Sunday Papers.

by Yabeh Sun May 02, 2004 16:23

For more than a decade – since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the European socialist countries – pundits have been proclaiming that a new age is upon us. Francis Fukayama famously declared that we had reached the “end of history” and that there was nothing beyond liberal capitalism. Others state that we have entered the era of “globalisation” (or “globalism”) in which national sovereignty is disappearing as a result of a technological revolution that makes space and time virtually irrelevant and an economic revolution that renders nation states powerless in the face of transnational corporations.

Those who are in favour of globalisation, like old-fashioned imperialists, see themselves as harbingers of a civilising and benevolent liberal capitalism. In one sense globalisation is an irrefutable fact, it is a real project that is spearheaded by the most developed countries, the transnationals that are based within those countries and the international institutions that they control. Globalisation has no boundaries when it comes to mainstream party politics, and conservatives, liberals and social democrats support it with gusto.

Globalisation is also a theory that offers a rationale for the greater penetration of national economies by transnational corporations through the extension of free market economics (the removal of tariffs and barriers). Advocates of globalisation often recognise that the whole project, which once seemed unstoppable, is in serious jeopardy and has been for some time. In June 1999 Britain’s Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Stephen Byers MP, told the Japan Federation of Economic Organisations (better known as the Keidanren) that:

“We must not lose sight of the opportunities that have flowed from the new age of globalisation. We have benefited from the integration of the international economy. Now we must manage it through more difficult times.

“… Now the trend is stalled, and in some places even reversed, but I believe that it is a temporary setback, not a permanent condition. The essential answer to the problems of the moment is not less globalisation, not new national structures to separate and isolate economies, but stronger international structures to make globalisation work in harder times as well as easy ones.”

Byers made his speech before the much-publicised anti-globalisation protests against the World Trade Organisation in Seattle in December 1999. A year later what was left of the government minister’s optimism was waning. In August 2000 he told the London Business School that:

“… We clearly need to do far more to make the case for free trade, so that our people can realise the opportunities and benefits that globalisation has to offer. We must do this because in a democracy we will not be able to embrace globalisation if too many individuals and organisations feel they are being left behind.

“And we need to be in no doubt. The backlash against globalisation is real and it is gaining power and momentum.”

The fact that the globalisation project is floundering is receiving increasing recognition. A leader in the liberal Guardian on the weekend of the anti-globalisation protests in Canada in April declared:

“The world economy is in a state of flux, with the model of self regulating markets and all-powerful corporations rapidly going out of fashion. Governments have found they have power, particularly when prodded by consumers concerned about the food they eat, the air they breathe and the world they live in … the idea that interventionism is back in fashion can only be welcomed.”

A new age?
In last month’s Searchlight Lenny Zeskind and Devin Burghart argued that anti-fascists need to understand the world in the face of globalism. They said that while the globalisation process may not be complete, a “paradigm shift” has occurred and “categories associated with the old order have changed”. It is curious that some of those opposed to globalisation should ascribe to it even greater powers than do its proponents. Is it really true that governments cannot control national economies or will not be able to soon? The globalists themselves certainly do not think so.

There is plenty of evidence to show that we are entering a phase where globalisation is being heavily challenged and is unlikely to survive history’s long march. When drugs’ companies lose a court case in South Africa, which means that anti-HIV drugs can now be produced cheaply, is that just an exception? When the British-run Marks and Spencer’s announced that it will be closing its French stores this year and French courts intervened and ruled that it cannot do so, is that just another exception? When the United States, the vanguard of “globalisation”, elects President George W Bush and begins to look inward once more, and infuriates the outside world with its “Son of Star Wars” missile programme, is that yet another exception?

No amount of exceptions, and they are numerous – add your own, will shake the belief of those who declare that we have entered a new historic globalisation epoch. Anything that proves the case against globalisation, it is argued, is actually proof of globalisation! So, the reemergence of nationalist movements – the opposite of a trend toward globalisation – is seen as a response to globalisation. The strengthening of regional trading blocs, which are in fact in competition with each other (and the countries within those blocs are also in competition with each other) are also seen as proof of globalisation.

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of nationalism
The key factor in the recent rise of nationalism, and this cannot be underestimated, is the collapse in 1991 of the Soviet Union and the European socialist countries that were allied with it. The world changed from being largely bipolar to unipolar, with the United States being the only great superpower left on the planet. However, even that has to be understood in context. The US might be the great military superpower, but the world economy is still dominated by three competing regions, North America, Asia (Japan) and Europe.

