Bin Tax prisoner romps home while Coke boycott stays

by delighted Thu Nov 20, 2003 10:12

Thats great news, i really expected that vote to win because of the usual "only the people who support the referencdum turnout to vote" syndrome that seems to afflict student politics especially.

It great to have my cynicism kicked up the arse an be proved wrong. Well done all involved!

by John Meehan Thu Nov 20, 2003 10:27

Well done to the boycott organisers -

Connolly Larkin and Markievicz would be proud of you - I shudder to think what they would say about some of the people who followed in their wake and operate out of Liberty Hall.

and well done for electing the first prisoner candidate since Eoin MacNéill - any comment from MacNéill's descendant, the deportation minister Michael McDowell?

by ollie - katalyzer Thu Nov 20, 2003 10:32

hear hear....here here

The cheek of them to even try to rerun a ref within weeks of the original. I mean, they were settin a precedent which would essentially encourage the pro-boycott group to just turn around, collect the required # of signatures, and have yet another ref ,if they lost!

Surely a rerun should be at least a stated # of months after the original ref? Surely this should be SU policy?

Anywayz, screw the ogra finna foulers et al who took this shameful route, and let them wallow in defeat. Victory x2 = :-)

by Gearoid O Loingsigh - LASC Thu Nov 20, 2003 10:54

Well done to the students who voted to maintain the boycott and shame on Siptu who should be demanding of Coke that it sit down with Sinaltrainal and negotiate in the presence of an International Commission.

It is interesting to note that Siptu and Coke claimed that the Irish franchise had nothing to do with Coca Cola and was owned by the Coca Cola Hellenic Bottling Company.

A quick search on a database at DCU library reveals that Coca Cola own 24% of the shares in the Coca Cola Hellenic Bottling Company.

It is time now for other students in other colleges to follow the UCD example.

by iosaf - fotut 2004 Thu Nov 20, 2003 12:26

updating links for anti-coke heads from the mainstream press:
The Guardian yesterday- Coke are considering "non-branded" vending machines in U.K. schools.
well done UCD. This is part of _your_ doing.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,5500,1088749,00.html
also from the G yesterday: Coca Cola are targetted in India by the Perumatty village council. Read the G article (by John Vidal) http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1088206,00.html

or get other source material, it looks like being the next tender point in coca cola's armour:

http://www.planetsave.com/ViewStory.asp?ID=4499
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2003/aug/11/opinion/20030811opi5.html
http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=7528

the background:

Oct 8th 2003
http://www.breakingnews.ie/2003/10/08/story116471.html
Aug 9th 2003
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EH09Df01.html
July 25th 2003
http://eces.org/blog/archives/000176.php
6th June 2003
http://southasia.oneworld.net/article/archive/1896/30

by Oganach Thu Nov 20, 2003 13:40

For a brief outline of Anne Speed's political evolution see my piece on the UCD Anti Coke Says Vote No thread. Funny to see the young reabhloidithe from Ogra SF wriggle on this one. There will be no trouble from that lot when the inevitable coalition question arises. Sheep in wolves clothing methinks.

by John Meehan Thu Nov 20, 2003 13:59

People interested in accurate and factual history - rather than bits of warmed up gossip from anonymous sources - can go to the link in indymedia pasted below this note - to see a comment I wrote on People's Democracy and Anne Speed. (It is also a link on the main excellent Coca Cola story written by the editors).

I know something about the subject - I was a member of People's Democracy at that time.

Could people absorb one easy lesson from this? It is damaging to the anti Coca Cola campaign if you throw around unsubstantiated and unsourced statements.

Anne Speed is very adept at picking up on this sort of thing - for example the claims about what she allegedly said on the radio - and she is quite entitled to pour scorn on stuff like that.

Why not stick to criticising to what she actually says and does - for example the SIPTU shop stewards' statement issued by her office, or the October 11 comment to the Irish Independent - details in links to the main story?

It would be interesting to hear from campaigners on the factual history of trying to talk to the Coca Cola workers in Ireland - in reply to Anne Speed's posting.


http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=61859&#comment51218

by tallyrand Thu Nov 20, 2003 15:26

Last night the results of the Referendum, and the Academic Council elections, rocked the right wing. There are also some serious implications for Sinn Féin, SIPTU and USI.

