Comrade Ryan
06-25-2008, 10:58 AM
Blueshirt Claims Defy Reality
23/06/08
The people have voted. The answer is a resounding No. Lisbon is dead and the political establishment has been left scratching its head. How could this happen?
How could the electorate embarrass the new Taoiseach in front of the elite of the European Union?
There has been much bellyaching and fantasising as to why people delivered the verdict they did. The Twenty-Six County state is to embark on a lengthy period of reflection. The carcass of Lisbon will be picked over for some time.
Brian Cowen has been given until October to return with answers to the political elite in Brussels. A new narrative is being prepared. In order to hold another referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, the political establishment will attempt to ‘prove’ that the majority of those who voted against the Treaty did so for spurious reasons. Accordingly, the No side allegedly peddled lies throughout the campaign. The valiant crusaders on the Yes side spent their time vanquishing these alleged myths. Consequently, they were left with little time to sell the supposed positive elements of the Treaty.
We will be told that the political class had to share equal and valuable broadcasting time with a bunch of liars and impostors. Apparently, those who rejected the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty did not do so on a rational basis. They did not follow the arguments and were led by ‘extraneous’ reasons to reject the Treaty. Hence, rather than accept that they simply lost the argument and the electorate rejected the Treaty because they do not support a federal, militarised, undemocratic European Union, the political establishment must invent a few myths.
One of the greatest and most dangerous myths being peddled by the Yes side is that the massive numbers of working class people who voted No did so as a result of some sort of latent racism. Brian Cowen took the opportunity of his address to the EU Council of Ministers on Friday (June 20) to suggest that one of the background factors in the rejection of the Treaty was the issue of immigration. Indeed, his colleagues on the Yes side had already taken to peddling this lie to the media.
Former president of the European Parliament, Pat Cox, commented that “looking at the different kind of votes in middle class and working class areas, to what extent were there unspoken feelings about immigration and about the labour market issues?”
However, Fine Gael TD for Dublin West Leo Varadkar has been the most shameless of all in playing the race card.
Quoted in yesterday’s (June 22) Sunday Business Post, Mr Varadkar attempted to label a large working class turn-out in an election and reactionary opinions as two sides of the same coin.
“If there is anything to be learned about this large working-class vote, it’s that it’s a right-wing reaction – anti-immigration, protect my job – and not a left-wing vote,” the Blueshirt TD said.
Varadkar continued: “A lot of leftwing campaigns stirred the immigration pot - some deliberately and some unwittingly.”
éirígí chairperson Brian Leeson responded angrily to Varadkar’s assertions:
“To date these outlandish claims have gone unchallenged. While éirígí does not share the politics of some of the groups who campaigned for a No vote, none of the groups involved played the race card. This epitomises the referendum tactics of the establishment parties – now that they have lost the vote they will deploy the same tactics, including the race card, in attempting to undermine the democratic verdict.
“It is typical for a middle class politician of Leo Varadkar’s hue to see large working class participation in the electoral process as a bad thing and then infer sinister reasons for this participation – reasons which simply do not exist in reality.
“Virtually all of the No groupings who campaigned in working class communities ahead of the June 12 referendum have long-standing anti-racist policies. Is Mr Varadkar seriously saying that these groups subliminally motivated large numbers of working class people to go out and vote on a racist ticket?”
Notwithstanding the absolute lack of evidence for Varadkar’s wild claims, the Twenty-Six County Action Plan Against Racism (NAPAR) has fallen into the trap. The spectre of racism had somehow made its way into the debate on the aftermath of the Lisbon vote despite it never featuring during the course of the entire campaign.
According to Lucy Gaffney, chairperson of NAPAR, “for all of us who are active in the areas of integration, anti-racism and multiculturalism, the survey findings are extremely worrying”.
Astonishingly, Gaffney concluded that “as the Lisbon outcome reveals, addressing the fears of the local community in relation to immigration remains a major challenge”.
So what were these survey findings that so horrified the chairperson of NAPAR?
In the immediate aftermath of the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, a Gallup telephone poll for Eurobarometer was conducted amongst a sample of 2,000 people over the age of 18.
The survey does not give a breakdown of the number of responses it received of the 2,000 people telephoned.
