CAEUC considers the way forward

by MichaelY - CAEUC/iawm Wed Jun 18, 2008 14:25

Agenda:

1. How did we do?
2. What's the way forward
3. A National Meeting? When and where?
4. An international meeting?

All welcome

by eu inspector Wed Jun 18, 2008 17:13

I hate to rain on your picnic and point out that yourselves and the swp and others who called for a social eu and criticised the eu from a left standpoint failed to make that an issue that working people understood much less voted for. Why was that? Why did Libertas succeed in coming from nowhere and popularising its main issues? I suggest that one of the areas where CAUC failed was your lack of expertise/experiennce in handling the media unlike SF and Libertas who used the media effectively to gets its main points across to the public. Unless yourselves and the SWP etc can address these points and others you have an equally bad liklihood in making an effective contribution in getting your points on a social eu etc across in Lisbon 2.

by Koba Wed Jun 18, 2008 17:42

The constituency with the highest Yes vote was Dun Laoire which just happens the be where Richard Boyd Barrett of the SWP/PBPA/IAWM/SOS/DLABTC etc etc has (unsuccessfully) stood for election on three occasions.

At the meeting it needs to be pointed out that others such as SF, SP, PM delivered the working class No vote. RBB could not even deliver his own constituency.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Wed Jun 18, 2008 19:28

Boyd Barrett's electoral base is in Dun Laoghaire. DL is one of the two wealthiest constituencies in the state and it has a long record of voting heavily in favour of EU Treaties. If there had been a less than 60% Yes vote there it would have been little short of a miracle.

by Koba Wed Jun 18, 2008 19:36

Dublin North East is the 3rd wealthiest constituency in Ireland yet it voted No. Cork South Central is the 4th wealthiest constituency, it voted No. RBB and the SWP should not be above criticism. They must not be allowed to claim responsibility for the No vote.

by Jack Russell - Social Justice Thu Jun 19, 2008 00:08

I agree with Legal Eagle and We the people.

I am struggling with the thought of just who will eventually arrest Cowen. I know it can't Martin Donellan, Assistant Commissioner of An Garda who sat at the top table at Clontarf Castle, last Christmas, with Fianna Fail delegates. At the moment Martin has the High Court in reserve judgment on the retirement age for An Gardai Siochana.

Today in the European Parliament, I was proud of those English lads, wearing green tops and displaying words like respect the Irish vote.

Yet....can somebody explain to me how two Irish representatives Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, Brian Crowley referring top them as the 'beer mat brigade' and then Avril Doyle in one of her inappropriate tantrums called one a Jailbird yet what really shocked me legally and to my core values of democracy was the lack of respect by the two Irish MEP's to the Irish No Vote and I ask to night and I agree with you in what you said, if Cowen does not actm let Libertas (Ganley, Joe Higgins, Patricia McKenny, McElvaddy seek legal advice from the Irish Attorney General - the legal protector of the Irish Constitution. Let them go to the Supreme Court if necessary to get again the democratic right of the Irish Citizen in a democratic process...as per the Constitution. What I really mean is the European bureaucrats may laugh at us - McCreevy must stand up (knowing the view of Schultz, German socialist and the agenda) and if there was a time of leadership, Cowen must take to the floor and show it as a leader of the Irish people who voted No to Lisbon.

I was ashamed of Avril Doyle today - she did not act for me and let's not forget today the closure of St. Michaels for children with disabilities due to non funding provision.

Jack Russell

Quotation Clarissa Pinkola Estes - Contemporary Mexican poet and US healer
'To be ourselves causes us to be exiled by many others and yet to comply with what others want causes us to be exiled from ourselves'

by Indyjourno Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:59

Lets get real here eu inspector, apart from in the media Libertas had barely any impact whatsoever. None of their issues figured at all in the top of the opinion polls about why people voted no. What we have now is a clamouring by right wing delusional people who believe that Libertas can now become a political party on the back of this. Libertas were a small group of people with enormous resources who made arguments about corporation tax that less than 5% of the no voters cared about. The people who voted no were working class and rural dwellers who just would not vote for any party like a Libertas party. The media gave Libertas a platform that they did not deserve. They were a small group of people with very dubious connections and some with dubious pasts. They will dissappear from public view in time.

by MichaelY - CAEUC/iawm Thu Jun 19, 2008 14:04

It's good and positive that the substantial NO vote of last Thursday is generating debate among the losers (primarily) and, only gradually now, among the winners of this Referendum.