Sinn Féin have been completely outflanked in the State's largest University. They have been left on the sidelines as none of their members campaigned against a referendum which was designed to be an attack on the left. SF members refused to even say that their cumman in UCD had a position on the vote. The only SF members to be active in UCD was Ann Speed and her other Sinn Féin 'comrades'- and they were backing up the right. The SF Shop Steward only stopped when he was told by the Returning Officer that his interference may result in the suspension of the vote. I beleive he was also told that he would be removed from campus as he was not a student, staff or a graduate, and was therefore tresspassing under University Bye-Laws.

SIPTU are also likely to be underfire from the Student Movement after interference by a rogue official pushing her party position. I believe that UCDSU are considering an offical complaint to Liberty Hall. There is also the posibility of a complaint from UCD SIPTU members. But crucially for SIPTU a planned Unionisation campaign by UCDSU may not be working with SIPTU in Unionising part-time student workers.

The USI were also heavily criticised in the past while among many on the left in UCD. They have done nothing on the jailing of David Murphy. They have hidden behind beaucratic rules and refused to support David and the right to protest. The result of the Academic Council election, where over 77% went to Anti-Bin Tax/Defend the Right to Protest candidates, including prisoner David Murphy. Will UCDSU withhold funds from USI as some are supporting? or is it disaffiliation?

by Cian Thu Nov 20, 2003 15:31

Its great to see that the numbers of students supporting the boycott is actually increasing with time. I think Coke scored a major own goal by pushing for a second referendum. Fair play to the UCD activist community for coming out and fighting this issue again.

Dan Finn said last night at the count that he reckons a lot of people will look back at their time in college and see this as the most useful thing they have done during their college years. I couldn't agree with him more. Everything that Coke does in reaction to the boycott campaign is evidence that this boycott is working.

by Aido McBane Thu Nov 20, 2003 16:34 aidomcbane at hotmail dot com

what is the point in a boycott. it is not going to affect the current share holders and it is definately not going to help any alleged "kidnapped, tortured, raped, or murdered people" in columbia.

for every banner i see around the place advertising the boycott of Coke, i am going to pull it off, turn it around and write "drinking coke is good for you".

just to underline the pettiness of your efforts to ban coke, the coke industry is worth 200 times the funding all your scientists ever got in the past for their projects. so food for thought for you di-brain cell protesters out there.

why not put some effort into banning smoking on campus, or something doing something, or anything, productive, you useless crowd of wasters.

by Janus Thu Nov 20, 2003 17:03

First of all, congrats to everyone involved in winning the boycott vote for a second time. Curious to know if the pro-Coke people can now push for a third referendum?

As for SF and coke, I think Ann Speed was pursuing her Union's line, rather than her party's. I wasn't aware she had commented on the charges on Indymedia until I followed the link in John Meehan's post and while I still vehemently disagree with her I think she makes a couple of good points in relation to no-one asking Coke workers in Ireland how they felt on the matter.

I don't know what SF's line is on Coke, or even if they have one. I know articles on Coke and the links to Colombian right wing paramilitaries regularly appear in the Phoblacht and that Ogra SF people have been involved in the proposed boycott campaigns in other universities.

I think rather than some sort of dramatic outflanking of SF, they have had contradictions exposed.

As for Ann Speed herself, is she representing her views, the views of her party, or the views of the workers?

Basically, does Sinn Fein support the boycott of Coca Cola goods? It's a yes or no answer. And I'll wait until someone from SF responds as since many of the allegations against Speed seem to have been untrue (Though the most serious one, that she is opposed to the boycott is clearly true) I'm not sure the sources are trustworthy.

by Steelie Thu Nov 20, 2003 17:15

1) How did SIPTU go about figuring out the opinions of the Irish Coke workers? Was there a ballot? Did the policy of opposing the boycott come from the full-timers or the rank and file? What evidence is there that the official SIPTU position is in fact representative of workers on the job?

2) What action are SIPTU proposing to support the Colombian trade unionists and why do they think that this will be more effective than the boycott?

