Bi-lateral Statement
29 July 2009
During a visit to Ireland by a delegation of the Communist Party of Greece, a meeting was held with representatives of the Communist Party of Ireland. The Greek delegation also held a series of meetings with a number of Irish trade unions and social organisations.
Under discussion at the bilateral meeting was the necessity for both parties to continue to work for greater unity of the world communist movement in the struggle against imperialism. Also discussed was the importance of working together to build a greater ideological and political unity of communist forces and to struggle against opportunism.
The two parties have a common understanding of the nature of the global crisis now affecting the imperialist system, sharing the view that this crisis is part of the crisis of capitalism. During the discussions it was agreed that both the Greek government and the Irish government are attempting to compel the working class of their countries to pay for this crisis of capitalism, which is reflected in the growing attacks on public services and on workers’ wages, conditions and social insurance rights and in the growing ranks of unemployed workers.
The parties agreed on the need for workers’ organisations to resist these attacks through their class-oriented struggle. They pointed out that the communist parties need to defend the socialist perspective and vision as the only sure way forward in the building of socially just societies.
In their evaluation of the nature of the European Union the two parties agreed that the workers’ movement throughout Europe must continue to resist this imperialist bloc and its strengthening. They struggle against the approach being taken by the Party of the European Left as a capitulation to the interests of imperialism and big corporate interests, its role being to undermine the revolutionary ideology of the communist movement, leading to a strengthening of the forces of class collaboration within the workers’ movement.
The parties reiterated their criticism of the Irish government and of all the establishment parties—Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Labour Party, and the Green Party—for bowing to pressure from the European Union to subvert the democratically expressed rejection of the Lisbon Treaty by the Irish people. The Communist Party of Greece expressed its support for the democratic forces in Ireland struggling to deliver once again a rebuff to the imposition of this so-called Reform Treaty.
Both parties expressed their solidarity with the heroic Palestinian people in their struggle for a homeland and for a just and lasting settlement. They also expressed their solidarity with the Cuban people and join with them in celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of their revolution. The two parties pledged their continued solidarity and support for the forces bringing about radical social transformations in Latin America, and in particular they condemned the interference by the United States in the overthrow of President Zelaya of Honduras. The parties expressed their solidarity with all those forces struggling against imperialism and those who struggle for socialism in very difficult and extremely hostile conditions.
Finally, the Communist Party of Ireland and the Communist Party of Greece pledged to continue to share their experiences and to further strengthen their co-operation.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Monday, July 27, 2009
And some say the EU hasnt an army!
See at the below link the EU army raise the EU flag and note its size!!
http://www.people.ie/english1.html
http://www.people.ie/english1.html
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Pat Cox, Corporate Lobbyist leads the Yes to Lisbon Campaign
Pat Cox, former European Parliament President, among the least transparent lobbyists ... Item from Corporate Europe Observatory forwarded for your information
On 23 June 2008 the European Commission launched the first ever EU lobbying transparency register. But will this voluntary mechanism end the secrecy surrounding much of lobbying in Brussels?
An estimated 15,000+ lobbyists try to influence EU decision-making, most of them representing Big Business. The Brussels Sunshine blog, written by members of the Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) team, tracks who registers and who doesn't, what is disclosed and what isn't.
http://blog.brusselssunshine.eu/2009/06/former-parliament-president-among-least.html
Tuesday, 2 June 2009 Article
Former Parliament President among the least transparent lobbyists
In previous posts we highlighted examples of former MEPs who have gone through the revolving door to become corporate lobbyists. Pat Cox, an MEP for fifteen years (1989 - 2004) and president of the European Parliament for two years (2002 -2004), is another astonishing example.
After stepping down as an MEP he became a lobbying consultant for several bodies, including public affairs giant APCO, the corporations Microsoft, Pfizer and Michelin, as well as corporate front groups and think- tanks like Friends of Europe.
He is also the director of two smaller lobby firms: Strategic Consulting firm CAPA Ltd and European Integration Solutions. Neither of these firms have joined the Commission's register. Nor do they apply even the most basic standards of transparency:
- Neither of them has a website
- Searching online, there is an EIS address in Brussels as well as a Cyprus phone number. The address seems to be for a private apartment.
Pat Cox has also been hired by Consumer Commissioner Meglena Kuneva as a Special Adviser. The documents published on the Commission's web page of Special Advisers, however, fail to demonstrate an absence of conflicts of interest as demanded by the Rules on Special Advisers.
There are legitimate concerns that there could be a potential conflict of interest given that Mr Cox works directly (Microsoft, Pfizer and Michelin) and indirectly (through APCO and EIS) for large corporations with significant interests in EU consumer policies.
Corporate Europe Observatory wrote to Commissioner Kuneva last month and asked her to clarify the situation.