One cannot but enjoy FGers criticising their own Party for incompetence, FF back benchers disappearing from view, uncharted waters and incompetent pilots making headlines, Mary Harney and PDs on holidays - Joe from the Labour Party admitting non chalantly the major mistakes his Party and he, personally, made.. they're leaving it to hacks like Laffan to argue the CRISIS they and their European accolytes are in....has anybody seen that indescribable de Rossa....as for the Greens, John's Buddha like face in the last Cowen Press Conference said it all. The Alliance for Europe? IBEC? The Chambers of Commerce? The CPSU ? Where are you lads?

As for us, in the CAEUC, we are sure of a number of things: our youth, the majority of Irish women and tens of thousands of working people voted NO! As Indyjourno correctly states above, Libertas' [and to a certain extent COIR's] effect on those key constituencies was very limited. Almost half of Labour voters voted NO! Many Trade Unionists voted NO! We have received 1,200 letters of support from European Trade Unionists!! This is what gives us courage, optimism and feeds our desire to start discussing and preparing for the future.

Richard, so hated by some, is not the CAEUC Ganley! The SWP is only one of the 15 affiliated organisations. They fought and worked hard as all others did......the CAEUC is a collective of organisations and individual activists and doesn't belong to any outfit. We have fought a pitch-battle, we will regroup and will be readying ourselves for the battles and the war to come.

All those interested in contributing to our work are welcome to join us in the Teachers Club at 11.00 next Saturday 21st. A National Meeting of all NO activists, from Bundoran to Baltimore and Clifden to Waterford, from Limerick to Monaghan, passing through Dublin and everywhere in between will meet soon to discuss developments and startegy. Details to follow.

by incredible Thu Jun 19, 2008 17:23

I seen Libertas costly advertising almost everywhere on busses in stations all over the country and I meet loads of people who got copies of the treaty from Libertas. I never seen any caeuc billboards and very few posters even. Even more tellingly you had no media presence worth talking about. without billboards, posters and media coverage you were not at the races lads. Ye failed to get the message on social Europe across and if Libertas get their tax concessions and their commissoner and dont spend big again ye will be hammered next time. So enjoy yourdelusions about having an impact while they last!

by Sean Fri Jun 20, 2008 09:09

Libertas were feted by the media, CAEUC were deliberately ignored. CAEUC ran its campaign on a shoestring, Libertas admit spending €1.3 million. CAEUC consists of ordinary working people, Libertas is led by two multi-millionaires. A level playing pitch? I think not.

by Fintan Lane - CAEUC (and ISN) Fri Jun 20, 2008 09:45 irishsocialistnetwork at dublin dot ie

I don't think anybody is suggesting that CAEUC rode out, fought the EU dragon and single-handedly defeated the Lisbon Treaty. Nothing of the sort happened. This was a variegated No vote, though a common thread seems to have been a strong reaction against the political elite's attempt to deliberately bewilder the public with a scarcely decipherable treaty. Miltiarisation and a concealed threat to public services were also significant issues.

At the end of the day, the No vote came primarily from rural areas and working class districts. And this is where CAEUC made a significant contribution. While Ganley was camped out in RTE, activists from the 15 CAEUC affiliates were busy on the ground, concentrating on working class districts, and ultimately distributing 100s of thousands of leaflets between them. Activists put in the spadework and fought the Lisbon Treaty on class grounds, highlighting its neo-liberal underpinnings (particularly its backing for the drive to privatise the public sector across Europe) and its militarist inclinations.