In the wake of the collapse of the European socialist bloc old nationalist and religious movements reemerged, pre-1945 claims were made on territories and in Yugoslavia, for example, dormant ethnic national hatreds were awakened. The rise of nationalism in eastern Europe had nothing to do with transnational corporations even if they were able to pick over the Soviet corpse like vultures.

The heavy defeat and disorientation that the left suffered with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the European socialist countries sent reverberations worldwide. The changed situation gave a shot in the arm to the fascists, who in many places had been in terminal decline. When the British National Party mobilised in Bermondsey in 1991 for example, it taunted what it perceived as a left-wing opposition with the chant “You are the past, we are the future”.

Much of the left, even those who had spent years arguing that the Soviet Union was not even socialist – so shouldn’t have been concerned by the collapse of a supposedly capitalist bloc – headed down the TINA road (There Is No Alternative to liberal capitalism) mirroring the right-wing analysis of the situation. It is true that there is a very real threat to national democracy, but this is as much to do with regional trading blocs enforcing strict social spending levels on member states as it is to do with the intervention of transnational companies. Put another way, what is the greater threat to national democracy in Europe, companies such as McDonald’s or the European Union?

Nationalism and internationalism
When Stephen Byers spoke last year at the London Business School he made the following observation of the movement against globalisation:

“Last December from the convention centre in Seattle through the clouds of tear gas I could see red-neck steel workers from Philadelphia walking alongside anarchists. Grandmothers dressed as turtles alongside unemployed textile workers from downtown Seattle.

“Often with contradictory demands nevertheless it is the diversity of these groups which makes them such a potent force in any democracy.”

On the same topic Zeskind and Burghart asked whether anti-fascists could salvage anything from that same “unholy coalition”, or what they described as a “nasty confection”. They argued that “nationalists”, “internationalists” and “globalists” are engaged in a “battle of three corners”.

This “nasty confection” is the crucial issue in the entire debate and warrants a discussion beyond this article that is long overdue. After all, even if we disagree as to whether we live in an era of globalisation or continentalisation, or just plain old imperialism, the opposition movement to the problems of a perceived and actual loss of national sovereignty is very real and has to be addressed. I would suggest, in the final analysis, that not only is this all that we are going to agree on, thankfully it is all that we need to agree on to proceed.

On this theme, if we look at the question of national sovereignty in Britain we find that there are some who cannot understand how sections of the left oppose the European Union, finding themselves in a de facto bloc with far-right nationalists. But surely it is not difficult to see that the left and right are contesting the territory over who is really defending national democracy. In Britain the right is the dominant force, but in other European countries, such as Denmark, where they voted “No” to joining the European single currency, it is the left.

It seems fairly obvious that anti-fascists engaged in opposition to the European Union have to expose the far right in the same way that they have done in other campaigns over the years. If a campaigning organisation is so dominated by the far right that it becomes a lost cause, then anti-fascists have to develop their own organisations rather than be submerged in a reactionary and racist agenda. No one said these were easy times. This is the very argument that Searchlight has had with some of the left that support the right-wing led anti-European Union “Democracy Movement” in Britain. Build a progressive alternative, have no truck with racists, is our view.

One of the problems with what Zeskind and Burghart are saying is that they posit internationalists as good guys and nationalists as bad guys, which is of course true in say the United States or England. However, if we are talking globally – and that is the topic – then it is a huge error to do this. Internationalism and nationalism are not opposites. In countries where opposition to imperialism was expressed through nationalist movements can we really argue that nationalism is reactionary? Is there not a difference between the nationalism of an oppressed people and the nationalism of an oppressing people? Are there not nationalists of every political colour? Even in Europe and North America it is problematic to see nationalism as a priori reactionary. Surely many Irish, Welsh and Scottish nationalists for example have made not only great internationalists, but also staunch anti-fascists. For every Italian Northern League or Canadian secessionist racist is there not a Basque or Irish nationalist who is also at the same time an internationalist and anti-fascist? In every country nationalist movements take different forms shaped by the historical experience of that nation. Nationalism is not a monolithic entity and should not be viewed as such: it is not necessarily a bad thing.

