|
|
Blog Feeds
Anti-Empire
The SakerA bird's eye view of the vineyard
Public InquiryInterested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
Voltaire NetworkVoltaire, international edition
|
ICTU Statement on NICE Referendum national |
miscellaneous |
news report
 Thursday October 03, 2002 12:54 by Pat C oliver.donohoe at ictu dot ie 8897777
 Congress is today calling on all workers to vote ‘yes’ in the NICE Referendum in the belief that by doing so they will help to bring about a safer and fairer Europe. (I'm posting the ICTU statement on NICE for your information. I thought the exact text would be of interest & use to people. Please direct any comments towards ICTU; this is the ICTU position, not mine.) ICTU Statement on NICE Referendum Congress is today calling on all workers to vote ‘yes’ in the NICE Referendum in the belief that by doing so they will help to bring about a safer and fairer Europe. We have avoided joining any other group or alliance advocating for a ‘yes’ vote because our analysis does not fit into a broad consensus. We would, for example, have quite a different perspective from that of the Government or employers. Our approach is to consider the issue of the Nice Treaty in the context of the phenomenon of globalisation which is profoundly affecting the world and the future direction of which is of vital interest to workers. Our objective is to bring about a Europe which: Combines economic efficiency with individual freedom and social justice; These are values which are inherently European and which inspired Jean Monnet, Schuman and, in particular, the trade unionists who collaborated to initiate the European Project after the War. They are values which inspired the vision of Jacque Delors in later years when he advocated for the primacy of a political and social Europe and not just a common market. As we see it, this vision of Delor’s is now under considerable threat from a model of globalisation which is driven from the United States and which eschews all considerations other than maximising shareholder value. We are out to prevent the Americanisation of Europe. There is a danger that in articulating this case one can come across as being anti-American. That is not our intention. There is a rich liberal social democratic tradition in the United States which we respect and admire. It is a tradition which found expression in Roosevelt's new deal, in Johnson's concept of the great society and in the writings of John Dewey. Nevertheless, there is also a conservative strain to politics in the United States which values private wealth and individualism at the expense of social solidarity and equality. It is a value system which is antipathetic to social provision and healthcare and very hostile to organised labour. It is that value system which is in the ascent at the present time and which aggressively seeks to universalise itself through the medium of globalisation. The awesome political, economic and military power of the United States needs to be balanced by a Europe securely located in the values of Monnet and Delors. The contrast between the continents is most starkly exemplified by attitudes to war with Iraq. There are sixty million workers in Europe organised under the banner of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC). The ETUC transcends the borders of the existing EU to include also unions in the accession countries. It is our mission to ensure that the economic and social order in Europe accommodates the need of ordinary working people. Collective action is the basis of trade unionism. By definition, therefore, we are internationalist in outlook and by organising internationally we can best moderate the extremes of the modern variant of capitalism which is the engine of globalisation. It follows logically from this that we favour enlargement of the European Union and we are pleased to welcome today our colleagues Mr Andrej Adamczyck (NSCC Solidarnesc) Poland, Ms Erika Koller, (LIGA) Hungary and Ms Hana Malkiova (CMKOS) Czech Republic to help us to present our case. We deprecate the actions of those who would split the labour movement by opposing enlargement. It has been said by some of the people in the ‘No’ Campaign that they are in favour of enlargement but opposed to NICE. We do not believe that. The arguments deployed against the NICE Treaty are very clearly arguments against enlargement. I now wish to deal with some of those arguments: Immigration In the research literature available there are some ten studies of this subject. Half of them are based on empirical data extrapolated from what happened when Greece, Portugal and Spain entered the EU and on migration flows within the US. The other half are based on surveys of the intentions of people in the accession countries as regards migration. Using the empirical data approach the projections envisage the Central and Eastern European populations of Germany and Austria expanding to 2.5 million and 0.5 million respectively by 2030. In Ireland the forecast is that the population rise will be negligible. More than a third of all interviewed persons (37 per cent) would choose Germany as their prime destination and about a fourth (24 per cent) would like to go to Austria. The strongest preference for Germany is in the Czech Republic. In Hungary there is a very distinct preference for Austria. In Poland and Hungary, the United States, Canada and Australia are also popular destinations of would-be migrants. Some 9 per cent of all persons willing to migrate would choose Switzerland. Intentions to go to other European countries play only a minor role. France, Italy, Scandinavia and the Netherlands as