3) I believe that SIPTU has claimed that the boycott may well lead to job losses. What evidence is this based upon?

4) I believe that the boycott was intended as a sign of solidarity with Colombian trade unionists. Does Anne Speed acknowledge that the UCDSU has the right to choose their own tactics in supporting the trade unionists in colombia, as are the Irish Coke workers?

5) What does Anne Speed think would be a better way for the UCDSU to apply pressure on Coke to try to make them respect the rights of their workers?

by ci Thu Nov 20, 2003 17:25

...Increased tenfold!! The turn out was higher than the first referendum and margin of victory was almost six hundred votes!! Aaahh...

by Angry Liberal Thu Nov 20, 2003 18:05

Great to see that student activism and idealism are alive.Thanks SIPTU for showing your true colours and taking the most unconstructive route.To AIDO-why not hold a referendum on it.

by random input Thu Nov 20, 2003 18:37

How many were elected?

Was Waghorne elected?

by tallyman Thu Nov 20, 2003 18:50

UCD ACADEMIC COUNCIL - ARTS, PHILOSOPHY AND CELTIC STUDIES UNDERGRAD

Total Valid Poll - 1236
Seats - 3
Quota - 309

1st Count
David Murphy (Anti Bin Tax) 478 38.67% Elected
Olivia O'Neill (Anti Bin Tax) 318 25.73% Elected
Richard Waghorne (Ind Right) 284 22.98%
Paul Ennis (Anti Bin Tax) 156 12.62%

2nd Count (Transfer of David Murphy's Surplus)
Richard Waghorne (Ind Right) (+50) 337 Elected
Paul Ennis (Anti Bin Tax) (+114) 270

by random input Thu Nov 20, 2003 19:09

so 50 of Daves votes went to Waggy? Thats a bit odd - but then this is stude politics.

by tallyman Thu Nov 20, 2003 19:30

The transfer rate from Murphy to Ennis is very good, especially considering No. 2's to O'Neill wouldn't be counted and No. 3's (if any) would be counted instead.

If you look at any general election a transfer rate that went from Murphy to Ennis is something any political party would be proud of! Ennis's vote nearly doubled after getting transfers!

by petition man Thu Nov 20, 2003 19:33

http://www.petitiononline.com/davemur/petition.html

by UCD activist Thu Nov 20, 2003 19:45

"1) How did SIPTU go about figuring out the opinions of the Irish Coke workers? Was there a ballot? Did the policy of opposing the boycott come from the full-timers or the rank and file? What evidence is there that the official SIPTU position is in fact representative of workers on the job?"

There is NO OFFICIAL POSITION of SIPTU on the Coca Cola boycott. It is coming from a SIPTU full-time official, Sinn Fein's industrial organiser Ann Speed. Also a SF Shop Steward in the Coke factory. I know a number of SIPTU members in UCD that were for the ban. The OFFICIAL position of SIPTU in UCD is that they are not taking a position on the vote of a sister Union in UCD.

"2) What action are SIPTU proposing to support the Colombian trade unionists and why do they think that this will be more effective than the boycott?"

Again, SIPTU don't have a position for or against a ban. But you are right that Ann Speed et al are not putting forward ANYTHING to show solidarity with their fellow workers in Colombia.

"3) I believe that SIPTU has claimed that the boycott may well lead to job losses. What evidence is this based upon?"

They have no evidence. There were NO JOB LOSSES in the Students' Union shops due to the ban. There was no fall in sales revenue. The 3 senior Sabbatical officers said so in the referendum- President, Deputy President and Education Officer. At no stage did the Sinn Féin members say that Coca Cola are to blame for job losses. It seems that SF lack the understanding that it's the company that have made many redundant over the years with higher demands for productivity and neo-liberal attacks on working conditions.


"4) I believe that the boycott was intended as a sign of solidarity with Colombian trade unionists. Does Anne Speed acknowledge that the UCDSU has the right to choose their own tactics in supporting the trade unionists in colombia, as are the Irish Coke workers?"