One of the questions put to respondents was: “Please tell me what are the reasons you voted No to the treaty?”
A list of 16 possible answers was presented. One of the possible answers presented was “to avoid an influx of migrants”.
Given the dark mutterings of the Yes side that a latent racism existed amongst the electorate, one would imagine that a sizeable portion of respondents answered in the affirmative to this particular option. Yet, it was in fact at the very bottom of all possible answers given. Just one per cent of all answers given indicated that they voted No “to avoid an influx of migrants”.
To suggest that race was a major issue in the campaign is both disingenuous and mischievous. Indeed, the question as posed is entirely misleading. At no point during the campaign was the issue of immigration or the rather loaded question of “avoiding an influx of migrants” raised.
Why then did the Gallup Poll see fit to include it as a possible reason for voting against the Treaty? In fact, Philip Watt, chairperson of the Twenty-Six County Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism, in response to spurious claims by the Yes side that race was an issue in the campaign, told the Irish Times he welcomed the fact that no campaigner or group had tried to play the race card during the course of the campaign.
Furthermore, Watt emphasised the fact that “there was nobody we came across either directly or out of the sides of their mouths using the immigrant argument as a basis to vote No or Yes”.
This is supported by the Irish Times opinion poll the week before polling day. That poll indicated a major swing to the No side in the campaign.
It found that 30 per cent intended voting No as they did not know enough about the Treaty, 24 per cent wished to retain the state’s power and identity, 22 per cent wished to preserve the state’s neutrality, 11 per cent wished to help Irish farmers in the WTO talks, while five per cent wanted to safeguard taxation policy. Not surprisingly, immigration did not feature as a major concern.
Why the Gallup Poll chose to include the issue in the first instance is even more intriguing, considering two of the major issues promoted in the campaign, namely protection of workers’ rights and defence of public services were not offered to respondents as possible reasons for voting No. Of the 16 possible answers presented as reasons for voting No, there was no reference to these two central issues. Both these issues formed major planks in the campaigns of those on the Left and, indeed, were of major concern to working class people and trade unionists across the state.
A major question mark must be placed over any survey that neglected to include these issues in its possible reasons for people voting No. SIPTU, the largest trade union in the state, refused to endorse the Treaty or recommend it to their members on the basis that it did not offer sufficient protection to workers’ rights.
So is this all much ado about nothing, or is there another agenda at work?
It is clear that the Yes side is looking for excuses to put the Treaty before the people once again. They are intent on finding extraneous issues, even where none exist in order to give a rationale for rerunning the referendum early next year.
Hence, racism and xenophobia will be presented to undermine the real reasons why people voted No, despite no concrete evidence existing to support such assertions. Furthermore, they are likely to attempt to split the No side by calling on ‘fair-minded’ voters to reject the supposed ‘racism’ of sections of the No side.
Brian Leeson continued:
“The twisted irony is that while establishment politicians in this state are claiming that the electorate in the Twenty-Six Counties is racist, the EU Parliament is approving legislation that gives member states the power to lock up migrants for up to 18 months. It is entirely hypocritical of Fine Gael representatives such as Leo Varadkar to accuse anyone of racism and xenophobia – his party and their EU political bloc are fully behind this nefarious ‘Return Directive’.
“So, while Fine Gael supports the effective internment of migrants across most of Europe, its elected representatives have the brass neck to accuse others of stirring up racism and xenophobia. The ‘Return Directive’ places xenophobia and racism at the very heart of the EU!
“Over the last number of years, there has been widespread exploitation, in Ireland and across Europe, of migrant workers. The political establishment here and their allies in IBEC have consistently turned a blind eye and refused to introduce comprehensive protections for agency workers. Their cynicism will not be lost on those genuinely concerned about the rights of immigrant workers.
Brian concluded: “The political establishment should be castigated for attempting to introduce race into the debate on the Lisbon Treaty when it did not feature during the course of the campaign. Having comprehensively lost the arguments on the substance of the Treaty they have resorted to inventing spurious scenarios as to why people voted No. All of this is a cynical ploy to undermine the No campaign in preparation for a rerun of the Lisbon referendum.