In turn, internationalism is not some empty slogan that is supposedly the opposite of nationalism, but means solidarity with other peoples’ struggles. The greatest example of anti-fascist internationalism – the International Brigades in the 1930s – was comprised of people who went to fight against fascism and for Spanish democracy. When anti-fascists sang Jarama Valley at meetings and of how the fighters had “fought like true sons of the soil”, it was clear that they were viewed as fighting like Spanish patriots.

The burning issue for anti-fascists at the moment is the problems faced by refugees and asylum seekers. People are dying, literally, in their efforts to gain access to Europe and North America. If internationalism means anything to us today then we need to find ways to address the contradiction that in a world where capital can traverse the planet with less restrictions than ever before, labour has never had less freedom of movement.

For more than a decade – since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the European socialist countries – pundits have been proclaiming that a new age is upon us. Francis Fukayama famously declared that we had reached the “end of history” and that there was nothing beyond liberal capitalism. Others state that we have entered the era of “globalisation” (or “globalism”) in which national sovereignty is disappearing as a result of a technological revolution that makes space and time virtually irrelevant and an economic revolution that renders nation states powerless in the face of transnational corporations.

Those who are in favour of globalisation, like old-fashioned imperialists, see themselves as harbingers of a civilising and benevolent liberal capitalism. In one sense globalisation is an irrefutable fact, it is a real project that is spearheaded by the most developed countries, the transnationals that are based within those countries and the international institutions that they control. Globalisation has no boundaries when it comes to mainstream party politics, and conservatives, liberals and social democrats support it with gusto.

Globalisation is also a theory that offers a rationale for the greater penetration of national economies by transnational corporations through the extension of free market economics (the removal of tariffs and barriers). Advocates of globalisation often recognise that the whole project, which once seemed unstoppable, is in serious jeopardy and has been for some time. In June 1999 Britain’s Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Stephen Byers MP, told the Japan Federation of Economic Organisations (better known as the Keidanren) that:

“We must not lose sight of the opportunities that have flowed from the new age of globalisation. We have benefited from the integration of the international economy. Now we must manage it through more difficult times.

“… Now the trend is stalled, and in some places even reversed, but I believe that it is a temporary setback, not a permanent condition. The essential answer to the problems of the moment is not less globalisation, not new national structures to separate and isolate economies, but stronger international structures to make globalisation work in harder times as well as easy ones.”

Byers made his speech before the much-publicised anti-globalisation protests against the World Trade Organisation in Seattle in December 1999. A year later what was left of the government minister’s optimism was waning. In August 2000 he told the London Business School that:

“… We clearly need to do far more to make the case for free trade, so that our people can realise the opportunities and benefits that globalisation has to offer. We must do this because in a democracy we will not be able to embrace globalisation if too many individuals and organisations feel they are being left behind.

“And we need to be in no doubt. The backlash against globalisation is real and it is gaining power and momentum.”

The fact that the globalisation project is floundering is receiving increasing recognition. A leader in the liberal Guardian on the weekend of the anti-globalisation protests in Canada in April declared:

“The world economy is in a state of flux, with the model of self regulating markets and all-powerful corporations rapidly going out of fashion. Governments have found they have power, particularly when prodded by consumers concerned about the food they eat, the air they breathe and the world they live in … the idea that interventionism is back in fashion can only be welcomed.”

A new age?
In last month’s Searchlight Lenny Zeskind and Devin Burghart argued that anti-fascists need to understand the world in the face of globalism. They said that while the globalisation process may not be complete, a “paradigm shift” has occurred and “categories associated with the old order have changed”. It is curious that some of those opposed to globalisation should ascribe to it even greater powers than do its proponents. Is it really true that governments cannot control national economies or will not be able to soon? The globalists themselves certainly do not think so.

There is plenty of evidence to show that we are entering a phase where globalisation is being heavily challenged and is unlikely to survive history’s long march. When drugs’ companies lose a court case in South Africa, which means that anti-HIV drugs can now be produced cheaply, is that just an exception? When the British-run Marks and Spencer’s announced that it will be closing its French stores this year and French courts intervened and ruled that it cannot do so, is that just another exception? When the United States, the vanguard of “globalisation”, elects President George W Bush and begins to look inward once more, and infuriates the outside world with its “Son of Star Wars” missile programme, is that yet another exception?