She does not obviously. The referendum proceedure in UCDSU is regulated to give both sides a fair say. They were told a number of times in the 1st and 2nd referendum that outside interference from outside bodies is against the rules and regulations of the Union. They were told at the 2nd referendum that it would be suspended if they continued. It wasn't suspended as they left, but the 'Yes' side did loose literature.

"5) What does Anne Speed think would be a better way for the UCDSU to apply pressure on Coke to try to make them respect the rights of their workers?"

She does not want UCDSU to apply pressure on Coca Cola. Sinn Féin did get $5,000 off Coca Cola. NOWHERE are Sinn Fein supporting the boycott in the colleges, in UCD their Cumman did NOT campaign for the ban and did NOT take a position.

by Ciaran Flemming Thu Nov 20, 2003 21:57

It is clear that the only 'outsiders' calling for a lifting of the boycott in UCD were ordinary workers from Coca Cola.

Yet the lie that Anne Speed and a bevy of Sinn Feiners were out there pretending to be workers keeps getting repeated and re-heated. She has said that only the workers were present and that leaflets produced were at the behest of the workers.

Why is this so difficult to believe?

Because some 'radicals' and some on the far left cannot bear to acknowledge that they are on the other side of the clearly expressed views of organised trade union rank and file members. There has to be a ‘controlling hand’ manipulating the workers.

How patronising can you get? As patronising as it is possible for a middle class radical to become.

The answer. Ring the Chief Shop Steward in the Coca Cola bottling plant on the Naas Road. The invitation was in Anne Speed’s reply to the nonsense published here.

Put up or shut up.

by In awe Thu Nov 20, 2003 22:43

Never thought i would hear myself say this, but is there any chance that Trinity students may stand up and take note of their counterparts in UCD?
Well done

by trade unionist Fri Nov 21, 2003 00:42

We should not really be suprised that coke workers are at the very least nervous about a boycott, after all it is their living we are talking about.
A lot of work needs to be done building links with them and ensuring that a campaign is built that they can identify with, is effective and does not cause them un necessary problems.

by yellow Union Fri Nov 21, 2003 01:10

I agree that workers would be nervous about their jobs. However it is not the UCD students that are making them unemployed by voting Coca Cola out of 5 shops (only 1 is a medium sized, other 4 are small). It is Coca Cola that have made workers redundent. I find it amazing that Trade Unionists, and people like Ann Speed of Sinn Féin, can put forward the argument that multinationals really care about their workers. They only care about PROFITS, they have made many workers redundent in the past because of this.

The fact is that those workers coming out to Belfield were paid employees of Coca Cola and where doing the work of that Company. Just because they are workers doesn't mean that they are beyond reproach. The fact is that in strike situations some workers will be scabs- not all workers act in the interests of the workers' movement.

I was talking to one of the blokes from Coca Cola. He is clearly a Yellow Trade Unionist- ie at one with and under the control of his boss. Not only that but his political party is also under the payment of his boss. I'm sure he's lined up for the foreman's job!

by random input Fri Nov 21, 2003 02:36

YU said: " I find it amazing that Trade Unionists, and people like Ann Speed of Sinn Féin, can put forward the argument that multinationals really care about their workers"

It's called 'partnership'.

Are sinn fein opposed to partnership? In principle like.

by seedot Fri Nov 21, 2003 04:54

no ramifications to what i do.

no responsibilities to others.

no need to hear the other side of the story.

no chance anybody's experience counts.

no influence in what i do later on.

Why did UCD SU not talk to trade unionists?

How will attacking trade union representatives help the struggle for representation elsewhere?

Do you want to impact the situation in colombia or impact your profile in the super important world of student politics?

by Seán Fri Nov 21, 2003 10:03

UCD activist,
"NOWHERE are Sinn Fein supporting the boycott in the colleges, in UCD their Cumman did NOT campaign for the ban and did NOT take a position."
This is a blatant LIE!!!

by SF supporter Fri Nov 21, 2003 11:35

Correcting lies

1. Ann Speed is not Sinn Féin's Industrial Organiser. There is no such position within Sinn Féin. Ann Speed is a member of Sinn Féin's Ard Comhairle and this is her only position in the party.

2. SF does not have an official position on the Coca-Cola boycott but I understand motions on the matter are being put forward at the next Ard Fhéis. Ográ Shinn Féin supports the boycott campaign and despite lies to the contrary, has been involved in supporting it.