On 23 June 2008 the European Commission launched the first ever EU lobbying transparency register. But will this voluntary mechanism end the secrecy surrounding much of lobbying in Brussels?
An estimated 15,000+ lobbyists try to influence EU decision-making, most of them representing Big Business. The Brussels Sunshine blog, written by members of the Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) team, tracks who registers and who doesn't, what is disclosed and what isn't.
http://blog.brusselssunshine.eu/2009/06/former-parliament-president-among-least.html
Tuesday, 2 June 2009 Article
Former Parliament President among the least transparent lobbyists
In previous posts we highlighted examples of former MEPs who have gone through the revolving door to become corporate lobbyists. Pat Cox, an MEP for fifteen years (1989 - 2004) and president of the European Parliament for two years (2002 -2004), is another astonishing example.
After stepping down as an MEP he became a lobbying consultant for several bodies, including public affairs giant APCO, the corporations Microsoft, Pfizer and Michelin, as well as corporate front groups and think- tanks like Friends of Europe.
He is also the director of two smaller lobby firms: Strategic Consulting firm CAPA Ltd and European Integration Solutions. Neither of these firms have joined the Commission's register. Nor do they apply even the most basic standards of transparency:
- Neither of them has a website
- Searching online, there is an EIS address in Brussels as well as a Cyprus phone number. The address seems to be for a private apartment.
Pat Cox has also been hired by Consumer Commissioner Meglena Kuneva as a Special Adviser. The documents published on the Commission's web page of Special Advisers, however, fail to demonstrate an absence of conflicts of interest as demanded by the Rules on Special Advisers.
There are legitimate concerns that there could be a potential conflict of interest given that Mr Cox works directly (Microsoft, Pfizer and Michelin) and indirectly (through APCO and EIS) for large corporations with significant interests in EU consumer policies.
Corporate Europe Observatory wrote to Commissioner Kuneva last month and asked her to clarify the situation.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Campaigning will win us a No to Lisbon, Again!
How to get you to do nothing
The principal tactics being employed by the Yes campaign so far appear to be forms of psychological intimidation. In addition to targeting the public with disingenuous scaremongering, they are attempting to demoralise No campaigners by convincing them that they have no chance of winning.
They want to present a Yes victory as a fait accompli. I know the latter to be a fact as it was stated by a member of the European Parliament. Also we witnessed what David Cochrane, who led a successful campaign for Libertas, said when he switched sides: he advised the Yes campaign to project an image of total certainty.
The purpose of this is to sow demotivation and apathy among No campaigners. Yet radio opinion polls (though not totally reliable) indicate a substantial majority against, the letters' pages of at least two of the main national dailies show a higher ratio of No to Yes writers, and the major online internet discussion groups have polls running also showing a majority against, along with a large number of No side contributors.
An MEP, Colm Burke, informed me that judging from his experience on the campaign trail he fears that the referendum will be lost again. In addition, the Government felt the need to announce that it would not resign if it lost the referendum again. Hardly a vote of confidence in itself.
When people learn these facts, when they realise that it is part of a campaign of psychological intimidation, they become doubly motivated again. So it's very important that people know that this battle is winnable.
Of course, some people are wavering because of the economic situation. Not all the I T etc polls are inaccurate (at least one though had a very skewed question).
But the economic argument is basically the sole argument the Yes side has. And this argument is not only going to be met head on, it will be turned completely around as it's utter rubbish.
For a start, the very deregulated economic model upon which Lisbon is based is responsible for the international financial collapse. Then there is the fact that Britain is the most Eurosceptic member state in the EU and this has not stopped investors there nor the beginnings of economic recovery. In addition, Norway and Switzerland both rejected membership of the EU and despite not being at "the heart of Europe" these are two of Europe's wealthiest nations.
In fact, as Brian Lenihan recently acknowledged, membership of the monetary union allied to an influx of cheap labour from Eastern Europe played a key part in engineering our economic collapse. It is completely disingenuous and utterly reprehensible then to present self-serving economic arguments (especially coming from the same political elite responsible for the current mess) for supporting a political treaty.
Market integration and political integration are entirely different. As Professor Roland Vaubel, Germany, wrote recently, "The common market was a highly successful attempt to remove the barriers to trade and capital movements that the national governments had erected. It increased efficiency as well as freedom... Political integration or centralisation, by contrast, is a threat to liberty. The more we centralise, the more powerful the state as a whole becomes" (European Institutions as an Interest Group, pg 23).
The principal tactics being employed by the Yes campaign so far appear to be forms of psychological intimidation. In addition to targeting the public with disingenuous scaremongering, they are attempting to demoralise No campaigners by convincing them that they have no chance of winning.