No amount of exceptions, and they are numerous – add your own, will shake the belief of those who declare that we have entered a new historic globalisation epoch. Anything that proves the case against globalisation, it is argued, is actually proof of globalisation! So, the reemergence of nationalist movements – the opposite of a trend toward globalisation – is seen as a response to globalisation. The strengthening of regional trading blocs, which are in fact in competition with each other (and the countries within those blocs are also in competition with each other) are also seen as proof of globalisation.

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of nationalism
The key factor in the recent rise of nationalism, and this cannot be underestimated, is the collapse in 1991 of the Soviet Union and the European socialist countries that were allied with it. The world changed from being largely bipolar to unipolar, with the United States being the only great superpower left on the planet. However, even that has to be understood in context. The US might be the great military superpower, but the world economy is still dominated by three competing regions, North America, Asia (Japan) and Europe.

In the wake of the collapse of the European socialist bloc old nationalist and religious movements reemerged, pre-1945 claims were made on territories and in Yugoslavia, for example, dormant ethnic national hatreds were awakened. The rise of nationalism in eastern Europe had nothing to do with transnational corporations even if they were able to pick over the Soviet corpse like vultures.

The heavy defeat and disorientation that the left suffered with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the European socialist countries sent reverberations worldwide. The changed situation gave a shot in the arm to the fascists, who in many places had been in terminal decline. When the British National Party mobilised in Bermondsey in 1991 for example, it taunted what it perceived as a left-wing opposition with the chant “You are the past, we are the future”.

Much of the left, even those who had spent years arguing that the Soviet Union was not even socialist – so shouldn’t have been concerned by the collapse of a supposedly capitalist bloc – headed down the TINA road (There Is No Alternative to liberal capitalism) mirroring the right-wing analysis of the situation. It is true that there is a very real threat to national democracy, but this is as much to do with regional trading blocs enforcing strict social spending levels on member states as it is to do with the intervention of transnational companies. Put another way, what is the greater threat to national democracy in Europe, companies such as McDonald’s or the European Union?

Nationalism and internationalism
When Stephen Byers spoke last year at the London Business School he made the following observation of the movement against globalisation:

“Last December from the convention centre in Seattle through the clouds of tear gas I could see red-neck steel workers from Philadelphia walking alongside anarchists. Grandmothers dressed as turtles alongside unemployed textile workers from downtown Seattle.

“Often with contradictory demands nevertheless it is the diversity of these groups which makes them such a potent force in any democracy.”

On the same topic Zeskind and Burghart asked whether anti-fascists could salvage anything from that same “unholy coalition”, or what they described as a “nasty confection”. They argued that “nationalists”, “internationalists” and “globalists” are engaged in a “battle of three corners”.

This “nasty confection” is the crucial issue in the entire debate and warrants a discussion beyond this article that is long overdue. After all, even if we disagree as to whether we live in an era of globalisation or continentalisation, or just plain old imperialism, the opposition movement to the problems of a perceived and actual loss of national sovereignty is very real and has to be addressed. I would suggest, in the final analysis, that not only is this all that we are going to agree on, thankfully it is all that we need to agree on to proceed.

On this theme, if we look at the question of national sovereignty in Britain we find that there are some who cannot understand how sections of the left oppose the European Union, finding themselves in a de facto bloc with far-right nationalists. But surely it is not difficult to see that the left and right are contesting the territory over who is really defending national democracy. In Britain the right is the dominant force, but in other European countries, such as Denmark, where they voted “No” to joining the European single currency, it is the left.

It seems fairly obvious that anti-fascists engaged in opposition to the European Union have to expose the far right in the same way that they have done in other campaigns over the years. If a campaigning organisation is so dominated by the far right that it becomes a lost cause, then anti-fascists have to develop their own organisations rather than be submerged in a reactionary and racist agenda. No one said these were easy times. This is the very argument that Searchlight has had with some of the left that support the right-wing led anti-European Union “Democracy Movement” in Britain. Build a progressive alternative, have no truck with racists, is our view.