Did CAEUC and its affiliates alone persuade working-class voters to reject this treaty? Of course not! But we played a significant part. In many areas, the only No leaflets to go through people's letterboxes were those distributed by CAEUC. Likewise, affiliated groups such as the ISN, People Before Profit, eirigi, the Workers' Party, the Socialist Party, etc. etc. produced an enormous amount of their own material, which, again, was primarily distributed in working class areas and argued for a No vote for radical left reasons.

Ganley had a lot of airtime, but I don't think too many people in Finglas, Ballymun or Ballyfermot voted down the Lisbon Treaty because they were petrified that the corporation tax rate would rise. On the other hand, they did engage with the arguments made by the ISN and other CAEUC affiliates.

by Joe Byrne Fri Jun 20, 2008 16:38

I agree with Mr Lane's points but there could have been a more visible manifestation of the CAEUC. Without doubt, Ganley was feited by MSM. M Lou, P McKenna and Joe Higgins were very good but the public profile of CAEUC was virtually zilch and perception in politics is, whether one likes it or not very important.

In any event sterling work was done by the comrades, much appreciation from this house bound activist.

by Fintan Lane - CAEUC (and ISN) Sat Jun 21, 2008 00:51

I agree that it would have been really good if CAEUC spokespersons had been more visible in the media during the campaign. However, it was not for want of trying! Seriously. A very competent and active media group tried its best to gain media coverage for our position(s) on the treaty and several press conferences were held. They were largely ignored. The mainstream media was caught in Declan Ganley's headlights, or, rather, it chose to fixate on him; indeed, he was (ridiculously) described as the 'leader' of the No campaign on more than a few occasions.

CAEUC was nowhere near as well funded as the hollow vessel that was Libertas, and it seems that money talks. And having habitually marginalised the radical left in the past, RTE and the main newspapers felt unable to shift policy for the duration of the referendum campaign.

That said, Joe Higgins of the Socialist Party got some coverage and he convincingly argued the radical left case against the Lisbon Treaty.

by edwina Sat Jun 21, 2008 01:51

"A very competent and active media group"

They may have been active but they obviously weren't competent. For the next time they need to up their game. Seriously.

by Fintan Lane - CAEUC (and ISN) Sat Jun 21, 2008 14:53

I'm not going to get into a debate with an anonymous critic, but, in fairness to the people in the CAEUC media group, they did their best with limited resources. The fact that they received very little media coverage does not necessarily point to them being incompetent. Not at all. Partly this was a question of resources.

CAEUC got by on a shoestring budget and that affected its visibility on the streets. For instance, the money simply wasn't there to pay for a postering campaign, which is an essential element in a 'serious' campaign in the eyes of the mainstream media.

In any case, it would be better if - while learning from the ups and downs of the (successful) Lisbon campaign - activists started to focus on what is down the road. A second referendum seems increasingly likely.

by liz c - caeuc-personal capacity Sat Jun 21, 2008 16:59

just wrote a detailed account of results of the EU Commission's preliminary referendum findings and lost the whole thing cos of some error so this is a short version. 68% of all voters found the No campaign more convincing, including 57% of Yes voters. The majority of Yes voters said the treaty was in Ireland's interests, described as a one-dimensional response by the report authors..

People's reasons for voting No were issues-based and various. Highest single answer was not enough info on the treaty at 22%. This is not the same as not understanding the issues which was the reason given by 58% of people who didn't vote. The next highest reason for voting no was to protect Irish identity at 12%, followed by safeguarding neutrality, not trusting politicians, losing a commissioner and tax at 6% each. Concerns over abortion were 2%, immigration was 1% and conscription wasn't mentioned. 14% were 'other' which I suspect may be workers rights and public services but it's hard to know. I'm also unclear because the report says these were open questions and then says ther was a list of possibilities to choose from. The highest number of No votes came from women, young voters 18-24 and people in lower socio-economic brackets. Yes voters were majority professionals.