3. Ann Speed's actions were done neither with the support of Sinn Féin, nor against the opposition of the party. She took a decision in her role as a SIPTU official, and not as a Sinn Féin member. Personally, for the record, I disagree with it, but I accept her right to do so.

4. Sinn Féin did not receive any money from Coca-Cola. Friends of Sinn Féin (US), an American support group, received $5,000 from the company to part fund an Irish event in the United States. I believe another donation was made by a former member of Coca-Cola's Board of Directors. These donations, along with thousands of other donations made to Friends of Sinn Féin (US), were all combined to one donation made to Sinn Féin.

Sinn Féin is forbidden by Irish law from receiving donations from foreign companies or individuals.

5. As far as I can see, none of the Union officials acted in contravention of the wishes of the workers they represent. It is my understanding (Note I am not a member of a Trade Union so correct if wrong) that the job of Union officials is to represent the views of Union members. If this is the case, and if the views of the Union members was to oppose the boycott, were the Union officials not acting as they should?

People on Indymedia have condemned the Union leadership for not acting as their workers demand when they support the workers' demands. When they oppose them, they're happy to condemn officials and not engage with workers.

6. Sinn Féin has opposed every Partnership deal since the process began in 1987. Articles in the Phoblacht, and speeches in Leinster House by Sinn Féin TDs (And reposted to Indymedia) have repeatedly condemned the Partnership process as a sham.

Having answered some of the lies, I have a number of questions to put to boycott supporters and I would appreciate answers.

1. How many attempts were made prior to the first boycott referendum to contact Coca-Cola workers and ascertain their attitude to the boycott?

2. How many meetings took place between Coca-Cola workers or their Union representatives and boycott campaigners?

3. If the answer to either of the above is none, why was no attempt made to engage with workers by the campaign?

4. Do boycott supporters accept that the role of a Union official is to represent the interests of his or her workers at all times unless those interests clash with stated Union policy?

5. What is the purpose of repeatedly stating that Sinn Féin had opposed the boycott campaign when the party has done no such thing and when the party's youth wing supports it?

6. Do boycott supporters not believe that a member of a political party who is also a full-time official of a Trade Union owes his or her loyalty to that party, or to the Union and its members?

7. Would a member of the Socialist Party serving in a full-time official, put his or her own personal politics, or, that of his or her party, before the interests of workers if those workers expressed contrary opinions?

8. If the answer to number 7 is that he or she would, should that person be removed from his or her full-time position?

I put these questions forward in the hope of receiving answers, in much the same way as I tried to provide answers in my six response paragraphs. I will withhold further comment until responses to my eight points are forthcoming.

by Mé Féin Fri Nov 21, 2003 12:07

The posting above by 'SF supporter' is more of the same rubbish that has come out of SF on this issue.

Why are Sinn Féin not taking a position on the boycott. Ógra Shinn Féin has NOT done any work in the colleges. I'm a student involved in the boycott campaign in my college. There is an active ÓSF cummann and they have done nothing. SF and ÓSF are hiding behind beauraucratic rules to defend their compromised position on workers' rights. You were not hiding behind the "next Cúige meeting there's a motion" excuse when it came to accepting the Agreement or ratifying Decommissioning.

The fact is SF did get a donation from Coca Cola. It may have gone to an international solidarity group for the purposes of taxation etc. But it was a donation to Sinn Féin. Why would US Multinationals give donations to your party if they thought you would be a workers' party? Why would they give you a donation if they thought you'd call for a boycott? Will SF risk loosing any future donations by taking a position?

'SF supporter' raises the idea of where the loyalties of full time Union officials lie. In my opinion a member of the SP that is a full time union official will not have this 'problem' as their organisations act in the interests of the working class so there is no conflict. With a SF Union Official there is this conflict. The interests of the workers is to show solidarity with their comrades in colombia- but it's the party's interest to defend Coca Cola donations.

Why don't SF see that it is COCA COLA THAT MAKE PEOPLE UNEMPLOYED not UCD students! It is the job of Union Activists to raise the social awareness level in their workplace. ie when workers approach them with concerns over job losses they should blame the company NOT students with a few (relatively) small shops.

