Constitutional Convention

[Lugh Ildánach 2,352]

I see the joke of a Constitutional Convention that was part of the Free State Labour Party is due to meet for the first time on 1st December. Its clear from this that no change outside of the liberal mindset is being considered

 

 

Here's some info on it from PILA (Public Interest Law Alliance)

 

On 23 October 2012, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste announced Mr. Tom Arnold’s appointment as Chairperson of the Convention on the Constitution. Mr. Arnold is the chief executive of the charity Concern Worldwide as well as chairman of the Irish Times Trust and a director of the Irish Times Ltd.

Taoiseach Enda Kenny, in announcing the appointment stated “Tom’s strong personal commitment to justice and to improving the lives of citizens around the world makes him an ideal choice for this task”

Mr Arnold, accepting the post, said “It is a great honour for me to be appointed chairperson of the Convention on the Constitution. I will do my best to ensure that every member of the Convention gets an opportunity to contribute to the work of the Convention.”

The PILA bulletin has previously reported on the Constitutional Convention and our earlier features can be viewed here.

The Convention will consider and make recommendations to the Oireachtas on the following matters:

1. Reducing the presidential term of office to five years and aligning it with local and European elections;

2. Reducing the voting age to seventeen;

3. Review of the Dail’s electoral system;

4. Giving citizens resident outside the state the right to vote in Presidential elections;

5. Provision for same-sex marriage;

6. Amending the clause on the role of women in the home and encouraging greater participation of women in public life;

7. Increasing women’s participation in politics;

8. Removal of the offence of blasphemy from the Constitution; and

9. Other such relevant constitutional amendments that may be recommended to it.

The Convention comprises of 100 members. The number includes 66 members of the public, chosen randomly from the electoral register, and 33 elected representatives, drawn from the Houses of the Oireachtas, and a parliamentarian from each of the parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The first meeting of the Convention will take place on Saturday 1 December 2012 in Dublin Castle.

Click here to read a government press release and another.

Click here to read a Journal article.

[Guest Connolly]

What proposals do you think they should take up outside of the above liberal agenda?

[Lugh Ildánach 2,352]

What proposals do you think they should take up outside of the above liberal agenda?

 

I think the process itself is flawed and bound to reflect that liberal agenda. Only those already within the current political system are reflected, plus this random 66 people (how many of those will even show up?). But beyond the problems with the process, land nationalisation would be as good a place to start as anywhere? Or enshrining economic rights?

[Guest Connolly]

I think the process itself is flawed and bound to reflect that liberal agenda. Only those already within the current political system are reflected, plus this random 66 people (how many of those will even show up?). But beyond the problems with the process, land nationalisation would be as good a place to start as anywhere? Or enshrining economic rights?

 

Tbh I dont think that would be feasible. The reality is that any government that gets in has their hands tied. The real power is the economic dictatorship, or the logic of the system. And not on a national level, but a global level. The Irish economy, and the well beiong of its people, is inseperable from europe, the USA, China, the meddle east and so forth.

 

Nationalise the land with what money? To what economic benefit/growth?

 

The ULA and SF propose measures such as these. Come up with policies to try adjust the economic sliders. But I think it shows the up to be economic illiterates and spoofers. Because the man on the street knows "what is possible" within the given arrangements.

 

It is a very difficult situation to come up with solutions. But imo any solution at this point must come as 'external' to the logic of the present capitalist system for which Ireland is intrgrated. For example, community gardens using idle land. Or greater volunteerism in external economic activity. But that is even "far out" given the barriers to trying to get people to do that.

[Fodla32 3,692]

I think that the above is very typical of former Socialist parties all over Europe - not that Labour was ever very Socialist. But, the hope of really making any changes to the economic structure of the capitalist régime has been abandoned, and they content themselves with the "liberal agenda" of gay rights, womens rights, the curtailing of church involvement in the state, etc.

[Fodla32 3,692]

I see that Gilmore's wife has just been given a 92,000 euro a year government job. That's after she sold a bit of land in the middle of nowhere to a national school that needed an extension - for half a million euro. Let's just say that these people have lot's of reasons to keep everything the same.

[Fodla32 3,692]

 

Nationalise the land with what money? To what economic benefit/growth?

 

 

The benefits would be enormous. Hopefully there will be a CPIR statement on that issue in the near future. As for money - why should the Irish people pay money to a tiny minority for what already belongs to us?

 

By the way, the British Labour Party had a land nationalization policy right up to the late 1960s.

[Guest Connolly]

The benefits would be enormous. Hopefully there will be a CPIR statement on that issue in the near future. As for money - why should the Irish people pay money to a tiny minority for what already belongs to us?

 

By the way, the British Labour Party had a land nationalization policy right up to the late 1960s.

 

It is not a question of "why", or a question of 'principle'. It is a qustion of "how". How could it be done within the given economic constraints, or logic. Constraints that did not exist in the 1960's. Globalisation and economic interdependence on the scale that we have now is relatively recent, beginning in the early 80's late 70's.

 

That there are no real economic policy differences between new labour and the conservatives, or the Irish labour party and FG and FF are a consequence of this evolution, or development of capitalism - of communications technology, internet, shipping technologies leading to economic interdependence and, to reflect this, the re-shapig of the global financial system.

 

That is, the superstructure - the ideological and policy underpinnings, have reflected capitalism from the early 80's to now.

 

That superstructure is now under immense pressure due to the economic crisis. There is pressure to 'present' substantive alternative economic policies.

 

But nationalisation, if trying to 'work within the system', would not make sense. Without subsidies Irish agriculture would be wiped out due to competition from abroad. And how would the "international community" react to Ireland nationalising the land? - with great hostility. Embargoes and so forth, as they do with other states who take an alternative path. What would the consequences be for farmers, or the concept of property rights in Ireland? - even to suggest such a thing would be met with great hostility domestically, and not just from farmers.

 

Nationalistaion, at this point, only presents itself as right in principle. But it does not "fit" with a broader economic logic.

 

The consequences nationalisation, it could be argued, would not be beneficial for the well-being of the Irish people.

[Lugh Ildánach 2,352]

You're right that land nationalisation within the system would not work. When we call for land nationalisation, we essentially are calling for the replacement of the current system. We shouldn't shy away from the fact that our revolution is not going to be popular with international capital, or the native class that share their interests. To appease that dynamic is to stay within the current system, and isn't revolutionary at all. The whole point is that we can't reform our way out of this mess, and revolution means great hostility. We must be prepared for such hostility.

[Fodla32 3,692]

Yes, in reality, its highly unlikely that Irish land will be nationalized in isolation. But, that is true of all aspects of Communist policy. I would never regard the policies of the CPIR as being directed to Ireland alone. As you say, Connolly, it was possible for a country like Cuba to nationalization land, because imperialism was at a weak point in the 1960s, due to the power of the USSR and China.

[Guest Connolly]

Yes, in reality, its highly unlikely that Irish land will be nationalized in isolation. But, that is true of all aspects of Communist policy. I would never regard the policies of the CPIR as being directed to Ireland alone. As you say, Connolly, it was possible for a country like Cuba to nationalization land, because imperialism was at a weak point in the 1960s, due to the power of the USSR and China.

 

What do you believe would be the economic benefits of nationalising the land?- and considering, as established in the other thread, that class conflict/relations would not disappear by doing so.

[Fodla32 3,692]

What do you believe would be the economic benefits of nationalising the land?- and considering, as established in the other thread, that class conflict/relations would not disappear by doing so.

 

The immediate benefit would be that land for schools, roads, hospitals, factories, homes, etc. etc. would be free. Also there would be an immediate end to housing and land bubbles.