Based on this we will most likely be offered more 'info', a protocol on neutrality and a permanent commissioner and they'll try to make us vote again. the govt will be negotiating with whatever groups it feel comfortable with and that probably isn't you or me so people have to push in whatever way they think best for this treaty to be declared dead and any new one to be voted on directly and inputtted directly by all the people of the EU.

caeuc is a coalition of 13 groups each of which ran its own campaign which is partly why caeuc didn't have its own profile. it did a lot of co-ordinating but best thing is people in the caeuc know the treaty backwards and have been able to spread that info to all the other groups and spokespeople. they've done a great job of that. we could do with all the help we could get media wise right now because the spin continues.
http://www.sayno.ie

by liz c - caeuc-personal capacity Sat Jun 21, 2008 17:23

Spokespeople from groups affiliated to the CAEUC included Joe Higgins, Patricia McKenna, Mary Lou McDonald and Roger Cole. CAEUC people on the TV and radio were Barry Finnegan and Brendan Young. Richard Boyd Barrett was on on behalf of People Before Profit. If you saw or heard any of them maybe between us all we didn't do so badly. If it hadn't been for them and in particular all of the people who got the info out about militarization and losing vetoes on trade in health and education, which would have lost us our veto on trade talks, a No wouldn't have had a chance. Why do you think farmers, fishermen and trade unionists votes No, including those whose 'representatives' told them not to? 68% of voters said the No campaign ws more convincing but only 5% cared about tax rates. What does that tell you? The No side was informed and articulate and people believed us when we explained the Treaty content. The 57% who believed us but voted Yes anyway did so because they believed it was in Ireland's self-interest, a pragmatic decision but hardly an enthusiastic endorsement of the treaty.

Not everything is televised or in the Irish Times. The Irish Times blatantly pushed for a Yes vote and the corporate media in general is only interested in big name politicians and 'celebrities'. Unfortunately they're so rooted in the idea of representation that they can't come to terms with the idea that this was a people's vote and they need to ask the people directly why they voted instead of turning to the same pundits who pushed for a yes and never saw the No coming. This campaign was won on the ground talking to people, which is what the Yes side didn't do. It was amazing how strongly people felt about voting No. For now local and community media, papers and radio are the best place to debate and discuss. If anyone, and please put your name, it's better to know who's commenting, feels that a small group of people with no resources, many of whom worked themselves into the ground on this campaign, didn't do enough than maybe you should weigh in next time and help out. I'm not suggesting the campaign was perfect and we could push a lot more on the media side, like I said we could do with more help. Despite all that we won and I for one am very happy with a result that cut across party lines, urban and rural and told all the 'experts' to shove it.

by me Sat Jun 21, 2008 18:05

The caeuc campaign WAS a good effort but as liz points out it was not exactly perfect.

Liz sez: "Spokespeople from groups affiliated to the CAEUC included Joe Higgins, Patricia McKenna, Mary Lou McDonald and Roger Cole. CAEUC people on the TV and radio were Barry Finnegan and Brendan Young. Richard Boyd Barrett was on on behalf of People Before Profit."

That's not quite accurate. Young and Finnigin may have spoke as CAEUC but all of the others were batting for diffferent groups when they spoke - Higgins (Socialist party) Mckenna (Peoples Movement) Mary Lou (Sinn Fein) Cole (PANA) Boyd Barrett (People before Profit) and none of them ever mentioned CAEUC.

That was the REAL problem with CAEUC. Most of the affiliated groups were technically affiliated but didn't operate under its banner and hence, as usual, the left came across as a disparate and motley collection. Technically there was unity within and under the CAEUC banner but in reality only a couple of affiliated groups took that seriously.

SF was always going to do its own thing but if Higgins, Cole, Mckenna, Boyd Barrett, etc. had repeatedly presented themselves to the media as CAEUC the left would have had a much higher visibility.

