Left wing website launched for a No Vote

by jus curious Tue Jan 15, 2008 17:07

Is there another vote no grouping available?

thats not SWP
and, not Anarchist?

by not SWP Tue Jan 15, 2008 17:22

If there isn't another group, and you're not happy with the two you mention, get some friends together and set up your own one.
I'm no fan of the SWP, but I don't begrudge them for setting up a campaign. How they conduct it is a different matter, but my point is, there are too many hurlers on the ditch. Get your kit on, get on the pitch yourself.

by lessons to be learnt.. Tue Jan 15, 2008 17:22

Unfortunately I wasn't paying much attention...is it possible to get a synopsis of how public opinion was pursuaded to vote no to the first Nice Referendum. We often seem to start campaigns from year zero.
Can anyone suggest useful links, articles etc.?

by yoghurt eater Tue Jan 15, 2008 17:35

Is this website something to do with the SWP? It's not mentioned in the article or press release or whatever it is, nor can i see any mention of the SWP on the site itself.

Surely a political party would not set up a website and not mention its own name? I'll have another look, or maybe someoone can point me in the right direction.

by neep Tue Jan 15, 2008 18:48

The only detailed material the site seems to be offering - pamphlet by keiran allen - is a 404 not found

by Mike - Starry Plough Initiative Tue Jan 15, 2008 20:06

""Is this website something to do with the SWP? It's not mentioned in the article or press release or whatever it is, nor can i see any mention of the SWP on the site itself.

Surely a political party would not set up a website and not mention its own name? I'll have another look, or maybe someoone can point me in the right direction. ""

A few things jump out saying "SWP".

Firstly, Kieran Allen is a major contributer. Second, its asking people to subscribe to the "Socialist Worker" on the Get Involved page. Third, there are SWP flags in one of the pictures on the site.

Dont be surprised if the SWP have set up a front organisation or website, it wouldnt be the first. PBP comes to mind. Thats not a criticism of fronts, but dont be surprised by this tactic, the SWP is renowned for it.

http://theplough.proboards57.com/

by SWP member - SWP Tue Jan 15, 2008 22:00

If only people read before they wrote.

Look at home page of www.voteno.ie - its says (left panel) who the editors are (Kieran Allen and Sinead Kennedy) and then

"Both Kieran & Sinead are also members of the Socialist Workers Party "

with a link to the SWP website. It's no secret. It's no front. It's no problem.

Now let's get on and build a campaign!

by Stalins airbrush Tue Jan 15, 2008 23:41

Who'd have thought of it, SWP respond to criticism on indymedia about the content of their website and change the content while pretending thats how it was all along.

I saw this thread a few hours ago and looked at the site then, since that time the 'members of the SWP' text has been added to the site. You could at least be slightly honest about it and claim it was an oversight!

by Mike - Starry Plough Initiative Tue Jan 15, 2008 23:51

""If only people read before they wrote.

Look at home page of www.voteno.ie - its says (left panel) who the editors are (Kieran Allen and Sinead Kennedy) and then

"Both Kieran & Sinead are also members of the Socialist Workers Party "

with a link to the SWP website. It's no secret. It's no front. It's no problem.

Now let's get on and build a campaign!""

Well I think the site is characteristical of a front. I am only pointing something out. Whether you want it like that is your business, I am not criticising the tactic or the site.

And good luck with the campaign. I hope all socialists can unite on this issue. The site is excellent too by the way, fair play.

http://theplough.proboards57.com/

by Noddy Wed Jan 16, 2008 02:57

The site does not make it clear that it is an organ of the SWP but does hint at it.

For once the SWP are a little bit open about their affiliation, the usual practise of political impersonation is not going on here as much as in the past.

The two editors are excellent contributors but on the whole the effort is tarnished by political opportunism. If the SWP logo was on the homepage, if the site said "this is a website created and edited by the SWP to publicise and discuss the campaign against the treaty" then things would be entirely different and the effort would be completely commendable.

This is however, not what is going on here. The blurb on the left merely says that the two editors are SWP members which is made to look almost like a coincidence. It is surely an SWP site pure and simple and that should be clearly stated on the site.

The site is fine by me as long as the SWP identify itself honestly, indicate that they are NOT the campaign, and give clear instructions on how to get involved in the campaign itself if that is what the readers of the site choose to do. When they say "get involved" they should just say "join the SWP" which is perfectly OK.

Instead "Get involved" on the site invites the viewer to "help promote left wing material against the treaty" which is true but spin.

This is a bit like going to buy a used car and the sales rep calls himself "Tom" on the phone and then when you go to see the motor you find out his real name is "Jack" A wise person is bound to stay away after that, worse than that in many cases the person will be reluctant to get involved in the campaign at all because they will associate the campaign with the SWP in their minds and they are not happy about being duffed over, and do not want to join their party.