They want to present a Yes victory as a fait accompli. I know the latter to be a fact as it was stated by a member of the European Parliament. Also we witnessed what David Cochrane, who led a successful campaign for Libertas, said when he switched sides: he advised the Yes campaign to project an image of total certainty.
The purpose of this is to sow demotivation and apathy among No campaigners. Yet radio opinion polls (though not totally reliable) indicate a substantial majority against, the letters' pages of at least two of the main national dailies show a higher ratio of No to Yes writers, and the major online internet discussion groups have polls running also showing a majority against, along with a large number of No side contributors.
An MEP, Colm Burke, informed me that judging from his experience on the campaign trail he fears that the referendum will be lost again. In addition, the Government felt the need to announce that it would not resign if it lost the referendum again. Hardly a vote of confidence in itself.
When people learn these facts, when they realise that it is part of a campaign of psychological intimidation, they become doubly motivated again. So it's very important that people know that this battle is winnable.
Of course, some people are wavering because of the economic situation. Not all the I T etc polls are inaccurate (at least one though had a very skewed question).
But the economic argument is basically the sole argument the Yes side has. And this argument is not only going to be met head on, it will be turned completely around as it's utter rubbish.
For a start, the very deregulated economic model upon which Lisbon is based is responsible for the international financial collapse. Then there is the fact that Britain is the most Eurosceptic member state in the EU and this has not stopped investors there nor the beginnings of economic recovery. In addition, Norway and Switzerland both rejected membership of the EU and despite not being at "the heart of Europe" these are two of Europe's wealthiest nations.
In fact, as Brian Lenihan recently acknowledged, membership of the monetary union allied to an influx of cheap labour from Eastern Europe played a key part in engineering our economic collapse. It is completely disingenuous and utterly reprehensible then to present self-serving economic arguments (especially coming from the same political elite responsible for the current mess) for supporting a political treaty.
Market integration and political integration are entirely different. As Professor Roland Vaubel, Germany, wrote recently, "The common market was a highly successful attempt to remove the barriers to trade and capital movements that the national governments had erected. It increased efficiency as well as freedom... Political integration or centralisation, by contrast, is a threat to liberty. The more we centralise, the more powerful the state as a whole becomes" (European Institutions as an Interest Group, pg 23).
Monday, July 13, 2009
Evo Morales 10 Commandments
* 1. In order to save the planet, the capitalist model must be eradicated and the North pay its ecological debt, rather than the countries of the South and throughout the world continuing to pay their external debts.
* 2. Denounce and PUT AN END to war, which only brings profits for empires, transnationals, and a few families, but not for peoples. The million and millions of dollars destined to warfare should be invested in the Earth, which has been hurt as a result of misuse and overexploitation.
* 3. Develop relations of coexistence, rather than domination, among countries in a world without imperialism or colonialism. Bilateral and multilateral relations are important because we belong to a culture of dialogue and social coexistence, but those relationships should not be of submission of one country to another.
* 4. Water is a human right and a right for all living things on the planet. It is not possible that there be policies that permit the privatization of water.
* 5. Develop clean energies that are nature friendly; put an end to energy wastefulness. In 100 years we are doing away with the fossil fuels that have been created over millions of years. Avoid the promotion of agrofuels. It is incomprehensible that some governments and economic development models can set aside land in order to make luxury cars run, rather than using it to provide food for human beings. Promote debates with governments and create awareness that the earth must be used for the benefit of all human beings and not to produce agrofuels.
* 6. Respect for the mother Earth. Learn from the historic teachings of native and indigenous peoples with regard to the respect for the mother Earth. A collective social consciousness must be developed among all sectors of society, recognizing that the Earth is our mother.
* 7. Basic services, such as water, electricity, education, healthcare, communications, and collective transportation should all be considered human rights; they cannot be privatized but must rather be public services.
* 8. Consume what is necessary, give priority and consume what is produced locally, put an end to consumerism, waste, and luxury. It is incomprehensible that some families dedicate themselves to the search for luxury, when millions and millions of persons do not have the possibility to live well.
* 9. Promote cultural and economic diversity. We are very diverse and this is our nature. A plurinational state, in which everyone is included within that state - whites, browns, blacks, everyone.
* 10. We want everyone to be able to live well, which does not mean to live better at the expense of others. We must build a communitarian socialism that is in harmony with the Mother Earth.
Evo Morales
* 2. Denounce and PUT AN END to war, which only brings profits for empires, transnationals, and a few families, but not for peoples. The million and millions of dollars destined to warfare should be invested in the Earth, which has been hurt as a result of misuse and overexploitation.
* 3. Develop relations of coexistence, rather than domination, among countries in a world without imperialism or colonialism. Bilateral and multilateral relations are important because we belong to a culture of dialogue and social coexistence, but those relationships should not be of submission of one country to another.