SF answer these questions:
1. Why would Coca Cola give SF $5,000 if they thought they would call a boycott?
2. Why did Ann Speed blame students for job losses and not the profit hungry Coca Cola?
3. Why are you not taking a position on boycotts?
4. Would supporting the boycott loose SF any future donations?
5. Why did ÓSF in UCD not take a position?
6. Will Ann Speed be disciplined? if not, why not?

by Answerer Fri Nov 21, 2003 12:20

"1. How many attempts were made prior to the first boycott referendum to contact Coca-Cola workers and ascertain their attitude to the boycott?

2. How many meetings took place between Coca-Cola workers or their Union representatives and boycott campaigners?"

I believe attempts were made, but the Shop Steward (a SF member) would not listen to the arguments student. I wasn't involved in initiating the referendum- so I couldn't tell you exactly what the story is there. But I do know they were approached before the 1st referendum.

"3. If the answer to either of the above is none, why was no attempt made to engage with workers by the campaign?"

Many workers in the College supported the boycott. I know of 1 SIPTU member in UCD who gave up a few lunchtimes on the camapign and was dismayed at the stance of Speed. One of the Colombian workers came out to UCD to talk at a meeting.

"4. Do boycott supporters accept that the role of a Union official is to represent the interests of his or her workers at all times unless those interests clash with stated Union policy?"

Yes. Ann Speed should represent her members by saying that it is Coca Cola that are to blame if they use a boycott in 5 small/medium shops to make workers unemployed. She should have directed the concerns of her members towards Coca Cola not the UCDSU! She should also raise the issue of the attacks on trade union right in Colombia.

"5. What is the purpose of repeatedly stating that Sinn Féin had opposed the boycott campaign when the party has done no such thing and when the party's youth wing supports it?"

SF have not taken a positon, however a member of the ARD COMHAIRLE has actively campaigned against the boycott. Have any Ard Comhairle members supported the boycott? ÓSF have not done anything to support the boycott. In UCD they explicitly said they would not take a position.

"6. Do boycott supporters not believe that a member of a political party who is also a full-time official of a Trade Union owes his or her loyalty to that party, or to the Union and its members?

7. Would a member of the Socialist Party serving in a full-time official, put his or her own personal politics, or, that of his or her party, before the interests of workers if those workers expressed contrary opinions?"

I don't think there would be a conflict between the interests of the workers and the position of the Socialist Party or any other party acting in the interests of the working class. SF are not a workers party.

Your 8th question has already been answered.

by dg Fri Nov 21, 2003 12:21

Posted to another thread, but you seem not to have seen it. In this week's Phoblacht:

http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/2262

Do you really think SF's mouthpiece would print this if the party was worried about future donations from Coca-Cola?

by SF Supporter Fri Nov 21, 2003 12:34

SF is not taking a position on the boycott because none has been approved at the party's Ard Fhéis which is the policy making body. In relation to the two issues you raise, the GFA and decommissiong, the party stated MANY times that the GFA had to be approved by an Ard Fhéis before the party could take a formal position. Once it was done, the party took that position.

Sinn Féin's position on decommissioning was part of the GFA which was approved by the party membership. I refer you to the GFA on this matter.

I am aware of two OSF cumainn involved in supporting the campaign and two individual OSF members (One of whom come to think of it was a UCD student at the time) who were in contact with LASC about the campaign around the time of the International Day of Action. I am not a member of OSF and do not keep track of their movements, I suggest you contact them for further information. The information I know is from informal contact with comrades.

To answer your questions, despite the fact that you only answered one, number 7, of mine and ignored the others. I would point out that your answer to number 7 is ridiculous. Simply because the SP believe everything they say and do is in the best interests of the working class does not make it so.

1. Coca-Cola gave that money to FOSF (US) to part fund an Irish cultural evening. If memory serves and I am open to correction, it was a St Patricks Day event and local businesses and companies wanted to be associated with it.

2. You'd have to ask Ann Speed. I cannot speak for her, and, something people have consistently failed to appreciate, she cannot speak for Sinn Féin on this issue. I disagree with her position on the matter.

