Galway Against the Referendum meeting, Westside

by Jonno Wed May 26, 2004 20:40

Democratic Socialist, is fairly obviously an inappropriately named supporter of the Labour Party. It must be a rough life for anyone who still imagines themselves to be a socialist but who can't bring themselves to leave Labour. The embarrassment of being a member of a party which is not opposed to privatisation, which is not opposed to the bin tax and which is only gagging for the opportunity to once again administer capitalist austerity must sometimes become too much.

I can therefore understand why DS feels the need to desperately scrabble around for some issue on which he (or she) feels that he can take the high moral ground against those who are involved in actual socialist organisations. Unfortunately, the issue of posters won't do your consience any good at all.

The Socialist Party hasn't got posters up on the referendum at this stage because we can't afford them. Neither have the SWP or any of the other small and impoverished left organisations. If Labour was to take the principled stand of refusing all corporate and business donations, they too would soon find out about trying to to run a political party on a shoestring. Not something I will hold my breath waiting for.

However, the Socialist Party has already distributed tens of thousands of leaflets which call on people to vote no, and we will be distributing tens of thousands more. We have already done our best to use some of the very limited amount of media attention our public representatives get to argue against the referendum. So too have we covered the issue in our newspaper. That's not hiding the issue, it's not ducking it or anything of the sort.

Those are the plain facts of the matter. I have no doubt however, that anonymous trolls will continue to throw mud at our efforts on this site. I expect little better from anonymous shit-stirrers like pundit or democratic socialist - who may well even be the same person.

by Orla Ni Chomhrai Wed May 26, 2004 19:45

Just to clarify. The SP don't have a branch in Galway which is why they are not speaking at this particular meeting.

by Democratic Socialist Wed May 26, 2004 11:45

Labour have launched their NO campaign, you can see the posters on the poles, leaflets are being distributed. But where are the SP No posters? (No SP posters is more like it!)

If the SP are calling for a No vote then its buried in their manifesto. They are running scared in case they lose votes.

by Pundit Tue May 25, 2004 14:11

They can dish it out but they cant take it. Why should your comments be taken more seriously than mine, neither of us have revealed our identities.

But you are also using a typical SP tactic, to switch topics. But it wont succeed here. Whats at issue is the fact that the SP wont deal honestly with the referendum. They are afraid they will lose votes if they call the referendum racist.

The SP certainly have some dodgy canvassers going around agreeing there should be controls on immigration. I have heard reports of this happening in the Liberties, in Blanchardstown and in Limerick. Not just a one off.

by Identifier Tue May 25, 2004 14:04

Well I see that trolling is something of a hobby for you Pundit. You won't reveal your political affiliations. You change your ground constantly and you are posting in the hope of sticking some mud to a rival organisation.

I don't have anything more to say to you, but I do hope that you find a more useful hobby one of these days.

And by the way, my description of myself as a "supporter" rather than an active member is to do with the fact that I'm not active at the moment, but I have been in the past and probably will be again. Now try not to hurt yourself swimming around in all that bile.

by Pundit Tue May 25, 2004 13:53

"I'm not an active member of the SP but I am a supporter."

Yeah right! Thats a good spuppie now.

by Identifier Tue May 25, 2004 13:50

What did Pundit have to say for him/her self:

"Cue - I'm just an independent, you know an ordinary punter expressing my views, no hidden agenda at all."

To which the rest of us will still say, yeah right.

by Pundit Tue May 25, 2004 13:48

I am an independent activist. But its a red herring to raise this. The issue under discussion is the SP and its attitude towards the referendum. The situation remains the same the SP are afraid to call the referendum racist, they fear that they might lose votes.

by Identifier Tue May 25, 2004 13:10

Pundit, he didn't ask for your name. He asked for your political affiliation, something that the anonymous SP supporters you mention give.

You can't have any reason to fear losing your job or some other such vicimisation for revealing your political affiliations. The only reason why you won't is that you fear embarrassing whichever organisation you belong to - and you clearly do belong to some rival group from the nature of your posts.

Cue - I'm just an independent, you know an ordinary punter expressing my views, no hidden agenda at all. To which the rest of us will say, yeah right.

As for "hearing about what SP canvassers said", is this an example of psychic powers at work? Let me guess, a friend at work told you.

For the record - I'm anonymous because I'm posting from work. I'm not an active member of the SP but I am a supporter.

by Pundit Tue May 25, 2004 12:49

Ask your comrades Magma, SP Member, etc. You are not fooling anyone, the SP are afraid to call the referendum racist in case it loses them votes. I have even heard of cases of SP canvassers agreeing on the doorsteps that there is a need for immigratiuon controls, they just think the refereendum gores too far!

by Jonno Tue May 25, 2004 12:45

This is the last answer Punter will be getting from me on this thread as he/she is clearly only interested in throwing mud from the safety of anonymity.