What is objectionable is the cynical attempt by the SWP to recruit members on the back of a popular campaign, an objectionable practice, seriously against the interests of a campaign. It uses the media coverage of the Eu Treaty to recruit and is willing to damage the campaign if necessary in the process.

This is what happened in the Antiwar Movement to disasterous effect.

Its bad for everyone, radical community in general, the campaign against the EU treaty and most of all the SWP as it tarnishes their reputation which is in the pits throughout the left wing community.

This simple fact of life never seems to sink in to the brain of the leadership who advocate the entryist tactic time and time again regardless of the cost to the "cause".

by yoghurt eater Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:08

"If only people read before they wrote".

I had a good look at the site before I wrote anything. There was no mention of the SWP anywhere.

"Look at home page of www.voteno.ie - its says (left panel) who the editors are (Kieran Allen and Sinead Kennedy) and then
-Both Kieran & Sinead are also members of the Socialist Workers Party -
with a link to the SWP website. It's no secret. It's no front. It's no problem."

That information was later added. Pretending otherwise is false, and tries to make fools out of readers.

"Now let's get on and build a campaign!"

With the help of liars who try to make fools of the people they want to help? No thanks. Maybe I'd be better off voting yes to the treaty, after all.

by liz Wed Jan 16, 2008 14:25

This is Mayday 2004 on a much bigger scale, a chance to publicly discuss the EU privatization and militarization policies of a market Europe, in the full-glare of media frenzy. It seems only fair that those wishing to campaign against this treaty, from within or without the EU, as non-EU citizens will also be adversely affected and will have even less come back, should be both invited to Ireland and be facilitated as far as possible once they get here. A libertarian campaign is a necessity. Up for it?

Ireland is in the sole position to reject the lisbon treaty and as such will be a focal point for all no and yes campaigners, left, right, including libertarians from both, and centrists. Merckel and Sarkozy are rumoured to be lined up to visit and Le Pen has said he would have to be invited but would be delighted to attend. And so the circus begins.

This is a thoroughly winnable campaign. The fact that the govt. has made no effort to explain the treaty and its architects admit that it's in essence the same as the constitution which france and the netherlands rejected, alone make it clearly dodgy even before information about the taking away of national vetos and privatization of health and education aspects become common knowledge.

All eyes will be on Ireland...said an expert with a think tank on European Union (EU) policies.
"If Ireland has a NO, there will be ripple effects elsewhere. Other parliaments will suspend ratification; there will be calls for referendums in other countries. That is the possible domino effect."
Antonio Missiroli, head of studies at the European Policy Center.
www.chinaview.cn

There are already several groups campaigning against the EU treaty. These are the ones i know of , please add more :

DAPSE, Democracy and Public Services in Europe. Some of the Irish Social Forum people are involved in this and they have been campaigning since the EU Costitution was first conceived of so they're great on treaty content. Meetings are on Indymedia, I can't find a website but contact details are dapse@eircom.net

Sinn Fein- www.sinnfein.ie

Green Party on the fence. They have a party conference discussing the treaty on Jan. 19th. Campaigned for a no vote previously. Patricia McKenna on the no side. Deirdre de Burca's current position? www.greenparty.ie has a lot of treaty info and a full treaty draft. However, the fact that it's referred to as 'the EU Reform Treaty' gives a lot away.

Libertas. www.libertas.org. Businesspeople funding a no campaign. Appears to be because Sarkozy has managed to remove a competition clause from the Treaty. Very little info on the site. Said to be a right-wing think-tank, claims to be centre. Taking the angle of democracy and accountability in Europe. Well-organized and seems to have lenty of money. Say they are providing a no leaflet for households countrywide.

Jean-Marie Le Pen. The no campaign needs the support of xenophobic bogots like a hole in the head so this issue as well as the traditional you're all naysayers and luddites will have to be knocked on the head.

by liz Wed Jan 16, 2008 14:31

also the socialist party. www.socialistparty.net

are having a meeting to organize a no campaign wed. 6th feb. 6:30pm 141 thomas st, d8. all interested groups welcome. link is at top of page.

by Archivest Wed Jan 16, 2008 14:41

Having seen the SWP pull this trick in the past (change their website content and claim thats how it was all along) I took the precaution of doing a screengrab when the site was first posted. Below I present the before and after images clearly proving the addition of the information 'SWP member' claims was there all along.

This is all comically stupid except for the obvious point if they cannot be trusted to tell the truth about such a minor inconsequential thing in the case where an alternative route was even open to them how can they be trusted with anything at all?