“éirígí will not allow the lies of those who cannot accept the verdict of the electorate to go unchallenged.”
23/06/08
The people have voted. The answer is a resounding No. Lisbon is dead and the political establishment has been left scratching its head. How could this happen?
How could the electorate embarrass the new Taoiseach in front of the elite of the European Union?
There has been much bellyaching and fantasising as to why people delivered the verdict they did. The Twenty-Six County state is to embark on a lengthy period of reflection. The carcass of Lisbon will be picked over for some time.
Brian Cowen has been given until October to return with answers to the political elite in Brussels. A new narrative is being prepared. In order to hold another referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, the political establishment will attempt to ‘prove’ that the majority of those who voted against the Treaty did so for spurious reasons. Accordingly, the No side allegedly peddled lies throughout the campaign. The valiant crusaders on the Yes side spent their time vanquishing these alleged myths. Consequently, they were left with little time to sell the supposed positive elements of the Treaty.
We will be told that the political class had to share equal and valuable broadcasting time with a bunch of liars and impostors. Apparently, those who rejected the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty did not do so on a rational basis. They did not follow the arguments and were led by ‘extraneous’ reasons to reject the Treaty. Hence, rather than accept that they simply lost the argument and the electorate rejected the Treaty because they do not support a federal, militarised, undemocratic European Union, the political establishment must invent a few myths.
One of the greatest and most dangerous myths being peddled by the Yes side is that the massive numbers of working class people who voted No did so as a result of some sort of latent racism. Brian Cowen took the opportunity of his address to the EU Council of Ministers on Friday (June 20) to suggest that one of the background factors in the rejection of the Treaty was the issue of immigration. Indeed, his colleagues on the Yes side had already taken to peddling this lie to the media.
Former president of the European Parliament, Pat Cox, commented that “looking at the different kind of votes in middle class and working class areas, to what extent were there unspoken feelings about immigration and about the labour market issues?”
However, Fine Gael TD for Dublin West Leo Varadkar has been the most shameless of all in playing the race card.
Quoted in yesterday’s (June 22) Sunday Business Post, Mr Varadkar attempted to label a large working class turn-out in an election and reactionary opinions as two sides of the same coin.
“If there is anything to be learned about this large working-class vote, it’s that it’s a right-wing reaction – anti-immigration, protect my job – and not a left-wing vote,” the Blueshirt TD said.
Varadkar continued: “A lot of leftwing campaigns stirred the immigration pot - some deliberately and some unwittingly.”
éirígí chairperson Brian Leeson responded angrily to Varadkar’s assertions:
“To date these outlandish claims have gone unchallenged. While éirígí does not share the politics of some of the groups who campaigned for a No vote, none of the groups involved played the race card. This epitomises the referendum tactics of the establishment parties – now that they have lost the vote they will deploy the same tactics, including the race card, in attempting to undermine the democratic verdict.
“It is typical for a middle class politician of Leo Varadkar’s hue to see large working class participation in the electoral process as a bad thing and then infer sinister reasons for this participation – reasons which simply do not exist in reality.
“Virtually all of the No groupings who campaigned in working class communities ahead of the June 12 referendum have long-standing anti-racist policies. Is Mr Varadkar seriously saying that these groups subliminally motivated large numbers of working class people to go out and vote on a racist ticket?”
Notwithstanding the absolute lack of evidence for Varadkar’s wild claims, the Twenty-Six County Action Plan Against Racism (NAPAR) has fallen into the trap. The spectre of racism had somehow made its way into the debate on the aftermath of the Lisbon vote despite it never featuring during the course of the entire campaign.
According to Lucy Gaffney, chairperson of NAPAR, “for all of us who are active in the areas of integration, anti-racism and multiculturalism, the survey findings are extremely worrying”.
Astonishingly, Gaffney concluded that “as the Lisbon outcome reveals, addressing the fears of the local community in relation to immigration remains a major challenge”.
So what were these survey findings that so horrified the chairperson of NAPAR?
In the immediate aftermath of the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, a Gallup telephone poll for Eurobarometer was conducted amongst a sample of 2,000 people over the age of 18.
The survey does not give a breakdown of the number of responses it received of the 2,000 people telephoned.