* 4. Water is a human right and a right for all living things on the planet. It is not possible that there be policies that permit the privatization of water.
* 5. Develop clean energies that are nature friendly; put an end to energy wastefulness. In 100 years we are doing away with the fossil fuels that have been created over millions of years. Avoid the promotion of agrofuels. It is incomprehensible that some governments and economic development models can set aside land in order to make luxury cars run, rather than using it to provide food for human beings. Promote debates with governments and create awareness that the earth must be used for the benefit of all human beings and not to produce agrofuels.
* 6. Respect for the mother Earth. Learn from the historic teachings of native and indigenous peoples with regard to the respect for the mother Earth. A collective social consciousness must be developed among all sectors of society, recognizing that the Earth is our mother.
* 7. Basic services, such as water, electricity, education, healthcare, communications, and collective transportation should all be considered human rights; they cannot be privatized but must rather be public services.
* 8. Consume what is necessary, give priority and consume what is produced locally, put an end to consumerism, waste, and luxury. It is incomprehensible that some families dedicate themselves to the search for luxury, when millions and millions of persons do not have the possibility to live well.
* 9. Promote cultural and economic diversity. We are very diverse and this is our nature. A plurinational state, in which everyone is included within that state - whites, browns, blacks, everyone.
* 10. We want everyone to be able to live well, which does not mean to live better at the expense of others. We must build a communitarian socialism that is in harmony with the Mother Earth.
Evo Morales
Jack O'Conner on being elected President of the ICTU
I wish to express the deep appreciation of my union for the honour of my election to the office of the President of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. I know the affiliated unions, in supporting me for this position, were conscious of the fact that this is the centenary year of SIPTU making the honour even more significant. In this regard, I want to acknowledge that this is also the centenary year of another affiliated union, the ASTI, and I want to congratulate them for what they have achieved for their profession over the past 100 years.
I am assuming office against the background of what, I think, everyone accepts is the worst economic downturn globally and domestically - certainly since the Second World War and possibly since the aftermath of the Wall Street crash of 1929.
I am also conscious that I am assuming office after the presidency of Patricia McKeown who worked very actively to ensure that the imprint of the trade union movement is firmly placed on the developing infrastructure of the all island economy. I am acutely conscious of the central role and legacy of our movement in the struggle to reconcile the issues which divide the people of this island and they way in which we have always emphasised the unity between workers of all traditions in this country and often in the face of the most strident adversity – including the significance of decisions taken by our movement in 1918 and the price we have paid for those decisions and I want to assure Conference that in so far as I possibly can I will remain true throughout my tenure in this office to that legacy.
Patricia also elevated the importance of international solidarity throughout her presidency reinforcing the internationalist outlook of our movement and working tirelessly to highlight graphically the plight of those suffering injustice and oppression in the world particularly the greatest injustice of them all – that being suffered by the Palestinian people, which incidentally not only diminishes them but the Israeli people as well and because our common humanity has allowed it to happen diminishes us all.
In this regard, I want to reassure conference that I will endeavour to do everything I can to ensure that our honourable tradition of internationalism, reflected in the work of the Global Solidarity Committee, of extending solidarity to beleaguered and oppressed people, particularly in Palestine and Colombia, will remain on top of the agenda.
But ultimately, delegates, we make our history in our own domestic context and we face economic conditions and their social implications at least as severe as any we have ever encountered. The domestic aspect of this crisis is entirely attributable, in the South at least, to decisions made at the end of the 1990’s which actually prioritised speculative over sustainable development – even sustainable capitalism – resulting in a catastrophe of such a scale never previously witnessed in this State.
By way of emphasis, think for a moment of the difference between the Swedish banking crisis of the early 1990s which entailed 8% of GDP compared to our current crisis entailing as much as 60% of GDP and we have not yet seen anything like the full potential of how this crisis will impact on working people and its capacity to inflict enormous human misery.
We are facing into this under a centre-right government which is committed to an austerity policy which reflects the same outlook that created the problems in the first place. Thus, they are concentrated on saving the banks from nationalisation; rectifying the public finances without alienating the better off because they regard them as potential investors; and simulating devaluation by promoting a pay cutting agenda across the economy – a policy which incidentally apart from its inherent immorality will actually serve only to exacerbate the problem by further depressing the economy.
That being said, we have to be clear that there is neither a pain free, nor risk free alternative, and wish it as we would it is not open to us to simply wave these problems away – there is a requirement for a sustained national effort by all sectors of society, acting on an all island basis, to meet the challenge.
This can only be constructed on the basis of fairness which means that those best able contribute the most while those most exposed are protected by society as a whole.