A good campaign AND a missed opportunity.

by liz c - caeuc-personal capacity Sat Jun 21, 2008 19:48

the number of different groups doing their own campaigns was also a positive in that they each highlighted different aspects of the Treaty and probably reached different people. all of them gave out their own and caeuc leaflets, of which about 160,000 were distributed .the caeuc doesn't need to be branded. however, I agree there could have been a higher level of cohesion and tthat it would have been good to highlight that there was a united Left campaign. this will most likely happen now because even though we didn't campaign as one group there was a good bit of co-ordination and all of the links have been made.

you're more than welcome to get involved, cos this isn't over. There are several possibilities including a Lisbon 2 despite promises that there would be no second referendum. the caeuc position is that the treaty is dead and there can be no re-run and no re-negotiation. the affiliated groups plus trade unions and anyone else who campaigned on militarisation, public services, privatisation and democracy, need to come together to fight any attempt at a re-run and to say together No means No and to get a discussion going on what kind of Europe people want. there's a lot of discussion going on right now about how that's to be done. for us this was a Left campaign and it will continue to be and that aspect is going to be increasingly highlighted. we're getting a lot of support from Left and progressive groups across the EU and we'll be linking up with them. in an EU wide campaign. there's a joint press conference of affiliated groups coming up and No campaigners from France coming over. Incidentally Sarkozy's coming to visit around July 11th and we'll be organising around that too. let him see the Irish 'incident' for himself and see if we can give him the reception he deserves.

by homer Mon Jun 23, 2008 13:15

If you want to win Lisbon 2 forget 'social europe' and join Sinn Fein or Libertas. Ok 5% of voters identified with Sinn Fein and Libertas positions on corporation tax but that is the margin of victory over the 'yes men' and it was probally 3% more than voted for a 'social europe'. Did anyone even turn up to the meeting on saturday?

by MichaelY - CAEUC/iawm Mon Jun 23, 2008 14:18

Dear friend,

Last Saturday's meeting was the largest internal meeting we ever had. 11 affiliated organisations sent reps, 6 new members turned up and we were 29 altogether. Discussion ranged for nearly 3 hours. Decisions taken:
(1) Another CAEUC meeting next Saturday June 28th to continue the discussion
(2) A full Press Conference next Monday 30th with the presence of all the affiliates
(3) A National Meeting of activists from every corner of the country.

Discussion of how best to respond to Sarkozy's arrival on July 11th continues.

Homer - Sinn Fein is part of the CAEUC - as for Libertas who knows where they would be in a few weeks time. As for the 'social Europe' matter, take a bit of time and try to figure out the implications of the most recent European Court of Justice judgement (June 19), entitled 'Luxemburg', involving the state of Luxemburg and its postal workers. You may then stop talking through your hat.

For more debate documents and planned events please go to our website:

www.sayno.ie

by Joe Byrne Mon Jun 23, 2008 20:05

CAEUC need a poster badly. A good kick off is afforded by Sarkozy's visit.

Check out www.respecttheballotbox.eu

by Mick Butler Mon Jun 23, 2008 20:31

RESPECT THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE

is what I think should be on the placards, it 's unambigious, clear and the "Respect" word is being scattered around Brussels like snuff at a wake, all in relartion to the one national vote among 27 that this state got on the treaty.

It's deployment is of course being used by those who have a radical Disrepect for the ballot box, when it's outcome is not on their terms,
Democracy what crimes we commit in your name.

by Sean Mon Jun 23, 2008 21:49

"Don't get Sarky with us!"

by cropbeye Tue Jun 24, 2008 20:57 Cork city (Northside)

Two things need to be taken into account.

First the Governmet with the conivence of the EU elite will try any trick to get past us

some formula which might include temporary derogations of certain obligations under Lisbon

which the Government can opt into at a later time.

Some form of parallel treaty for the Irish (and possibly the Czechs) which will be deemed to be compatable with

Lisbon though not identical a bit like Frances attitude to N.A.T.O until recently.

We have to be prepared to go to the Supreme court again.