3. Asked and answered.

4. I have no idea as that is a matter for the donors. I would point out that Sinn Féin has taken positions such as opposing the war on Iraq, opposing the war on Afghanistan, solidarity with the people of Cuba and opposition to almost every American foreign policy initiative in years. In other words we regularly and frequently oppose American commercial and political interests. People who wish to donate to SF are aware of our policies on these matters.

Sinn Féin does support some current boycotts for example the Boycott Israeli Goods campaign.

5. I have no idea. I am neither a member of OSF nor have I ever been a student in UCD.

6. Sinn Féin members are only disciplined if they publically oppose party policy or break party rules and regulations. While I disagree with the comrade's political analysis, it is not in breach of stated party policy, thus I would be very surprised if she was disciplined.

Six answered. You've answered one. You've seven to go and I look forward to the responses.

by SF Supporter Fri Nov 21, 2003 12:44

Thank you for your responses.

I just saw the posting from Gearoid O Loinsigh on the matter on the Newswire as well.

I disagree with your answers to questions 4, 5, 6 and 7 while accepting your points on the other ones.

If workers in a company take a stance with which a Union official disagrees is it not the job of that Union official to represent those workers? I agree absolutely with the argument that Ann Speed's politics were wrong, I am merely asking a point about broader Trade Union positions for my own information as I am not a Union member.

For example, assume a member of the SP was in Ann Speed's position. The workers he or she represents vote to oppose the boycott. The SP full-timer supports the boycott and attempts to convince the workers to change their position. This attempt fails. Does the SP Union official then represent his and his party's position or that of the workers? My understanding is that it is supposed to be the latter.

I believe you are either ignorant, or lieing, about OSF's actions on the issue, for reasons dealt with in another post. Members of SF's Ard Comhairle have taken different and opposing public stances before. For example, the party spent almost a year debating the issue of support for or opposition to flouridisation in water, during which time members of the Ard Comhairle made public statements for or against as was their right. When the decision was made, to oppose flouridisation of water for those who might be curious, policy was adopted.

I know members of the SF Ard Comhairle, past and present, who support the boycott and who have been active in the campaign. The Chair of TCD Sinn Fein is a member of the Ard Comhairle and supports the boycott for example.

by %-) Fri Nov 21, 2003 13:39

and is going through what appears to be a re-positioning of it's future marketing strategy.
The impetus for this re-positioning is coming from within it's corporate executive workforce.
More than a generation of mostly Latin, Central and hispanic ethnic background North Americans have now profited from the scholarships and educational programs which were a source of pride during the "Cuban Chief Executive Officer Years".

Meanwhile, a new generation (mostly appearing to be "activist" in education establishments of the english speaking world in third level and second level institutions) have selected Coca Cola as anti-capitalist target. It is most important that the allegations made against the CCcorp in South America have now received proper attention, but it would be _tactically wise_ if that same "new generation" bring their "movement's" energy to examine the role of the currently [re-branding] CCcorps in three other areas of the "anti-neo-liberal globalisation agenda".

1. sustainable development issues: does CCcorp pay proper and due attention to the availability of natural and raw resources in the catchment area of existing or planned operations?
2. ethical development issues: is CCcorp addressing as would be fit, the issue of multi-national-corporative responsibility in seeking business advantage? If a fizzy drink business may not be "above reproach" in corruption, then we hold little hope for Banks or Defence Sector capital.
3. Can CCCorp so proud of it's multi-cultural globalised workforce at high executive level, offer more than mere tactical change of deep product recognition and brand loyalty marketing/advertising/sponsership camapaigns to the _equitable_ and _impartially balanced_ support of cultural diversity?

Now these questions may not properly be answered in Dublin, or Ireland or even Europe. There will be no big letter in the post, no press conference in front of CCCorp HQ. But these questions must be _offered_. And the generation that is presently passing through educational institutions such as NUI UCD are currently well placed to "put them".

The thing with armour is, that the soft bloated body within, notices the tender spots, and rolls over to move like that great Dragon of J.R.R. Tolkien on the pile of lucre, to expose yet another chink in the sparkles.

