent.
It's small wonder maybe that the overall world situation regarding human relationships is still in the extremely sickening and dangerous mess it's in (for so many people) at the present time?