well as other Central European countries are prime destinations for less than 5 per cent of all potential migrants. Ireland does not even feature. The surveys also show that in Central Europe the wish for short and medium-term labour migration is much more common than the intention to emigrate for good. Two-thirds of all potential migrants declared that they did not want to leave their home country on a permanent basis. About 65 per cent of those persons surveyed who are potentially willing to migrate did not want to stay abroad for longer than five years. Of those, about 19 per cent would prefer to stay abroad for only one year; 26 per cent would like to stay abroad for up to two years. For many persons commuting on a daily or week basis would represent the ideal form of mobility between East and West. Working in the West and maintaining a household in Central Europe secures one the one hand a high Western wage level and at the same time allows one to profit from the lower costs of living in Central and Eastern Europe. For several regional labour markets this is a realistic perspective, particularly for the Bratislava-Vienna region or for western Poland and Berlin. In light of this evidence Congress is satisfied that there is no significant threat to employment or to wages and conditions posed by inward migration from Central and Eastern Europe. Change in Representation
Even if we were to set aside the principled arguments in favour of accepting the NICE Treaty, which I hope we would not do, there are a number of practical issues we need to consider: If we reject the NICE Treaty for a second time we will force the EU to find an alternative route but we will not stop enlargement. They will find a way to make it happen and we will not be forgiven either by the existing European establishment or by the accession countries; The great failure of organised labour in the last century was our inability to prevent the First World War. In Ireland the emphasis of our history has insulated us from the reality of the conflicts which claimed so many lives in Europe. For the working people of Europe the peace, which the EU has delivered, is not some kind of optional extra added on to the real business of commerce and free markets. And there is still much to do to guarantee the long-term stability of Central and Eastern Europe. By virtue of its past failures the Trade Union movement has a particular responsibility to support all political programmes that secure peace. For working people peace is a matter of life and death - their lives and their deaths. The Nice Treaty is another stop on the road to making Europe safer. Congress believes that enlargement is the correct course for Europe to adopt because it reduces the risk of further destabilising conflict fuelled by extreme nationalism. It offers the people of the accession countries the prospect of economic development such as we have achieved ourselves. It consolidates the position of organised labour to advocate for an economic and social order that is an alternative to the free booting capitalism of the US and it creates a stronger block of countries capable of forcing the establishment of a global system of governance which has a better chance of bringing about sustainable development in the world at large. Our disposition is to look beyond the ratification of the Nice Treaty to the outcome of the convention on the Future of Europe. Our key objective is to ensure that social policy objectives are given parity of esteem with those relating to economic policy. This, in our opinion, can best be done by giving legal status to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. To quote the former French Prime Minister, Lionel Jospin; "Europe should be a market economy but not a market society". We are asking workers and their families to vote YES because we believe that the Nice Treaty will make Europe a safer place to live and a fairer place to work. It will help to secure our future and that of our children. |
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (23 of 23)
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 23wankers,what would you expect from them
well done traitors (class and otherwise)
Bertie and your other 'partners' will be proud of ye
you dont speak for me. I hope there are 1 or 2 real unions still left. We need to Jim Larkin and James Connolly back more than ever
even though I don't agree. Better than Labour's 'A different kind of Yes' - like wtf does that mean? Are you supposed to write at the end of the ballot paper 'a Labour 'Yes''
Also, is it just me or is that cross-eyed kid on the PD's poster getting on anyone else's nerves?
I note a whole spate of Yes posters on the southside, but very few North of the Liffey. Maybe they've given up on the Northsiders.
I have exterminated the Northside Yes posters!
You too can be a Dalek! Exterminate a Yes Poster!
Exterminate! Exterminate!
'A different kind of Yes'
perhaps they mean NO but are trying to be too bland and middle of the road to state it
the left, I mean the other left, ehem ok I mean right ...............
I suppose Labour are going to go the same way as labour in the UK have gone....... into the pockets of corporations, problem is in Ireland they will just be the 3th party who is almost inditinguishable from FF, FG and PDs
all saying the same old neo liberal crap and no real choice or fresh ideas
That's why more than ever we need Mick O'Reilly and Eugene McGlone reinstated back into their roles in the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers Union (ATGWU). Both Mick and Eugene are opposed to those so-called 'partnerships' and are Anti-Nice Treaty as well.