Secondly even though I consider myself to be on the left and a Republican I think that every potential candidate and serving rep

on the county councils and Europe parliment limbering up for 2009 should be e-mailed and given a chance to declare them selves

convinced of the death of Lisbon or one of those trying to give it mouth to mouth. I believe a huge number of candidates mostly independant will emerge for the locals next year and many will have a better than usual chance of success.

All the more reason to try every tactic to delay the Euro fanatics who want to try to have everything settled before the Euro elections
next year. If ever there was proof of their disdain for democracy this is it.

Believed that C.A.E.U.C did well over all in very difficult circumstances and produced by far the best leaflet on the No Side.

by team effort - none Thu Jun 26, 2008 00:23

i though the unite ads in the star were well timed and hit the right notes in the right way at the right people.they must have got advice which obviously costs money and libertas also spent a fortune.unfortunately money talks in this world

by Mick Duggen Thu Jun 26, 2008 09:27

Cropbeye, i thought the wca leaflet & poster were the best of the campaign, unfortunately they were only done in their own area of the north inner city. Pity they can’t see beyond their own doorstep.

by Emily Reidich - individual Fri Jun 27, 2008 19:29

I too was impressed by the WCA material and I was surprised because I thought they were split (although they did not have several prominent members names on their leaflet). I recieved a WCA leaflet through my door and I live in Waterford so it seems they have moved beyond Dublin City.
Why is it that small groups like the WCA can appeal to workers and address their concerns while larger groups seem to have little relevance?

by amused Fri Jun 27, 2008 20:13

I don't even know what WCA stands for but this is completely predictable. At the end of every campaign we have members & supporters of every group on here telling us how impressed they were with their own stuff and how everybody else's looked shit in comparison. Same-o same-o.

Who the hell are the WCA anyway? Never heard of them and I've been around Dublin a long time. And - always more interesting - what did they split about?

by cropbeye - None Fri Jun 27, 2008 20:26 cropbeye at yahoo dot com

Hey Mick

I don't alltogether disagree with you re the W.C.A

but in the end dosn't a lot of this all come back to funding.

I have been also trying to encourage people to get their hands on any left over booklets

like the C.A.E.U.C twenty page document and similar publications

and place them into Public Libraries and other places where quite study can be

done. Also into schools as well of course if there is any seriousness about the

political and citizenship ciriculem . Do these publications now qualify as historical documents

of special interest?

People who started out voting no from a position of being confused may be drawn over to

positivly reject what was being proposed as a matter of principle. We should be carefull not to waste recourses..

by Sean Fri Jun 27, 2008 21:42

Is ANYBODY going to tell us who the WCA are?

by oisin Greel Sun Jun 29, 2008 17:04

Are WCA english? Are they anarchists? Anybody know?

by MichaelY - CAEUCV/iawm Sun Jun 29, 2008 18:48

Campaign Against EU Constitution – sayno.ie

Press conference, Mon June 30, 11.00

Unite Offices, 55-56 Middle Abbey St, Dublin 1.

NO vote is a call for democracy and policy changes in Europe

Sarkozy: respect the three referendum votes

No means No! Protest on July 11

On June 12th the Irish people rejected the Lisbon Treaty. The outcome of this democratic process should be respected by the Irish and European political establishment. Lisbon is dead. The ratification process should now stop. This Treaty has now been defeated three times. Its rejection demands that Europe takes a new political direction.

French President Sarkozy says that Lisbon must be implemented. We say No means No! Nor will we accept instructions from a man who admits that if Lisbon was put to the people of France it would be rejected – again. This anti-democratic militarist is calling for a huge increase in European military spending – rejected in the Lisbon vote – and supports an attack on Iran while he fully supports Israel.. We call upon supporters of democracy, peace and social justice to show their opposition to Sarkozy's politics by joining our protest on Friday July 11 at 12.30 at the Dame St. Plaza, opposite the Olympia.

We call for a full public debate on the future of Europe, in which the opinions and concerns of the ordinary people of Ireland, France and other European countries take centre stage. Our Campaign will hold a national meeting in Dublin on Sunday July 20, involving supporters from across Europe, where we will discuss how to take that debate to the people of Ireland and beyond.