That is why we advanced the idea of the Social Solidarity Pact; why we promulgated the Ten Point Plan; why we urged unions seeking mandates to ballot for industrial action across the South in pursuit of the Transitional Agreement or negotiated alternative. That too – believe it or believe it not delegates – is why the Executive Council of Congress deferred the action scheduled for March 30, last and why we agreed to enter talks with government and employers and it is why within those talks we highlighted the issues of job retention; private sector pensions and protection against home repossessions and why in relation to the public sector we have demanded guarantees against compulsory redundancies; the protection of temporary workers and reassurances against further pay cuts as well as commitments that the pensions levy would be addressed in a structured way in the context of economic recovery.
And it is also, delegates, why the Executive Council concluded unanimously that the proposals which emerged from the talks on June 23, fell short but sought further engagement to see if a platform for agreement could be constructed.
Because we must be prepared to try to find agreement which maximises the prospects for the protection of the livelihoods and advancement of the interests of our members and of working people generally and their families. And it is why, also, that we are engaged with the Construction Industry Council in relation to imaginative proposals which would save 70,000 jobs, preserve our critical skills base and provide physical infrastructure which is so crucial to enhance the productivity of our economy rather than the kindergarten economics of cutting people’s pay. In that regard, I want to make it very clear that we are amenable to working with any and every employer who is prepared to recognise their employees right to organise and be represented by trade unions, to negotiate and comply with collectively negotiated agreements and to treat people fairly, in order to meet the challenge ahead.
I am acutely aware of the level of disillusionment among trade union members and working people generally at our response to the assault on their standard of living and quality of life as it has unfolded to date. I have to say, quite frankly, that it would have been better if we had gone ahead with the day of action on March 30, as a united movement - but it wasn’t going to happen as a united movement.
But let us be clear on this, delegates. This is a marathon not a sprint and we will not successfully meet the challenge with which we are faced by walking around town for a few hours. Let us be clear because there is a great deal of confusion about it. What we decided to do at the Congress meeting of February 24, was to urge unions to conduct ballots to secure mandates for a sustained and relentless campaign of action in pursuit of collectively negotiated agreement.
And in the absence of that I am not going to threaten the Minister for Finance with the riots in the street that seem to pre-occupy his imagination but I believe we can offer instead the prospect of a sustained and relentless industrial campaign conducted workplace by workplace and I believe we can promise him and those who believe that working people should carry the burden of this crisis a response that will not end in one day like a walk about town - or a riot for that matter – but will go on and on, workplace after workplace, and that will be there to meet them every morning they wake up.
I do so in the knowledge that if it has to happen – and I very much hope it doesn’t - that while we will take punishment we will inflict it as well and I am determined to ensure that in so far as I can this movement will not allow any group of workers to be isolated or to have their agreements torn up or to have Labour Court recommendations disregarded and to have avenues of resolution deliberately obstructed. This is why, delegates, I considered it critically important to declare our clear and unequivocal support for the electrician members of the TEEU after their talks at the LRC broke down last Saturday.
In saying all of this I am equally determined to ensure that the battle is conducted in an intelligent way that does not expose union members, or their families, or indeed the ordinary citizens of this island, to unnecessary hardship or potential danger through some blind adventurism.
And all the while being ready and willing to conclude terms for a realistic agreement that respects the interests of working people and our entitlement to dignity at work.
In that regard, I will be making no attempt to camouflage the fact that our government has failed to honour commitments in respect of nine separate pieces of employment protection legislation and their recent exercise in persuading the Heads of Government at the European Council to adopt a solemn declaration affording a high priority to workers rights when they are not prepared to apply it domestically is nothing short of monumental hypocrisy.
Indeed, this is graphically illustrated by the plight of ten contract cleaner members of my own union who are today picketing the office of the Minister for the Environment in the Customs House having been dismissed for no other reason other than that they are members of a trade union.
It is also evident in the application for an all out picket in Dublin Port which is due to be considered by this Congress shortly because a company called Marine Terminals is determined to smash any trade union organisation including an attempt to carry out the mass dismissal of SIPTU members. It was also reflected in the presence here earlier this week of workers employed by Mr Binman a company in the waste disposal industry in support of their colleagues who have also been dismissed for simply seeking to exercise the right to organise.
All this arises in the context of the impending vote on the Lisbon Treaty which, if ratified, would enshrine entitlement to participate in collective bargaining as a fundamental right, which would inevitably entail a prohibition on victimisation for seeking to vindicate that right, but which our government refuses to commit to domestic legislation.
In this context, I believe that the two most significant and potentially far reaching developments of our conference this week were the clear and explicit commitment which seems to have gone unnoticed by the leader of the Labour leader, Eamon Gilmore when he addressed us last Tuesday to enshrine that fundamental right into Irish law if the Treaty is ratified in the October referendum – the other one being our decision to establish a commission on trade union organisation. Lets be frank about it delegates. We are not nearly as well equipped as we should be to address the challenge facing the people we represent over the period ahead and we must address ourselves to this as a matter of the most urgent priority.
