Invitation to first meeting of another europe is possible

by Niav Thu Dec 11, 2003 20:56

"it was proposed at the final plenary of the Irish Social Forum in October to set up an alliance that will try to bring together the maximum number of groups and individuals to co-ordinate common initiatives during the EU presidency. "

Just to clarify at the final plenary on Sunday morning in Mother RedCaps there were many proposals. 1 was for the ISF to establish an 'alliance' that would co-ordinate actions during the EU Presidency especially on certain dates - May 1, May 9 etc.... No consensus was reached on this proposal. This debate mirrored the arguments surrounding the WEF and the call for the ISF to organise a blockade of Dublin Castle.

It is important to remember that the Irish Social Forum follows the World Social Forum's Charter of Principles. This clearly states that....

"The meetings of the World Social Forum do not deliberate on behalf of the World Social Forum as a body. No-one, therefore, will be authorized, on behalf of any of the editions of the Forum, to express positions claiming to be those of all its participants. The participants in the Forum shall not be called on to take decisions as a body, whether by vote or acclamation, on declarations or proposals for action that would commit all, or the majority, of them and that propose to be taken as establishing positions of the Forum as a body. It thus does not constitute a locus of power to be disputed by the paarticipants in its meetings, nor does it intend to constitute the only option for interrelation and action by the organizations and movements that participate in it."

Personally, I feel groups and organisations are more than capable of organising actions themselves and am somewhat annoyed at the linking of the ISF with this new 'alliance'. I beleive Rory should clarify that some participants of the final plenary decided to set up an alliance - not the entire audience! Also it should be noted that the number of those that stayed back to discuss the formation of this alliance where predominantly members of GR. (It was a GR proposal) Since the ISF summit, a number of events have taken place that were suggested and discussed in workshops and plenaries over the weekend in October. The Noise 4 Choice demo is one of them yet it was in no way linked to the Irish Social Forum or advertised as an ISF event.

by pat c Thu Dec 11, 2003 18:39

i campaigned and voted against Nice but i dont think all of those who voted yes are out and out enemies of the people. i know of some yes voters who would have a better understanding of the dynamics of imperialism in ireland than the sp would.

tintin your points might be taken more seriously if you identified yourself. after all, you are demanding answers from someone you have named.

by another questioner Thu Dec 11, 2003 16:24

The EU is increasingly promoting the agenda of neo-liberalism, racism and privatisation (through enshrining them in the new constitution) and war (through the creation of a European Army)

racism?? how and if so why do the neo-fascists want out of the EU?

by Question for Rory Thu Dec 11, 2003 16:19

It says there was a proposal at the ISF gathering to take this initiative. Was it agreed at a plenary? Does the ISF itself have any role in this? Is this Rory & Co. trying to put themselves at the head of a movement?
If this meeting turns out to be well attended and broad in its participation everything should be up for grabs including the name and its structure.

by UCD hack Thu Dec 11, 2003 15:58

I think some clarification on Paul Dillon's position on Nice Treaty (esp Article 133) and the European Union would be great. Paul, how did you vote on the Nice Treaty?

by David Thu Dec 11, 2003 15:58

If certain "activists" had to list every relevant group they hold a position in it would go on for a long time.
For example, RBB is listed as only "irish anti war movement) and Rory describes himself only as GR, This is to give an illusion of diversity? I don't know about the all of other people mentioned but what parties are they involved in? How many people mentioned are members of the SWP?

by Major Woody Thu Dec 11, 2003 15:54

GR fails to fool anyone that it is anything but an SWP front

The ISF is annoyingly not under SWP control [well done lads] Even if it was a little timid about telling RBB where he could stick his 'Irish delegate to the ESF'.

Lo and behold from the mists 'Another Europe is possible' emerges.

Rory a more honest title might be 'Another front is possible'.

Not that it is.

by Janus Thu Dec 11, 2003 15:51

In fairness, maybe they sent an invitation and either haven't got a response or got turned down.

On the other hand, this being an SWP front (What is this, 17 or 18 now?) maybe they waited until the last minute or didn't bother inviting.

For future reference Rory, putting your name as the writer and calling it 'Another Europe is Possible' (How original) is a bit of a giveaway. GR launching across Europe is it?

by tintin Thu Dec 11, 2003 15:46

I see that the SWP will invite Paul Dillon, who supports the Nice Treaty (and Article 133) but will not put out an invite to a SP member like Joe Higgins or Clare Daly who are prepared to go to jail to defend public services.