The Socialist Party would certainly agree with you that the intent of the referendum is racist. McDowell is playing the old divide and rule card, so beloved of ruling class politicians down through the ages.

That does not mean that we think that everyone who will vote yes or who is thinking of voting yes is a racist. We think it is vitally important to convince those people to oppose the referendum and racism more generally. We do not think that implying that those people are racists is a useful way of going about convincing them of anything.

That's not "running away" from an argument. Its not fear of losing votes - or we wouldn't have our representatives talking about the issue, we wouldn't carry articles about it in our paper and it wouldn't have featured in tens of thousands of leaflets distributed so far. It is a question of how you go about convincing people of our arguments against the referendum rather than alienating them from those arguments.

Others may have a different approach, and if they prefer to take another angle, that's fine by me. I do wish however that they wouldn't come here anonymously to smear the efforts of others.

I wonder for instance will Pundit reveal his or her own political affiliations. I rather doubt it. Better to snipe from safety, eh?

by Punter Tue May 25, 2004 12:35

Look, either the referendum is racist or iot isnt. If it is racist then why not call it so? You have proved my point: the SP are afraid of losing votes from racists who will vote yes. That is why the SP have such a soft position.

by Non-SP member (Seriously) Tue May 25, 2004 12:35

"You refuse to call the referendum racist."

I don't believe that the SP refuse to call the referendum racist but it seems to me that they refuse to call people who believe the state's propaganda racist. There is a difference. It might not be obvious in the leafy suburbs.

by Jonno Tue May 25, 2004 12:32

Punter's ground has suddenly shifted. Now we aren't downplaying the issue. Instead our problem is that we don't call the referendum racist. It becomes clear very fast indeed that he or she is just scrabbling around for some reason to give out about us.

For anyone who is actually interested:

The Socialist Party doesn't think that the best way to convince people who are currently planning to vote for the referendum is by stating or implying that they are racists. This is a question of how you take an issue up with people. As far as we are concerned if you start by slinging around the word racist in an overly casual manner you are less likely to get a hearing. Others may disagree, as is their right.

by Punter Tue May 25, 2004 12:16

You refuse to call the referendum racist. This because you know some of your voters will vote yes and you are afraid of losing support.

by Jonno - SP (personal capacity) Tue May 25, 2004 12:13

I shouldn't really respond to such obvious disinformation but the Socialist Party are not "downplaying the issue".

Our paper features our opposition to the referendum prominently. Our public representatives have spoken about it at length in some of the limited amount of media coverage we get. Our branches have distributred tens of thousands of leaflets through doors around the country which deal with the subject, along with others.

We prefer to use our own material rather than that produced by CARR because it leaves us free to put the kind of socialist and class based case against the referendum that we think is necessary. That doesn't mean that we wish CARR ill, we think it is important that as many people as possible oppose the referendum.

by Punter Tue May 25, 2004 12:01

At least you are showing a lead. A pity the SP wont do the same. Instead they are downplaying the issue and are refusing to distribute CARR leaflets.

by Orla Ni Chomhrai Tue May 25, 2004 02:35

Here is what Paisley said about the referenudm:

``Anyone who argued that the Belfast Agreement could not be changed has clearly been proven wrong by the actions of the Dublin government.

``In holding a referendum to amend Articles Two and Three of the Irish Constitution, the Irish government are unilaterally amending the 1998 Agreement.

``The Dublin government have fundamentally breached the Belfast Agreement by not consulting over the proposed changes.

``This only further serves to highlight that the Belfast Agreement is dead.``

Mr Paisley said the referendum also proved to those who voted against the Good Friday Agreement by supporting his party in last November`s Assembly election that it was not ``set in stone``.

The DUP leader said: ``Change is inevitable.

``Unionists have demanded a new agreement to replace the failed Belfast Agreement and our published proposals in respect of Strands One, Two and Three show what form a new agreement must take to satisfy the unionist people.

``No longer can the pro-Agreement parties claim the Agreement will not be changed.

``Now that the Dublin government have put in place the mechanisms to bring about their amendments to the Agreement they should not be surprised that unionists intend to ensure the present talks are able to bring about a new agreement.``

Source:
Paisley's Reaction to the referendum: http://u.tv/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=44710&pt=n

by Eamonn Kenny Tue May 25, 2004 00:54 eamken at hotmail dot com 087-2130540

Best wishes for your demonstration in Galway. I am so incensed by this racist proposal. There is no need to change our constitution. If, there is an immigration problem in the country, immigration procedures should be improved.

I hope the situation in Northern Ireland doesn't deteriorate as a result of this if the proposed change is successful. As it is article 2 of our constitution that is affected, the people of Northern Ireland should vote on the issue too. The unionists claim that the Belfast agreement is null and void is valid.