Unless and until we do the content of our resolutions will remain little more than aspirational.
I want to assure you that these matters will receive my fullest attention over every day of the next two years and in that regard I look forward to working with every member elected to the incoming Executive Council to ensure that as far as I possibly can that the interests of every member of every union affiliated to this Congress are upheld to the utmost possible degree.
My fundamental objective is to achieve the maximum unity in our trade union and labour movement because it is not just about unity between organisations and institutions but, more profoundly, between the working men and women of this island.
With that in mind I look forward to working with the other officers, with Joe O’Flynn and Patricia King of my own union, and with Eugene McGlone of UNITE and, in particular, I look forward to working with our general secretary, David Begg, whom I hold in the utmost esteem and whom, I have no doubt, is without question the best person to see us through these difficult times.
I’m often reminded of a remark passed by Esther Lynch of the Congress staff in a passing conversation a few years ago. She said; “This is our watch”. We are only the custodians of the proud legacy of the determined, and courageous, working people who founded this Congress and we owe it to them and to our members and working people today and to those who are not yet born to meet the challenge presented by these times and to reassert the objective of fairness at work and justice in society. I promise that I will do everything I can to bring this about and I know that together as a united movement we will overcome.
I am assuming office against the background of what, I think, everyone accepts is the worst economic downturn globally and domestically - certainly since the Second World War and possibly since the aftermath of the Wall Street crash of 1929.
I am also conscious that I am assuming office after the presidency of Patricia McKeown who worked very actively to ensure that the imprint of the trade union movement is firmly placed on the developing infrastructure of the all island economy. I am acutely conscious of the central role and legacy of our movement in the struggle to reconcile the issues which divide the people of this island and they way in which we have always emphasised the unity between workers of all traditions in this country and often in the face of the most strident adversity – including the significance of decisions taken by our movement in 1918 and the price we have paid for those decisions and I want to assure Conference that in so far as I possibly can I will remain true throughout my tenure in this office to that legacy.
Patricia also elevated the importance of international solidarity throughout her presidency reinforcing the internationalist outlook of our movement and working tirelessly to highlight graphically the plight of those suffering injustice and oppression in the world particularly the greatest injustice of them all – that being suffered by the Palestinian people, which incidentally not only diminishes them but the Israeli people as well and because our common humanity has allowed it to happen diminishes us all.
In this regard, I want to reassure conference that I will endeavour to do everything I can to ensure that our honourable tradition of internationalism, reflected in the work of the Global Solidarity Committee, of extending solidarity to beleaguered and oppressed people, particularly in Palestine and Colombia, will remain on top of the agenda.
But ultimately, delegates, we make our history in our own domestic context and we face economic conditions and their social implications at least as severe as any we have ever encountered. The domestic aspect of this crisis is entirely attributable, in the South at least, to decisions made at the end of the 1990’s which actually prioritised speculative over sustainable development – even sustainable capitalism – resulting in a catastrophe of such a scale never previously witnessed in this State.
By way of emphasis, think for a moment of the difference between the Swedish banking crisis of the early 1990s which entailed 8% of GDP compared to our current crisis entailing as much as 60% of GDP and we have not yet seen anything like the full potential of how this crisis will impact on working people and its capacity to inflict enormous human misery.
We are facing into this under a centre-right government which is committed to an austerity policy which reflects the same outlook that created the problems in the first place. Thus, they are concentrated on saving the banks from nationalisation; rectifying the public finances without alienating the better off because they regard them as potential investors; and simulating devaluation by promoting a pay cutting agenda across the economy – a policy which incidentally apart from its inherent immorality will actually serve only to exacerbate the problem by further depressing the economy.
That being said, we have to be clear that there is neither a pain free, nor risk free alternative, and wish it as we would it is not open to us to simply wave these problems away – there is a requirement for a sustained national effort by all sectors of society, acting on an all island basis, to meet the challenge.
This can only be constructed on the basis of fairness which means that those best able contribute the most while those most exposed are protected by society as a whole.
That is why we advanced the idea of the Social Solidarity Pact; why we promulgated the Ten Point Plan; why we urged unions seeking mandates to ballot for industrial action across the South in pursuit of the Transitional Agreement or negotiated alternative. That too – believe it or believe it not delegates – is why the Executive Council of Congress deferred the action scheduled for March 30, last and why we agreed to enter talks with government and employers and it is why within those talks we highlighted the issues of job retention; private sector pensions and protection against home repossessions and why in relation to the public sector we have demanded guarantees against compulsory redundancies; the protection of temporary workers and reassurances against further pay cuts as well as commitments that the pensions levy would be addressed in a structured way in the context of economic recovery.