One of the problems with what Zeskind and Burghart are saying is that they posit internationalists as good guys and nationalists as bad guys, which is of course true in say the United States or England. However, if we are talking globally – and that is the topic – then it is a huge error to do this. Internationalism and nationalism are not opposites. In countries where opposition to imperialism was expressed through nationalist movements can we really argue that nationalism is reactionary? Is there not a difference between the nationalism of an oppressed people and the nationalism of an oppressing people? Are there not nationalists of every political colour? Even in Europe and North America it is problematic to see nationalism as a priori reactionary. Surely many Irish, Welsh and Scottish nationalists for example have made not only great internationalists, but also staunch anti-fascists. For every Italian Northern League or Canadian secessionist racist is there not a Basque or Irish nationalist who is also at the same time an internationalist and anti-fascist? In every country nationalist movements take different forms shaped by the historical experience of that nation. Nationalism is not a monolithic entity and should not be viewed as such: it is not necessarily a bad thing.

In turn, internationalism is not some empty slogan that is supposedly the opposite of nationalism, but means solidarity with other peoples’ struggles. The greatest example of anti-fascist internationalism – the International Brigades in the 1930s – was comprised of people who went to fight against fascism and for Spanish democracy. When anti-fascists sang Jarama Valley at meetings and of how the fighters had “fought like true sons of the soil”, it was clear that they were viewed as fighting like Spanish patriots.

The burning issue for anti-fascists at the moment is the problems faced by refugees and asylum seekers. People are dying, literally, in their efforts to gain access to Europe and North America. If internationalism means anything to us today then we need to find ways to address the contradiction that in a world where capital can traverse the planet with less restrictions than ever before, labour has never had less freedom of movement.

by student grant Sun May 02, 2004 19:51

i'm sorry, i fell asleep reading this.

by a Sun May 02, 2004 21:05

These anti-fascists are operating in abit of a vacum conisidering there are fuck all fascists out there.

who today argues for coroporatism?

the cult of the leader?

places masculinity at the centre of the nation?

engages in irrenditism?

No major nation or political force those so today, with the obvious exceptions of places such as Cuba

by iosaf Mon May 03, 2004 00:15

I don't have time to read the "must read" above fully, and when MayDay 2004 is more settled, all hospitalised healed, all arrested released, then I might have time to come back and read what doesn't really seem that relevant to our experiences in BCN in either the last 24 hours or the Last three weeks, or indeed the last four years.
Before then I was in London and before '95 in Ireland. And well...



UPDATE:-

We have 4 hospitalised in BCN.

The Press has written very little about the mobilisation which we think had about 10,000 people. Maybe tomorrow will be different have to wait and see...

Mr ZP will come back to lots of angry young catalan independence graffiti (but he doesn't hang out in BCN so he won't see it) and a little bit of "reflection" on whether he can leave the more untrustworthy and proven anti-Constitutional and Anti-Democratic forces in the Spanish State alone for more than a 100 hours.

We've had our first at times emotional Assembly to post-mortem what happened.(well I'm very sensitive so I think everyone is emotional when they're not)

The Sin Papales collectives seem happy with how they were _not arrested_ throughout the whole day.
They have expressed the wish that we in BCN, and by association and common purpose you in Ireland and those critical types { ;-) } in UK indymedia continue to further their causes in Europe, as the lowest paid workers, the poorest housed residents, those in the most insecurity who incidently send the most of their earnings to support family members in the poorest states on Earth (all to the benefit of the European Black Market Economy and Capitalist scam).

So We continue giving voice and expression to their causes, till all the mammies have caravans.

We have slight problems with the attack by members of the Policia Nacional on our group last night, as it seems most odd that a group of known pacifists would be the target of such obvious and recorded aggression.

We are a bit poo-ed about the behaviour of black block contigents who did not seem to be aware we had members of our assembly held in an occupation whilst they wanted to have a go at the cops.

We are very suspect of people whom we might term agent provacatuers, and will be analysing all our digital accordingly to ascertain the exact sequence of events that led to the confrontation.

We are all except for the 4 in hospital in good spirits, continuing, in solidarity with like all our friends, and send big hugs of the sincerist and not a bit sloppy to our comrades and brothers and sisters in Ireland, UK and anywhere else that may read.

Solidarity,
as one South American mammy said:-
sure she might be a granny:-

We need to go on, learning from all our mistakes, we learn everytime.
we do it better every time.
They can't handle our learning process of the struggle of the street, of the politicisation of all our peoples in our spectacular diversity.

& I thought, I have indeed heard and read and cheered and believed yours and ours words and messages before.