One of the questions put to respondents was: “Please tell me what are the reasons you voted No to the treaty?”
A list of 16 possible answers was presented. One of the possible answers presented was “to avoid an influx of migrants”.
Given the dark mutterings of the Yes side that a latent racism existed amongst the electorate, one would imagine that a sizeable portion of respondents answered in the affirmative to this particular option. Yet, it was in fact at the very bottom of all possible answers given. Just one per cent of all answers given indicated that they voted No “to avoid an influx of migrants”.
To suggest that race was a major issue in the campaign is both disingenuous and mischievous. Indeed, the question as posed is entirely misleading. At no point during the campaign was the issue of immigration or the rather loaded question of “avoiding an influx of migrants” raised.
Why then did the Gallup Poll see fit to include it as a possible reason for voting against the Treaty? In fact, Philip Watt, chairperson of the Twenty-Six County Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism, in response to spurious claims by the Yes side that race was an issue in the campaign, told the Irish Times he welcomed the fact that no campaigner or group had tried to play the race card during the course of the campaign.
Furthermore, Watt emphasised the fact that “there was nobody we came across either directly or out of the sides of their mouths using the immigrant argument as a basis to vote No or Yes”.
This is supported by the Irish Times opinion poll the week before polling day. That poll indicated a major swing to the No side in the campaign.
It found that 30 per cent intended voting No as they did not know enough about the Treaty, 24 per cent wished to retain the state’s power and identity, 22 per cent wished to preserve the state’s neutrality, 11 per cent wished to help Irish farmers in the WTO talks, while five per cent wanted to safeguard taxation policy. Not surprisingly, immigration did not feature as a major concern.
Why the Gallup Poll chose to include the issue in the first instance is even more intriguing, considering two of the major issues promoted in the campaign, namely protection of workers’ rights and defence of public services were not offered to respondents as possible reasons for voting No. Of the 16 possible answers presented as reasons for voting No, there was no reference to these two central issues. Both these issues formed major planks in the campaigns of those on the Left and, indeed, were of major concern to working class people and trade unionists across the state.
A major question mark must be placed over any survey that neglected to include these issues in its possible reasons for people voting No. SIPTU, the largest trade union in the state, refused to endorse the Treaty or recommend it to their members on the basis that it did not offer sufficient protection to workers’ rights.
So is this all much ado about nothing, or is there another agenda at work?
It is clear that the Yes side is looking for excuses to put the Treaty before the people once again. They are intent on finding extraneous issues, even where none exist in order to give a rationale for rerunning the referendum early next year.
Hence, racism and xenophobia will be presented to undermine the real reasons why people voted No, despite no concrete evidence existing to support such assertions. Furthermore, they are likely to attempt to split the No side by calling on ‘fair-minded’ voters to reject the supposed ‘racism’ of sections of the No side.
Brian Leeson continued:
“The twisted irony is that while establishment politicians in this state are claiming that the electorate in the Twenty-Six Counties is racist, the EU Parliament is approving legislation that gives member states the power to lock up migrants for up to 18 months. It is entirely hypocritical of Fine Gael representatives such as Leo Varadkar to accuse anyone of racism and xenophobia – his party and their EU political bloc are fully behind this nefarious ‘Return Directive’.
“So, while Fine Gael supports the effective internment of migrants across most of Europe, its elected representatives have the brass neck to accuse others of stirring up racism and xenophobia. The ‘Return Directive’ places xenophobia and racism at the very heart of the EU!
“Over the last number of years, there has been widespread exploitation, in Ireland and across Europe, of migrant workers. The political establishment here and their allies in IBEC have consistently turned a blind eye and refused to introduce comprehensive protections for agency workers. Their cynicism will not be lost on those genuinely concerned about the rights of immigrant workers.
Brian concluded: “The political establishment should be castigated for attempting to introduce race into the debate on the Lisbon Treaty when it did not feature during the course of the campaign. Having comprehensively lost the arguments on the substance of the Treaty they have resorted to inventing spurious scenarios as to why people voted No. All of this is a cynical ploy to undermine the No campaign in preparation for a rerun of the Lisbon referendum.
“éirígí will not allow the lies of those who cannot accept the verdict of the electorate to go unchallenged.”