Another Europe Is Possible – Report of a Meeting

dublin | eu | opinion/analysis Saturday January 03, 2004 14:40 by John Meehan

Personal report

On Saturday December 13 2003 a meeting with the title “Another Europe is Possible” took place in the Teachers’ Club, 36 Parnell Square, Dublin 1. Rory Hearne of “Globalise Resistance” and the Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP) issued invitations to the meeting.

Introductory Speeches were made by Barry Nevin (Chairperson of the SIPTU Civil Aviation Branch in Aer Rianta); Paul Dillon (President University College Dublin Students’ Union); Richard Boyd-Barrett (Irish Anti-War Movement and SWP); John Blisset (Rialto Community Worker).

This is a personal report by John Meehan. Other people who attended the event are welcome to add comments clarifications and corrections.

The room was crowded - I estimate the attendance at around 60-65.

The organisers collected contact details from everyone who attended, and have circulated an account of what took place. It has been placed on the Irish Indymedia site.

No attempt was made to go around the room and ask each person to identify themselves, and say what organisation(s) they belonged to (if any). Consequently, I can only make a rough guess about the political balance of the meeting.

A sizeable group of SWP members and supporters were present; in addition to that, activists who participate in the following groups and parties were present : Democracy and Public Services in Europe (DAPSE) ; Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IPSC); Alliance for Choice (AFC); the Irish Social Forum (ISF); the Irish Anti-War Movement; the Labour Party; Sinn Féin; the Green Party; the Socialist Party. In many cases, the categories overlap.

Rory Hearne (Globalise Resistance, SWP) started the meeting.

The following proposals were mentioned :

• Forming a co-ordinating group
• Agreeing a calendar of events
• Public Launch of the Alliance/Coalition

The first speaker was Barry Nevin, chairperson of the SIPTU Civil Aviation Branch in Aer Rianta.

He pointed out that, unlike CIÉ, Aer Rianta had not been a drain on taxpayers – it was a profitable company. The Government proposed to break it up into three parts based on individual airports – Dublin Shannon and Cork. Since 1998, the company has been a “PLC”, and the true owner is the Minister for Finance. New legislation means a worsening of conditions for employees of the company.

A debate is taking place on the building of a second terminal in Dublin Airport – big profits will be made by whoever is awarded the contract for building it. But private interests are not interested in running and maintaining the terminal – that does not produce a profit.

Ireland has the lowest airport charges in Europe; the budgets being proposed for the individual airports are too low to maintain existing standards.

A new word is being used : “de-merger” – this is only privatisation by any other name.

Barry concluded with a call for mobilisation against these Government privatisation proposals.

University College Dublin Students’ Union President Paul Dillon, who asked where Education was included in the draft European Union Constitution, followed him.

If it was included, that implied further privatisation of a public service, and we should oppose this.

He endorsed the proposal of the organisers to “spoil the party” the Irish Government was planning for the European Union Presidency.

On the Irish “model” or example for new member states : “God Help” the Eastern European newcomers if they follow the Celtic Tiger model.

Personally Paul was in favour of the European Project, - he felt that overall it had a positive impact – but there were serious problems with the undemocratic features of the European Union – unelected bodies had too much power; the European parliament was effectively “castrated”.

Richard Boyd-Barrett contested Bertie Ahern’s claim to be “anti-war”, and that the major Dublin march on February 15 last was somehow in support of Government policy.

This was a sign of the Government’s political weakness; after that march, the Government’s popularity ratings fell by 9%. Ahern is worried at the prospect of different strands coming together to oppose their policies.

The large scale of events in Prague and Seattle was stressed, as well as the Dublin campaign against the Bin Tax, and the large demonstrations in Ennis and Nenagh against threatened hospital closures.

It was necessary to build a coalition against Bush’s “corporate agenda”.

John Blisset, a community worker from Rialto, followed. He stressed the positive experience of being in Florence for the European Social Forum (ESF); we should base ourselves on the principles of the World Social Forum. We should tap into the resources of the ESF, and do the same thing in Ireland.

Tenants in Rialto had gone through an exhaustive process of community consultation about a flat complex in the area – but at the end of it, the Department of the Environment had rejected these proposals in favour of Public Private Partnership. It is clear that the state wants to remove existing tenants and repopulate with private occupants.

The chairperson, Rory Hearne, then repeated the proposals floated by the meeting’s organisers, and discussion began.

Ivana Bacik (Labour Party candidate in the European Elections of June 2004) asked who should we be targeting? While the European Union had some negative features, it also had some good points. The Government the Progressive Democrat/ Fianna Fáil Coalition - is using the “Bologna Process” as an excuse for its own right wing domestic agenda.

The draft European Union constitution contains good things as well as bad things.

Raymond Deane of the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IPSC) spoke in favour an alliance. He highlighted an agreement between the European Union and various dictatorships around the Mediterranean, for example Tunisia. Economic favours are being offered – in exchange, these dictatorships collude with the European Union to restrict the free movement of people.