It sure is good to know that Dave Begg and all our other trade union “leaders” are now in favour of privatisation, resource wars, Militarisation and the furthering of the interests of big business.
With “friends” like that, who the hell needs enemies?
2 points.
´1:did you like the way we analysed and commented on your article and put our comment within 210seconds of you uploading it?
that was Panda Bear´s way of saying we are still here after yesterday´s middling size rascal meddling with the internet and various servers around cyberspace.
´2:union participation in sweatshop labour has to be commented on. Who makes those t-shirts and flags and baseball caps that "social-democrats" "we are proud of our past" types wear all around western civilisation?
And might I add oh no point 3. have to go to indymedia.org india for breaking news.
http://india.indymedia.org
We need a mass workers' party and trade unions that are willling to fight for their members.
The ICTU leadership only care for themselves, their salaries, their 'firends in IBEC. The Labour Party are no different. Labour is a capitalist party that support tax amnesties, bin tax, coaltions with FF-FG-PD-IBEC, and they support social 'partnership'
Ditch the Labour Party, the Trade Unions and lets get a serious workers' Party and Trade Unions that will fight for socialism!
Firstly Pat calls for death to all Zionists.
Then he is forced to retract this, and says that taring all Zionists with one brush is unfair.
Then he says using the word Zionazi is okay.
Which is kind of the same thing. So either way you're a hyprocrite.
Then Pat goes off at Ray calling him a WSM censor and because Ray thinks that people who's world view Pat disagrees with shouldn't be allowed use Indymedia. I.e. it's okay for movies Pat likes to advertise on Indymedia.
Pat then implies that Ray should go an invite the "Yes" campaign to post on Indymedia.
And then you do what? Post the ICTU Yes argument? Which is something you said shouldn't happen on Indymedia. But yeah it's okay cause you're posting this argument to attack it.
But you're still posting it Pat.
Any way you read all this is that you're a hyprocrite.
It's not ok to call for death to Zionists because not all zionists are pro ethic cleasing, but it is okay to use the term Zionazi, because that's not a sweeping generalisation towards a group you've defended.
It's not okay to let the yes campaign post here, unless you do.
These are your arguments.
You're a hyprocrite.
In the FC style to which we have descended, I vote for Postman Pat as producihng the "subversive humour post of the decade".
Mainly cos I'm frightened there could be people that thick.
you are an ignorant fuckwit, typical of the middle class wankers who infest this site.
i posted the ictu statement as a public service, i made it clear i did not support it. if people are going to argue against something, then it is better if they do so from a position of knowledge rather than tilting against imaginery positions of the trade union movement.
the rest of your posting is just so much bile. typical of the ill educated petit bourgeois auto eroticists on indymedia.
to you, everything is yes or no. you can't comphrehend anything in between. adult discussion & arguyment means people will change their opinions in the light of new eveidence or persuasive logical argument.
now go away & attend some remedial classes.
If you love Zionists so much, then go home to Israel. It is right to call Israel Colonists, the supporters of them and theer Army Zio-Nazis, not rest of people in Israel state who oppose their genocide against Arab people.
See Pat I went to my remeidal class and looked up all those big words you used....
So essentially your response was "Fuck off you sexual perverted middle class wanker".
You did miss everything I said though
Mainly to wit, why will you lecture people about not making broad sweeping generalisations about Zionism, but then defend the usage of the word "Zionazi". Which to me is a broad sweeping generalisation.
Why will you attack Ray when he states that people who's worldview he disagrees with should be allowed use Indymedia. You tell him that the Yes campaign isn't welcome on Indymedia, but then you go and post the ICTU's statement.
Arguing that this is okay cause you've posting it to raise awareness of the Yes campaigns arguments.
You're still diseminating this information though.
But yeah it's okay cause you've got the right politics Pat so you can post this crap. If it'd been a member of the ICTU it'd be outrageous and an abuse of Indymedia (according to you) but since you're anti nice you can say this.
I'm not Pro Zionist either just want Pat to stop this doublespeak and get his facts fucking straight.
So Pat try and respond to this without decending into abuse.
Oh I like the phrase"auto eroticism" though...