Since the referendum, the cry from the supporters of Lisbon has been that voters were misled, confused, or lied to. The truth is that the voters simply didn't believe the arguments of establishment- Ireland.

The 'yes' arguments are now being replayed. And while European leaders say they 'respect' the Irish vote, they plan to carry on regardless. Their aim is to find a way to deny the validity of the popular vote. EU leaders now call for the Irish government to 'find a solution', meaning a way to get the existing treaty ratified in Ireland. So it should come as no surprise that people’s distrust of politicians – in Ireland and the EU – is so high, particularly amongst women and young people. Sarkozy's admission last year, that a gulf exists between the rulers and the people, is truer now than when he said it.

When the people of Ireland voted to reject the Lisbon Treaty, it was not out of fear of abortion being brought in by the back door – this was not an issue on the doorsteps. Likewise, immigration was never an issue during the campaign. These issues are now being paraded in an attempt to portray the 'no' vote as conservative and xenophobic. This was not the case, other than for a small minority who did not determine the result.

The majority voted no for a combination of reasons. They were unwilling to accept the assurances of politicians that Lisbon, in some undefined way, would be 'good for Ireland'. They voted no to retain some control over the decisions which affect our lives – be that taxation, neutrality, or international trade agreements. They voted NO because they were not convinced that workers rights would be protected.

And while pollsters have chosen to ignore it, concern about public services – in particular healthcare – was also an issue. The 'no' majorities from the left – for example in the predominantly working class constituencies with Labour TDs – were won by 'No' campaigners who highlighted the threats to public services to the same degree as the other issues which have been mentioned in the polls.

Renegotiation of Lisbon has been ruled out by almost all European leaders. The CAEUC and its affiliates also reject renegotiation. The government now says it is going to 'consult widely' before coming up with a 'solution': they want to find out what buy-offs and/or minimal concessions they need to make in order to drum up enough support for a 'yes' in another referendum. They are under pressure to do this before the European elections next May; and European leaders are already suggesting that the question should be 'for' or 'against' membership of the EU.

We reject these bully-boy tactics and say 'No means No'. The referendum vote was a rejection of the politics of the EU's leaders, in whom the people have little trust. The CAEUC will continue to campaign for :

➢ the demilitarisation of Europe;
➢ democratic accountability and transparency at all levels of politics;
➢ the exclusion of public services from market rules and privatisation;
➢ environmental sustainability;
➢ social justice in Europe and in the EU's relations with other countries and peoples;
➢ the prioritising of workers rights, human rights and democratic rights in Europe and in EU relations with other countries.

We oppose and will continue to oppose all measures to the contrary, be they in Lisbon or any other treaty. We will seek to take part in Europe-wide campaigns to achieve our aims, and will support democratic forums of the peoples of Europe through which alternatives to the policies of the EU elite (embodied in Lisbon) can be debated. More importantly we will support initiatives aimed at mobilizing people against these policies.

The CAEUC and its affiliates will campaign against any rerun of Lisbon. Today we reiterate our commitment to seeking the largest NO Vote if the government dares to resuscitate a Treaty which the people believe is dead.

Ends

Further info: 085 713 1903, 01 8727912 www.sayno.ie

============ ========= =

Affiliates to the Campaign Against the EU Constitution:

Communist Party of Ireland
Community & Workers Action Group, Crumlin
éirígí
Irish Anti-war Movement
Irish Republican Socialist Party
Irish Socialist Network
Peace and Neutrality Alliance
People Before Profit Alliance
People's Movement
Sinn Fein
Socialist Party
Socialist Workers Party
Workers Party
ATTAC Austria
ATTAC France

by no voter Sun Jun 29, 2008 21:28

i picked up a book they did at SF public meeting about 3 months ago. the seller advised me that it was boreing but very informative. he was right on the second point. i was picking out quotes on it for next 3 months and passing them around. very usefull.