Launch of


12 Flares Twitter 11 Facebook 1 12 Flares ×
Print pagePDF pageEmail page

Just came across and thought it was worth a mention here. This is from the About page: is the Socialist Party’s anti austerity treaty campaign website, and was set up by Paul Murphy, Socialist Party & United Left Alliance MEP for Dublin. We are part of the broad-based Campaign Against the Austerity Treaty, and encourage everyone opposed to the treaty to get involved with their campaigning activies.

The following is why you should vote no:

Update – Press release from the Launch:

Speaking at the press conference launching the website and his pamphlet on “Austerity Treaty explained: how it undermines democracy & institutionalises austerity” today, Paul Murphy commented:

“In contrast to the taxpayer funded government website, the website gives the true story about the impact of this Treaty on people’s lives. In a series of short videos, the key features of the Treaty such as the austerity required, the fact that it is a bondholders’ Treaty are explained as well as answering the scaremongering arguments of the government.

“The website also turns attention to the crucial democratic arguments against this Treaty. It transfers yet more powers to the unelected and effectively unaccountable European Commission and enables countries in ‘Excessive Deficit Procedures’ to be effectively placed into administration with their budgets written by the Commission and Council. Also, by writing the structural deficit target into law, it is an attempt to remove people’s right to choose an alternative to austerity policies.

“The pamphlet ‘Austerity Treaty explained: how it undermines democracy & institutionalises austerity’ has already sold extremely well at public meetings right across the country. There is a thirst out there for an explanation of what this Treaty will mean for people’s lives and a strong distrust of the government’s arguments. I have spoken at a number of meetings of the Campaign Against Household and Water Taxes about this Treaty in the last week and everywhere, large number of anti-household tax activists are signing up to actively campaign against this Treaty for the next three weeks.”

The following two tabs change content below.
Donagh is the editor of Irish Left Review. Contact Donagh through email:

5 Responses

  1. John Mc Donnelll

    May 10, 2012 7:11 pm

    The Left’s response to wear will we get the money sustain the country is weak.
    It needs to be discussed by all parties on the no side, so the rational is consistent and realistic forget ideology for a while.

  2. CMK

    May 10, 2012 9:54 pm

    I’m fed up with reading that sort of nonsense: ‘The Left’s response to wear (?) will we get the money sustain the country is weak’.

    The ‘Yes’ side have not yet, as far as I can see, explained what conditions will be attached to their longed for ‘second bailout’. I think it is reasonable to expect that they will be severe, much more than the first ‘bailout’. ‘We’ will ‘get the money’ from a second bailout but we’ll get a doubling up of austerity as the quid pro quo.

    The ‘where will be get the money from’ argument is an intellectual three card trick; the media know this and know that it knocks ‘No’ speakers off kilter in a debate because they begin to look shifty and dodgy as they try to respond with what seems like a superficial or half-baked response but which is often a more profound critique of austerity that can’t be squeezed into a soundbite. A fair hearing for the Left in Ireland would require a drastic re-structuring of the Irish media landscape and demand a lot of listeners, viewers and readers; it ain’t gonna happen and those who own and control the media will never let it happen either.

    The question should be re-phrased as ‘what will Irish society have to sacrifice in exchange for more funds’? The ‘Yes’ side should be harassed until they make clear the scale of cuts that will be required by the Austerity Treaty.

    And, remember, the third biggest item of public spending (doubling between 2012 and 2015) is payment of interest on the unsustainable debt imposed by the bank bailouts.

    In response to the question: ‘where will the money come from’, the left should make clear that interest payments will be suspended until such time as economic growth picks up. To rejoinder that ‘surely that would mean a default’ the left’s response should be ‘so we should prioritise interest payments on illict debt over health and education spending’ etc, etc,

  3. Brian Woods

    May 11, 2012 8:34 am

    A No vote is necessary to show our elected reps that the citizen is soverign in this state. We elect them. They must be responsible and accountable to us – and they manifestly are not. So vote No. Mond you, if we do, they will be back, begging-bowl in hand, for another ‘shot’.

    On the question of money to pay-our day-to-day gove expenses:

    GDP = C + G + I +(n-x) Recognise this? How doe it get balanced?

    C is Consumer spending: down according to rumour.
    I is Investment: in the shredder according to rumour
    (n-x) is Nett Exports – treading water according to rumour

    Now we come to the interesting bit, G; Government spending – still rising according to rumour.

    So, if my math is correct, we are a tad short on the G income bit. So where do we get it from? “Borrow”. Fine, but borrowed money is to-morrow’s income.

    “So, I am spending my to-morrow’s income to-day?”
    “And what do I do when I have no income to-morrow?”
    “You BORROW! – are you hard of hearing? Or what?

    So when does this end?

    It has. It’s just that some folk are being wilfully blind and mendacious. Or perhaps they are actually so stupid that they are incapable of recognizing that they are stupid.

    Vote No, and force our legislators to put our own fiscal house in order. Then we can worry about Europe.

  4. Donagh

    May 14, 2012 9:43 am

    I think any one who comes on here and says that the left’s response to the question of ‘where we will get the money’ is weak is either unwilling and incapable of engaging in arguments that veer every so slightly from the government and media narrative.

    Since the crisis began lots of the ‘left’ have provided detailed, reasonable, workable and sane alternatives. A lot of work has gone in to this and always always always the response has been simply ‘this will not work’, its not reasonable, it’s not workable etc.

    So no matter what response the left comes up with to the self-defeating act of voting positively for this treaty the line will always be the same: “your argument is a bit weak”.

    Thanks CMK and William for responding here. I just wanted to comment that I’ve updated this post with some detail from the ULA press conference on the website, and to point readers towards this video which provides a STRONG argument about the alternative funding that could be used in the event of a no vote.