"Mainly to wit, why will you lecture people about not making broad sweeping generalisations about Zionism, but then defend the usage of the word "Zionazi". Which to me is a broad sweeping generalisation."
if you bothered to read my postings you'd see that i apply the term zionazi to
1.the colonists who take up their lebensraum in the occupied territories.
2. their supporters in israel & elsewhere.
3. the idf.
i do not apply to anyone else . go back to a remedial class in bonehead english.
"Why will you attack Ray when he states that people who's worldview he disagrees with should be allowed use Indymedia. You tell him that the Yes campaign isn't welcome on Indymedia, but then you go and post the ICTU's statement. "
you really are incapable of understanding anything thats even slightly complicated.
i posted the ictu statement so that people could accurately criticise it. back to comphrehension classes for you.
"I'm not Pro Zionist either just want Pat to stop this doublespeak and get his facts fucking straight. "
i'm glad to hear you're not pro zionist.
i don't engage in double speak, you just seem to have the cophrehension level of a sullen 12 yr old.
now back to school for a while & less of the onanism.
Prelude, and abstract description of the debate so far.
Me "Pat your position is unclear please explain"
Pat "FUCK OFF YOU TWISTED MASTERBATING PERVERT".
-------------------------
I've looked at your posts pat and you're not that discriminating
You regularly use the term "zionazi" without clarifying your position. You fling the word about with gay abandon.
When a term of abuse is used indiscriminately like you do, you can't then backtrack and say I was only refering to "those guys". It's like saying "I only use the word "nigger" when refering to drug dealers". In your (rare) lucid moments I do argee with you. But when you start ranting about zionazis (and I defy you to show me that every time you use the work you explain that you only apply the term to the specfic groups listed), you sicken me.
Pat I am aware that you posted the ICTU comment as a way of informing the "no" side of it's argument. Thats not the issue. Okay? I'm not saying that you're yes to Nice? Are you dyslexic? I've made that very clear.
The issue is the fact that you feel that people who believe this platform aren't welcome and shouldn't be allowed on Indymedia.
Yet you should be allowed post their arguments on the basis that you're informing the "no" campaign of the "yes" argument. You're still posting it though? You're still diseminating the information. Do you not grasp the paradox? You can post this stuff, but people who believe the argument aren't welcome here. This is what you've said before over and over again.
And you don't see this as another staggering example of your worldview which suggests that you and the people you like should obey one set of rules while the people you hate and despise should adhere to another.
you are just a rambling fool.
you continue to display the comphrehension level & sulkiness of a frustrated adolescent.
just go away & grow up. what name will you turn up under next?
its always the same repetition. you keep repeating yourself like harry potter chanting spells. why don't you get a life?
you can have whatever final childlike rant you so desire.
i won't be back to this thread.
Whuts the matter Pat pissed you can't argue with this?
See again when confronted with your own ignorance and hypocracy you disappear into a sulk.
Can't help noticing how you didn't respond to any of the points raised.
Whats the matter?
What is this idiot styling him self postman pat up to?
Before he confused the issue the discussion was somewhat focussed against the treacherous labour party rats in ICTU. And yes they are mostly labour party members, its virtually a requirement for their cushy and overpaid jobs. Is postman working for ICTU/labour or just trying to divert the discussion up blind alleys?
It might be useful if Pat C. stopped giving postman credibility by replying to him, there really is no need to as Pat C's bona fides on Nice are clear for all to see. Pat C. will have the last laugh if we defeat the bastards in the referendum on the 19th
I'm againisted the Nice treaty.
But recently Pat here hurled abuse at someone who claimed that the yes campaign was allowed and not be intimidated from using Indymedia. Pat's response was incredibly abusive and pretty much informed that person (ray) that they were a "tratior"
What I find incredibly contemptable about Pat is that Pat will hulr abuse at someone defending the right for anyone to use Indymedia. Pat will say only his and the people whose politics he supposrts should be intitled to use this site and will spit vile venom at anyone who disagrees
All I'm doing is laughing at Pat's hyprocracy while he says no one should be allowed post the yes campiagn on Indymedia, he can cause he's party of the no campaign creating awareness of the "yes" argument.
Essentially I hold Pat in utter contempt for claiming he wants a world of social justice while demanding injustice.
I find it laughable that he'll backtrack over racist and abusive comments trying to claim that they where rational and intelligent comments when they were in fact the jibbering lunacy of a man whose trousers smell of urine