So: you must always move around your beast, don't diddle daddle dawdle.

by Cormac - No Campaign/UCD Left Fri Nov 21, 2003 17:03

Id just like to congratulate all involved in the referendum even the pro-coke liars.The effort put in by the no campaign was what won it in the end-motivation,dedication and determination evident in every single person's conduct over the two days.
People who actually do give a shit and are not in it for ego-enhancement or profile development will put in the effort despite the sacrifices involved and i think the attitude held in this way permeated through to the students and manifested itself in the result.
Wow that was a long sentence.
Well done one and all.
Oh yeah CHEESE ROCKS!!

by Rightwinger - BushCheney'04 Sat Nov 22, 2003 14:06

I am pleased to see how well Dick did on a one man campaign with only about 20 posters and a few lecture addresses. Dick has been badly treated by those on the right. At least he has some goddamn integrity.

Dick for President I say. He won't win but at least he has some guts. And he's not very right wing at all. Compared to that fuckwit Gregggg O Neill at any rate. Funny that Dick got 49% of the electorate to vote to keep coke and the "proffessionals" Binchy and Gregggggggggg only managed 43%! Dicky was right to resign. Wankers

by Johnny Wilkinson Sun Nov 23, 2003 03:33

people should think about this.

Maybe people in UCD would not have to resort to having boycotts if the trade unions in this country and internationally took action on this issue and held work stoppages in Coke factories?

SIPTU why do you not ballot to have a solidarity one day or half day strike in the Coke bottling plant in Dublin?

by Starstruck - Ucd Left Mon Nov 24, 2003 21:20

As above

by interested Fri Nov 28, 2003 11:38

intersting isn't that no one here is giving Dillon the credit for winning it. After all if you exclude the ARts block, the pro-coke lobby won hands dowwn. If it wasn't for Dillon's strong push for a no vote in the last three days (unconsitutional i may add), the coke ban would have been defeated.

Ye might like to know that Young FIne Gael are now supporting the coke side, a mtoion proposed by Michael Bicnhy was passed at their National Conference in support of Coke. That means no hope of a Coke ban in UCC or UL

by Binchy Watcher Fri Nov 28, 2003 13:18

so what if Binchy and co got a motion passed at theior conference in favour of human rights abuses. How will that stop Coke bans in other Colleges? If they take the side of opposing the ban they will not automatically win! the chances are people will vote for the ban if they oppose it!!!

I'm really looking forward to the Binchy for President camapign. To think that Binchy got last years SU Deputy President Ross Higgins shafted because Ross was 'too left wing'. He is also responsible for shafting FG Education Officer Abey Campbell last year. What goes around comes around Michael!

by SU tallyman Fri Nov 28, 2003 13:57

Fair play for Dillon, Regan and Kelly for coming out in active support of the ban. That did increase turnout and the No vote in my opinion.

There was not just a no vote in Arts. There was a large No vote in all faculties. Architecture, Vet, Social Science, Agriculture all vote No. In all other faculties there was a high No vote, in commerce it was about 35-40%

by not exactly a 'binchy' watcher Fri Nov 28, 2003 23:12

pure numbers would suggest they'll have a role. it'll also mean that the pro-coke side will have access to non-coke propaganda, FG hq facilities will be available to the pro-coke side - decent literature etc.

it won't have a huge influence but it'll even things up a bit- after all at the moment its the entire left verus a very apathetic right - what were the KBC at in UCD, and the rest of YFG branch? FAll binchy was left on his own

in UCC, TCD, DCU, Maynooth and UL YFg will make a difference as their numbers exceed the labour/sf/swp/sp numbers. if the greens stay neutral the rest of the colleges will play different to UCD

by Tallyrand Sun Nov 30, 2003 18:11

Is it true that there are negotiations for a 'dream ticket' of rightwingers in the UCDSU elections coming up?

Michael Binchy for President, Richard Waghorne for Deputy President, Gregg O'Neill for Education, Morgan Shelley for Welfare, Dave Sherry for re-election to Ents.

by gravity Mon Dec 01, 2003 14:27

the five horse men of the apocalypse?
the union in tatters? just kill me now and be done with it.