And it is also, delegates, why the Executive Council concluded unanimously that the proposals which emerged from the talks on June 23, fell short but sought further engagement to see if a platform for agreement could be constructed.
Because we must be prepared to try to find agreement which maximises the prospects for the protection of the livelihoods and advancement of the interests of our members and of working people generally and their families. And it is why, also, that we are engaged with the Construction Industry Council in relation to imaginative proposals which would save 70,000 jobs, preserve our critical skills base and provide physical infrastructure which is so crucial to enhance the productivity of our economy rather than the kindergarten economics of cutting people’s pay. In that regard, I want to make it very clear that we are amenable to working with any and every employer who is prepared to recognise their employees right to organise and be represented by trade unions, to negotiate and comply with collectively negotiated agreements and to treat people fairly, in order to meet the challenge ahead.
I am acutely aware of the level of disillusionment among trade union members and working people generally at our response to the assault on their standard of living and quality of life as it has unfolded to date. I have to say, quite frankly, that it would have been better if we had gone ahead with the day of action on March 30, as a united movement - but it wasn’t going to happen as a united movement.
But let us be clear on this, delegates. This is a marathon not a sprint and we will not successfully meet the challenge with which we are faced by walking around town for a few hours. Let us be clear because there is a great deal of confusion about it. What we decided to do at the Congress meeting of February 24, was to urge unions to conduct ballots to secure mandates for a sustained and relentless campaign of action in pursuit of collectively negotiated agreement.
And in the absence of that I am not going to threaten the Minister for Finance with the riots in the street that seem to pre-occupy his imagination but I believe we can offer instead the prospect of a sustained and relentless industrial campaign conducted workplace by workplace and I believe we can promise him and those who believe that working people should carry the burden of this crisis a response that will not end in one day like a walk about town - or a riot for that matter – but will go on and on, workplace after workplace, and that will be there to meet them every morning they wake up.
I do so in the knowledge that if it has to happen – and I very much hope it doesn’t - that while we will take punishment we will inflict it as well and I am determined to ensure that in so far as I can this movement will not allow any group of workers to be isolated or to have their agreements torn up or to have Labour Court recommendations disregarded and to have avenues of resolution deliberately obstructed. This is why, delegates, I considered it critically important to declare our clear and unequivocal support for the electrician members of the TEEU after their talks at the LRC broke down last Saturday.
In saying all of this I am equally determined to ensure that the battle is conducted in an intelligent way that does not expose union members, or their families, or indeed the ordinary citizens of this island, to unnecessary hardship or potential danger through some blind adventurism.
And all the while being ready and willing to conclude terms for a realistic agreement that respects the interests of working people and our entitlement to dignity at work.
In that regard, I will be making no attempt to camouflage the fact that our government has failed to honour commitments in respect of nine separate pieces of employment protection legislation and their recent exercise in persuading the Heads of Government at the European Council to adopt a solemn declaration affording a high priority to workers rights when they are not prepared to apply it domestically is nothing short of monumental hypocrisy.
Indeed, this is graphically illustrated by the plight of ten contract cleaner members of my own union who are today picketing the office of the Minister for the Environment in the Customs House having been dismissed for no other reason other than that they are members of a trade union.
It is also evident in the application for an all out picket in Dublin Port which is due to be considered by this Congress shortly because a company called Marine Terminals is determined to smash any trade union organisation including an attempt to carry out the mass dismissal of SIPTU members. It was also reflected in the presence here earlier this week of workers employed by Mr Binman a company in the waste disposal industry in support of their colleagues who have also been dismissed for simply seeking to exercise the right to organise.
All this arises in the context of the impending vote on the Lisbon Treaty which, if ratified, would enshrine entitlement to participate in collective bargaining as a fundamental right, which would inevitably entail a prohibition on victimisation for seeking to vindicate that right, but which our government refuses to commit to domestic legislation.
In this context, I believe that the two most significant and potentially far reaching developments of our conference this week were the clear and explicit commitment which seems to have gone unnoticed by the leader of the Labour leader, Eamon Gilmore when he addressed us last Tuesday to enshrine that fundamental right into Irish law if the Treaty is ratified in the October referendum – the other one being our decision to establish a commission on trade union organisation. Lets be frank about it delegates. We are not nearly as well equipped as we should be to address the challenge facing the people we represent over the period ahead and we must address ourselves to this as a matter of the most urgent priority.
Unless and until we do the content of our resolutions will remain little more than aspirational.