Before and after

by Confused No Voter Wed Jan 16, 2008 16:37

The link says that meeting is on in the Teachers' Club. Has it been changed to Thomas St or was one of those a mistake?

by Dave Wed Jan 16, 2008 17:46

In case you haven't noticed the US, China, Russia and India are competing for the world's resources and have huge military machines to back up their political and diplomatic moves.
It's obvious that Europe will be left behind we do not catch up.
Soft power means no power.

by Mike - Starry Plough Initiative Wed Jan 16, 2008 18:25

""In case you haven't noticed the US, China, Russia and India are competing for the world's resources and have huge military machines to back up their political and diplomatic moves.
It's obvious that Europe will be left behind we do not catch up.
Soft power means no power.""

My God, what a stupid and utterly selfish justification for strengthening the EU.

Left behind? - as in what, not having the capability to slaughter millions through imperialist wars to steal and rape another nations resources.

Trillions spent on arms and weapons - "ah, but sure we have to keep up with the competition".

My fuck man, get a brain - your argument is a never ending justification for wastage and death.

The only power we should seek is that of the working class, the very same ones who die while war profiteers make billions.

If thats the future you envisage, and the best humanity can do, your head is messed, im sorry.

http://theplough.proboards57.com/

by Ciarán Wed Jan 16, 2008 21:26

If you're looking for a No to Lisbon fix then there are other sites out there, such as the People's Movement - http://www.people.ie/

Also, Éirígí has a page on its No to Lisbon campaign - http://www.eirigi.org/campaigns/no_to_Lisbon.html

by Michael Martin Thu Jan 17, 2008 01:02

Yes, there is another referendum site not affiliated to the radical left.

http://www.libertas.org/

And re the 'Swords into plough shares' comment: "Those who beat their swords into plough shares will plough for those who don't!"

by Dave Thu Jan 17, 2008 11:29

That IS the best humanity can do.

The powerful rule over the weak and empires rise and fall conesting territory and resources.

Humanity are territorial animals who are tribes and nations.

That's never going to change.

If the EU is militarily, politically and economically weak it WILL be left behind.

by jus curious Thu Jan 17, 2008 12:01

'If the EU is militarily, politically and economically weak it WILL be left behind.'

Dave, have you considered that the EU is politically and economically strong (stronger than the USA in many ways) because it is not militarily 'strong' or threatening or agressive?

Funny how all the comments above seem to oppose the Lisbon Treaty but no one mentions anything specific in the Lisbon Treaty to be against.

I can. I'm just curious if we have any brianiacs here that can also.

Seems like all of the above is little more than inner-Leftoid rivalry and relative positioning just in case the Masses rise up - or something.

http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/full_text/index_en.htm

by Kevin Thu Jan 17, 2008 17:38

Well Liz, I'm not sure if I am one of those "bogots" that you were complaining about,
but as soon as I find a dictionary that tells me what the word means,
I'll be sure to post it here for everyone else.

Regarding Jean-Marie Le Pen, he has as much right to come to Ireland and campaign
against the Lisbon Treaty, as Ruari Quinn had to go over to France in 2005,
and campaign for a yes vote in their referendum.

As for those who object to foreign politicians interfering in our internal debates,
then this should provide even greater incentive for them to go out and knock on doors to
canvas a NO vote.

In France, the most noticeable difference between the YES and NO camps in their referendum
on the European Constitution was the amount of NO campaigners on the ground,
while the YES camp relied almost exclusively on the media to get their message across.

So remember, once the campaign begins, that's the end of interminable meetings amongst yourselves,
AND TIME TO GET OUT THERE AND CONVINCE PEOPLE TO VOTE NO!

by Mike - Starry Plough Initiative Thu Jan 17, 2008 18:12

"That IS the best humanity can do.

The powerful rule over the weak and empires rise and fall conesting territory and resources.

Humanity are territorial animals who are tribes and nations.

That's never going to change.

If the EU is militarily, politically and economically weak it WILL be left behind."

You should stop using Samuel Huntington tissue paper and buy some kitten soft.

Total nonsense and it does not take into consideration the class conflict and relations within these "empires".

Left behind. Why where is the race, and where is it going? Where is the finish line?

http://theplough.proboards57.com/

by Stalin's Airbrush - Recuperating Historians Inc. Thu Jan 17, 2008 18:12

Apart from the archives grabbed by people above you can check out the Google cache
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:gv2dYd4Zd5QJ:www.v...&cd=1

How is that the SWP are just so fecking inept? It would have been obvious and acceptable to say: "sorry, we forgot to add the very important party affiliation, but we've corrected that now" but this trying to go and change stuff quietly is moronic. Every and any political campaign launched in Ireland, especially on the Left has run into this sort of question because everyone wants to know whether they are going to be doing free publicity work, building the profile of those whom they consider to be rivals. So the original omission is either a case of the unbelievable stupids or a very clumsy mistake. I would have lent towards the latter except for the fact that it is now being covered up, so it looks like we have an advanced case of terminal stupidity coupled with deceitfulness. Any doctor can tell you the prognosis is not good.