Brendan Young of Democracy and Public Services in Europe (DAPSE) summarised the threats to health Education and Culture contained in the draft European Union Constitution. At some stage, the Government will seek approval of this document in a referendum. A recent survey indicates that 73% of voters were favourable to European Union membership in Ireland, so we face a big “hearts and minds” issue here. We need to go beyond the existing anti-capitalist movement.

We should discuss how an “over-arching” campaign will be constructed.

Deirdre de Búrca, a Green Party councillor, responded directly to some of the points made by Ivana Bacik. We need to look, in detail at what the European Union Constitution says. Many social democratic and formerly left wing parties are “in denial” over the attacks on public services that are driven by the European Union.

Kieran Allen asked us to look at what kind of Europe we want. He suggested that the Boston/Berlin debate proposed by Mary Harney and others was fake. We should look at what we do during the Irish European Union presidency, and what we do after the six moth period was finished. The European Union Constitution referendum may not take place until after June 2004.

Mary-Lou McDonald (Sinn Féin Dublin candidate for the European Parliament in June 2004) said the new constitution was being promoted under two guises :

1. Simplicity
2. Efficiency

Concerning enlargement, we need to express solidarity with the smaller countries that are joining the Union. It was vitally important not to work with narrow racists and xenophobes, and we had to be careful about the language we use.

The Constitution – as it is worded now is unacceptable.

Owen McCormack (member of the Busworkers’ Union and the SWP) referred back to Barry Nevin’s description of the Aer Rianta workers’ struggle; he also detailed the involvement of the multi-national Connex in LUAS- this firm had recently lost a license in England to run part of the Railway Service because it failed to abide by safety laws. Cut-backs in pension provisions were a European wide issue.

Brendan Butler spoke of the need to accommodate unity and diversity on these issues. Concerning the European Union Constitution, he suggested we should first highlight the issues, the bad content in the draft Constitution – and then explain that because we are opposed to these provisions we are against it. We should not do it the other way around – now very few people know anything about it – a big educational job is ahead of us.

Andrew Blackmore (a representative of striking Oxigen workers in Dublin) spoke about how difficult it was to fight on the Union recognition issue. The workers had been tied up in rules and regulations. Picketers had been harassed and physically attacked. Oxigen is set to take over the emptying of the black bins as well. He appealed to householders to stop putting out the green bins.

Barry Finnegan (interim convenor of the Irish Social Forum) stressed the importance of an open dialogue process. He described the way the recent Irish Social Forum Co-operation and Solidarity Summit in University College Dublin was built. It worked well because of this process.

At meetings, everybody introduced himself or herself, said who they were, and so on. Tasks were organised by breaking up into smaller committees, which maximised efficiency. A committee did not control the process – everybody was empowered. Minutes were taken, distributed regularly by e-mail and via the Indymedia site, meetings were held at a regular time and place, and so on.

A similar structure was needed for this campaign.

A second Irish Social Forum Summit is planned for March or April on “How Does the European Union Constitution Affect You?”.

Richard Boyd-Barrett agreed with the tactical approach suggested by Brendan Butler regarding the European Union Constitution; we should base ourselves on a simple programme. We could “work on the structure later”, but he suggested the structure of the Irish Anti-War Movement was “as good a model” as any.

This exchange started a discussion, which brought significant political differences to the surface.

Rory Hearne’s minutes summarise the final decision in this way :

“It was agreed after some debate that the form of the organising committee should be that it is open to all participating organisations/movements and to individuals that are able to contribute. The following people/organisations were nominated. All nominations are subject to ratification by the relevant organisation and/or acceptance by the person in question.”

That is fair enough – we meet again on January 2 2004.

I share the views expressed by Barry Finnegan at this meeting. The organisational structure of the Irish Social Forum – and before that the Alliance for a No Vote during the 2001-2002 Abortion referendum campaign, as well as various forerunners –are the way forward.

There is one point raised during the discussion at this meeting that I wish to answer in a personal capacity.

In the campaigns listed above minutes were regularly produced which contained a record of decisions; this meant that a) people at subsequent meetings could refer directly to the record on what was decided; b) that people who could not attend each and every meeting were kept informed of what was happening; c) people knew who had volunteered to do a job, and whether (or not) it had been done, proved impractical, the person concerned had slipped up, whatever; d people knew ho had attended various meetings and how representative they were (or were not); e) because the meetings were, as far as possible, regularly held at the same time place and venue, it was easy to link up with the campaign.

Objections were raised to wide circulation of minutes with a list of the attendance; this was dubbed by some speakers as“witch-hunting” or a “McCarthyite” practice. There is no logic in these claims.

Circumstances do arise where individuals do not want the fact that they attend particular meetings to become public knowledge – in such cases arrangements can be made to protect an individual’s right to privacy – for example, where such publicity could endanger a person’s probationary period at work.