AMEN.

Go For it.
sticks and stones. you know.

Solidarity.
and Love.

by iosaf Mon May 03, 2004 16:54

Shame on you.
Have you no idea of the repercussions throughout the country of what has happened?
You know how many parents have taken side and issue against you?
You know how many students have now confirmed their rejection of your hypocrisy?
You bother to read carefully the Heany Poem for May Day 1?
You want the translations with annotations?
You think you have a screed of respect in academia, amongst intellectuals, amonst neutrality and civil and human rights organisations and acitivists?
you think Europe's "noble beginning and future" warrented such behaviour which honestly looks more like those dark days you thought you had with a wave of a pen ended?

And Where was the declaration on the USA?

You expect to get a constitution through for the 17th?

You expect all this to be "forgotten"?

You expected your Gardaí, acting on their intelligence which included full monitoring of our sites, emails, phone calls, mail and so on for oh so long, to protect the citizens of Dublin from attack by Ultra Right wing infiltrators?
Well obviously they didn't.
And you have done SFA as usual to protect my "babies".

You ought to be ashamed of yourself, it was a complete farce. I hold little hope for your entertaining Bush. I hold little hope of you being remembered in the XXI century as anything other than one of the poorest quality rascals to follow Haughey.

You've never given mouth to mouth have you?
You've never climbed a lamp-post and burnt a flag have you?
You've never been whalloped by a masked cop have you?
you've never cut someone down from the hanging rope have you?
You've never stiched a wound have you?
you've never disarmed a psychopath have you?
You've never lived a real life have you?

Shame on you.
When leaders are so distanced from reality, and live so isolated from their poets, artists, students, intelectuals, army officers, liberal churches, they have lost credibility.

SO my punishment for you,
is the continuing partition of Cyprus, which will lead to the destabilisation of the Eastern Mediteranean, and increased threat to all European Union members from the regions outside the Fortress, such as Bylerussia (where YFG apparently hang out), Serbia, Macedonia and so on.

You're political epitaph is not writ yet.
And you can shove your "noble beginnings" of Farmleigh House so far up your arse, that it will meet the still undigested dinner which cost more than the average weekly wage of your 80 million new serfs.

Shame on You.
Shame Shame Shame.
Apologise to your citizenry,
for allowing those racists into the country.
or was it all propaganda?
And Apologise to "my babies", who have excelled themselves for many years under the worst civil rights conditions and appaling lack of Media objectivity in one of the most corrupt little nations in the EU.-

Would you like that in Finnish?

You are the odd one out, Bertie.
You are the target for regime change.
Not Blair. You are the next one.

Aznar made the mistake of ordering his media to distort the General Strike.
and we know what happened to Aznar don't we? And Bush? well come on, the wookie has never said "Mr Ahern is a strong Leader" has he?
Exactly.

Shame.
I am shocked at the incompetence.
Some one really ought blow the whistle on your inept national security.

by great gazebo builders. - purity & intelligence Tue May 04, 2004 11:42

ZP come back!

He's announced that he will build loads of new prisons, and the inmates of the prison where the riot occured on Friday night last, were transferred and dispersed in the last two days. I didn't think to tell you.
So prison conditions look set to _improve_ in Spain over the next 2 years, importantly no mention or hint has been made of entrusting prison security to private corporations, (like in Ireland and the USA and Japan) this may be a result of the high profile of Amnesty in Spain and other international organisations that monitor such private prisons and have found serious problems with nutrition, psychological care, recruitment of prison officers, pharmaceutical care, and so on.

Now attention is focussed on the constitution of Europe, which "the lodge of the 7hars", and "the priory of the plasma" are busy putting the finishing touches too,

in between looking for a Summer Job, trying to coax some intelligent plasma back to where it's understood and loved, and of course "dodging the landlady",


Landlady update:-

the underpaid Ecuadorian family have now demolished the formerly pretty terrace and like "Really seriously" (without proper legal redress - the drawback of using blackmarket illegal immigrants as workers) devalued the property to such an extent that finding other tenants will prove "difficult", and selling the property prove impossible. This might have been a result of not properly understanding the instructions given to them along with the measly 45€ yesterday. ¿who knows such things?

You might like to try this @ home-


love to Judge Land Eire,
try and be tranquil as well.
let's not all "over do it" eh?
:-)