The original captured on 15 Jan 2008 16:35:39 GMT

by liz Thu Jan 17, 2008 20:21

www.statewatch.org has an excellent analysis of the EU treaty. It's very clear and well-laid out. Proposed changes are highlighted, including those affecting foreign policy, internal markets and vetoes, including where Ireland loses veto as votes will be based on population size. The proposed treaty amendments are extensive and far-reaching and if passed future treaties will be 'self-amending' so no more referendums.

www.greenparty.ie has an info pack on the treaty with key points including ' a deepening of military co-operation' and ' a renewed commitment to liberalization and competition'. In other words continued militarization and privatization, with water, health and education up for grabs, an extension of the neo-liberal project. The Greens have pulled an extraordinarily blatant u-turn as the treaty presents them with real conflicts of interest, ideology-wise. The party members are getting to vote but the politicos are already backing a yes vote. Positive aspects of the treaty are highlighted. Good to check for balance and counter arguments.

www.politics.ie has a thread including a 10 point vote yes summary.

Full drafts of the treaty are available on various sites. Some make no sense unless they're read alongside the original EU Constitution draft.

As for what group is doing what under what banner this is nothing new and seems considerably less important to discuss than winning this referendum. Huge resources will be mobilized for a yes vote but the way that the constitution has been repackaged to look slightly less offensive, while keeping the main content intact and the lack of referendums in the rest of europe point to how a future EU will be run unless re-oriented. The only thing standing in the way of this vision is messy remnants of democracy, which is far too unpredictable to be left in the hands of voters. Voting no may slow down the process of entirely removing contentious decisions from citizens. At least it will give time and impetus for more referendums and will piss off the powers that be no end. Yes they'll try to bypass us anyway but it may as well be harder for them and more blatantly undemocratic.

As for Le Pen having the same right to campaign here as an Irish politician in France my problem is clearly not with 'foreign interference', everyone has a stake in this treaty. The issue is no platform for racists and Le Pen has more than flaunted his xenophobic credentials. History is a good teacher on this one.

SP meeting is in the teacher's club, posted the SP address by mistake. apologies for confusion.

by 4democracy Thu Jan 17, 2008 20:56

For jus curious - try www.libertas.org. They might be more to your taste. But we should all band together to fight the 'Dark Treaty'. We can deal with other issues when Lisbon is defeated. We'll agree to disagree until then and get on with the job of winning a NO VOTE.

by 4democracy Thu Jan 17, 2008 20:59

For jus curious - try www.libertas.org. They might be more to your taste. But we should all band together to fight the 'Dark Treaty'. We can deal with other issues when Lisbon is defeated. We'll agree to disagree until then and get on with the job of winning a NO VOTE.

by 4democracy Thu Jan 17, 2008 21:06

The above comments should be in The Events webpage about the Vote No campaign

by John Rees's Love Child Thu Jan 17, 2008 22:21

Honestly, after the Respect/Reespect debacle in the UK in recent months(*), anyone jumping into bed with the SWP deserves everything they get.

(*) http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&q=respect+swp, in case you've been living on Mars, or too buy shoving "Socialist Workers" in people's faces.

by keen to know more Fri Jan 18, 2008 21:43

This thread seems far too tainted by the SWP website fiasco to get anything meaningful or effective from it, but I am so glad people are keen to discuss and share ideas about this important referendum.

If you have the specifics at hand may I suggest the next person who wants to further tease out the specifics of the Vote No campaign (as opposed to the SWP website blunder) please start a new thread by writing an article with some of the key points on 'Voting No vs Voting Yes' and/or 'What we stand to lose by allowing a yes vote to go through'.
If this is done then we can generate a lively POSITIVE discussion that can hopefully enrich a broad based coalition with mutual support on the campaign. The thread could even become a handy reference guide for luddites like myself who could benefit from a few more specifics (and at least we don't have to keep raising/reading/revisiting points about the swp website -YAWN).

Thanks to people like Liz, Ciarán, Michael, Kevin etc for contributions so far.

by 4democracy Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:57

Can anyone confirm either way whether the Lisbonites of the Irish Government are going to insert a clause in the forthcoming referendum that will negate the obligation to have any further referendi. Democracy is surely and slowly being taken fron the peoples of Europe.

We should also keep in mind that the Lisbonites will try and split the NO campaign - Remember what the Roman motto was, Divide and Conquer. That's what they'll try and do, so for the duration of the campaign people should not let them succeed.