However, this does not arise in the vast majority of cases – for example, it is very well know, not least in the pages of the Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP) newspaper, that Bríd Smith is a member of this party – indeed I understand she is contesting the forthcoming local elections for her party, and the very best of luck to her.

An accurate attendance list tells the reader how varied the meeting(s) are [or, are not], and conveys a message that the campaign is (or is not) a front, or glove puppet, of another organisation. And that is a very important reason for including these details in circulated minutes.

I conclude this report with a document compiled by Des Derwin on how united campaigns should be structured – I believe it is a model that “Another Europe Is Possible” should follow.

--------------------------------------------------------

Campaigns: rules of engagement

Preamble

The left should consider the elaboration and promotion of a model modus operandi, along the lines below, for joint work by the left in single-issue and limited-issue campaigns, struggles, strikes and solidarity action, and movements (trade union and rank and file bodies, community groups, the women’s, gay, anti-war, ‘anti-globalisation’ and green movements, etc.). For convenience all this joint activity will be referred to as ‘campaigns’.

The principles underlying joint activity in ‘campaigns’ should be cooperation, activity, realism, unity on issues of common agreement, non-sectarianism, equality, democracy, independence of the ‘campaign’ and openness to all individuals who support the aims of the campaign.

It is understood that agreed guidelines like the following are no guarantee against the actions and inactions of organisations and individuals. Still less can prescriptions designed to avoid the negative produce a high degree of positive effort or commitment from any participant in a campaign.

Some of these, or similar and shortened, guidelines should be written into a Standing Orders where possible and appropriate. They are not comprehensive or watertight against various interpretations, and are not meant to be taken absolutely literally or to apply universally to the wide and complicated world of left politics. The guidelines are intended for ‘campaigns’ though they can be adapted for broad political formations, such as socialist alliances, or intermediary bodies, such as social forums or anti-capitalist leagues.

Procedure

United operations of organisations/parties (on major issues such as Nice or the War) should allow for a) representation of independents/non-members on the steering committee, and b) the active involvement of non-member activists on the issue: the coalition should have its own active organisation (a known place/mechanism to turn up and participate)*.
Campaigns etc. should be initiated by a properly circulated and broadcast call to a preliminary discussion meeting at which the general approach is up for a wide-ranging discussion. Only then should steps be made to getting convenors, committees and policy platforms.
No party should have a majority on the steering committee. Mee
tings should be held at a regular place and time (to avoid convention and suspension at the inclination of any one group).
The convenor should be an independent (for the same reason) or, where an independent is not available, preferably from none of the main organisations.
Minutes should be kept (of decisions especially) of steering committee meetings and ‘ruling’ general meetings and circulated soon afterwards (especially by e-mail).
In relation to local groups or new branches of a campaign or alliance those supporting the campaign will agree:
All public meetings will be called under the name of the campaign.
The details of all public meetings and initial local campaign meetings will be forwarded by the organisers to the steering committee (or the main campaign meeting**) a week in advance so that all the contacts available in an area can be notified and speakers may be provided if needed.
Speakers at public meetings of the campaign/alliance will reflect the broad make-up of the campaign and the various tendencies that support it.

Except in very big campaigns and bodies, local groups will probably not be needed in Dublin. The Dublin meeting can organise for the whole city or certainly the city centre and the nearer suburbs. The regular meeting of activists will be the ruling body (for a Dublin or other single town-based campaign) or (for a countrywide campaign) the steering committee in between regular delegate or general meetings.

Contact lists and attendance lists should be taken away by the secretary only. After meetings they should be given to the secretary. If the secretary is a member of a political group the lists must be available to all committee members and trusted activists. It should become established that party members departing unauthorised with the list will not be tolerated.

For single-issue, individual-membership, broad campaigns, trade union rank and file groups, community organisations, social movements, etc., the body should be clearly non party political and open to members of all political parties and of none. Spokespersons, speaking for the campaign, should not speak for their party at the same time. Where possible the officers, especially the convenor, the PRO, the secretary and the treasurer should be independents.

It should become established wisdom that under no circumstances will a political organisation use a campaign’s membership or attendance list to contact people for party events and recruitment purposes.

In limited-issue, individual-membership, broad campaigns, political bookstalls should be prohibited. In such campaigns we do not expect supporters to be revolutionary socialists. Political literature may be sold at the door. In certain campaigns a mixed table of political literature on the subject of the campaign or movement might be agreed.

* Initiatives based on (at first anyway) calling the left groups together are not excluded. There should be a place for true ‘united fronts’, the organisations uniting and acting through their own organisations.

** Bearing in mind that often the campaign is Dublin based or begun, and that the Dublin committee or regular Dublin meeting of activists often acts temporarily as a kind of ad hoc motherhouse.

Des Derwin
July 2003