I want to assure you that these matters will receive my fullest attention over every day of the next two years and in that regard I look forward to working with every member elected to the incoming Executive Council to ensure that as far as I possibly can that the interests of every member of every union affiliated to this Congress are upheld to the utmost possible degree.
My fundamental objective is to achieve the maximum unity in our trade union and labour movement because it is not just about unity between organisations and institutions but, more profoundly, between the working men and women of this island.
With that in mind I look forward to working with the other officers, with Joe O’Flynn and Patricia King of my own union, and with Eugene McGlone of UNITE and, in particular, I look forward to working with our general secretary, David Begg, whom I hold in the utmost esteem and whom, I have no doubt, is without question the best person to see us through these difficult times.
I’m often reminded of a remark passed by Esther Lynch of the Congress staff in a passing conversation a few years ago. She said; “This is our watch”. We are only the custodians of the proud legacy of the determined, and courageous, working people who founded this Congress and we owe it to them and to our members and working people today and to those who are not yet born to meet the challenge presented by these times and to reassert the objective of fairness at work and justice in society. I promise that I will do everything I can to bring this about and I know that together as a united movement we will overcome.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Honduran people demand return of President
The Honduran people took to the streets of the capital this Sunday to welcome the constitutional president, Manuel Zelaya, but his arrival was frustrated by the military who blocked the runway during a tense day that left two people dead after being fired on by soldiers, and several people wounded.
A huge crowd – calculated by its leaders to be in the hundreds of thousands – marched from mid-morning toward Toncontín international airport, in the largest popular protest since the coup d’état began in the early hours of June 28.
The demonstrators surrounded the airport’s perimeter fence, chanting slogans and waiting for Zelaya’s arrival, and managed to cross Comosa bridge on the outskirts of the airfield.
Thousands of people came together from the wide avenue bordering the airport to the hill at the southern entrance of the facility, where a large contingent of anti-riot police and soldiers were deployed on the runway.
A 16-year-old boy, Fernando Enríquez Sánchez, told Prensa Latina that while they were staging a peaceful protest close to the perimeter fence, they were verbally abused by a military commander and then fired on by the soldiers. He added that he had seen a young man shot in the back of the head, who then collapsed on the public highway.
Other witnesses explained that the other casualty was a young woman who was shot in the face and fired heavy rounds of tear gas grenades on the crowd who were forced to disperse, but a short time later, they returned to the same area, chanting slogans such as “The people united, will never be defeated.”
The plane carrying Zelaya flew over the airport on two occasions late in the evening but was prevented from landing by army troops who blocked the runway. As the plane flew over, the impassioned crowd raised their hands, crying, “Here comes Mel,” the president’s nickname.
Leaders from the Popular Resistance Front, created by the trade unions, campesinos, youth organizations, students, legal agencies, environmentalists and human rights defenders, among others, called for another protest march to take place on Monday in the capital.
Anti-coup demonstrations also took place today in the city of San Pedro Sula, some 250 kilometers north of the capital, according to independent media reports.
Sources from the Cuban embassy in Honduras reported that our compatriots working in that country are safe and well. (PL)
Translated by Granma International
A huge crowd – calculated by its leaders to be in the hundreds of thousands – marched from mid-morning toward Toncontín international airport, in the largest popular protest since the coup d’état began in the early hours of June 28.
The demonstrators surrounded the airport’s perimeter fence, chanting slogans and waiting for Zelaya’s arrival, and managed to cross Comosa bridge on the outskirts of the airfield.
Thousands of people came together from the wide avenue bordering the airport to the hill at the southern entrance of the facility, where a large contingent of anti-riot police and soldiers were deployed on the runway.
A 16-year-old boy, Fernando Enríquez Sánchez, told Prensa Latina that while they were staging a peaceful protest close to the perimeter fence, they were verbally abused by a military commander and then fired on by the soldiers. He added that he had seen a young man shot in the back of the head, who then collapsed on the public highway.
Other witnesses explained that the other casualty was a young woman who was shot in the face and fired heavy rounds of tear gas grenades on the crowd who were forced to disperse, but a short time later, they returned to the same area, chanting slogans such as “The people united, will never be defeated.”
The plane carrying Zelaya flew over the airport on two occasions late in the evening but was prevented from landing by army troops who blocked the runway. As the plane flew over, the impassioned crowd raised their hands, crying, “Here comes Mel,” the president’s nickname.
Leaders from the Popular Resistance Front, created by the trade unions, campesinos, youth organizations, students, legal agencies, environmentalists and human rights defenders, among others, called for another protest march to take place on Monday in the capital.
Anti-coup demonstrations also took place today in the city of San Pedro Sula, some 250 kilometers north of the capital, according to independent media reports.
Sources from the Cuban embassy in Honduras reported that our compatriots working in that country are safe and well. (PL)
Translated by Granma International
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
