Why pay the USI levy?

Johnnymcg

Johnnymcg wrote:

...very large writing...

Yeah, he's a Trinity student who has already been banned twice in the past week on boards, as well as having been banned several times on http://www.tcdsu.org/ under several usernames.

Annasopra

Myth wrote:

.... very large writing

I know sorry...

It just annoys me a lot when people say "the students union......" referring to a small group of 4 or 5 people thereby reinforcing the negative images of cliques etc... and deterring involvement

The reality is that all students are the Students Union and all students in USI affiliated colleges are USI - if this message was driven home a bit more then perhaps there might be a bit less apathy and a bit more involvement

Vainglory

Red Alert wrote:

I just think that items such as deportations or anti-war stuff (much of which I actually sympathise a lot with) have no place in the SU. They are there to represent current students, and they seem not always to be sticking to that brief.

Any anti-war or anti-deportation motion discussed and carried at SU Council was brought by a UCDSU member. The SU is there to represent the interests of students and act on their behalf, whatever way they are mandated to do. If UCD students are interested in the anti-war and anti-deportation movements, and bring motions on these issues to council which are then passed, then as far as I can see any work the SU does on these mandates is indeed "representing current students".

arbeitsscheuer

Vainglory wrote:

Any anti-war or anti-deportation motion discussed and carried at SU Council was brought by a UCDSU member. The SU is there to represent the interests of students and act on their behalf, whatever way they are mandated to do. If UCD students are interested in the anti-war and anti-deportation movements, and bring motions on these issues to council which are then passed, then as far as I can see any work the SU does on these mandates is indeed "representing current students".

Spot on.
Tbh, I'm quite proud of our SU's stance on, and active involvment in, ant-deportation movements. If anyone has a problem with the SU's position on this, feel free to use the democratic process to bring about change.

No? Can't be bothered?

Then SHUT THE F**K UP.

Pythia

Being pro or anti deprotations has nothing to do with representing the students of UCD. Neither has being anti war or anything like that.
Surely the SU's job is to look after student matters like library opening hours, access to computers, grants, things which we have no other representation on.
There are loads of groups opposing the War in Iraq, deportations. Why do we need another. It has nothing to do with attending college.
And another thing, are the shops not run for profit? Are they simply a service?

pretty*monster

dublinguy2004 wrote:

You say that if you don't pay your UCDSU levy then you won't be served in UCD? That's hard to believe since staff members are served and they certainly are not members of any student union. When was the last time you were asked to show confirmation of your UCDSU affiliation when you last bought a newspaper? And as for the bar, well the current setup is that you need a student ID, which I have.

Your right, if you managed to opt out of the union you'd probably still get away with reaping the benifits.
That doesn't change the fact that it would be a disgustingly self centered act. The idea that students, due to their relativly low income, should get subsidised food, newspapers, drinks, etc is a pretty liberal one. If you are offended by the unions liberal polices then opt out of disassociate yourself from all of them.

If you aren't willing to cough up the measely €5 you are not entitled to services the SU provides.

And I agree with Ed arguing that you are if like saying you should be able to stop paying taxes if you don't like the goevnment while maintaining that the government should still provide you with a health service, social welfare, infastructure, etc.

Vainglory

Pythia wrote:

Being pro or anti deprotations has nothing to do with representing the students of UCD. Neither has being anti war or anything like that.
Surely the SU's job is to look after student matters like library opening hours, access to computers, grants, things which we have no other representation on.
There are loads of groups opposing the War in Iraq, deportations. Why do we need another. It has nothing to do with attending college.
And another thing, are the shops not run for profit? Are they simply a service?

From dictionary.com, "represent".

To serve as the official and authorized delegate or agent for.
To act as a spokesperson for.

If a UCD student brings a motion to Council on the war or deportations, and it is passed by a simple democratic majority, then any action the SU takes on these issues is by its very definition "representation". The SU officers have every right to follow through on their mandate and act as the motion dictates ; they are consitutionally required to do so.

There is no higher authority which dictates what motions passed at council are worthy of representation by the SU. What validates each and every one of them is the fact that without exception , they have been brought by UCD students through the proper democratic channels, something which you and I and Pat Paterson are equally entitled to do.

In such a case, campaigning against the war is the interest of the student who has proposed the motion. Action the SU then takes on this is in the interests of this student, and of his/her peers who have democratically voted to support the action. This is representation and it is democracy at work.

John_C

AngelofFire wrote:

Just because you have rich parents who can afford to pay fees doesn`t mean everyone else does, Now stop being so selfish and insular.

I think that this is the type of comment which can make students feel like the diverse opinions and backgrounds in UCD are not respected.

I think it's a little bit revisionary to say that the students unions prevented fees from coming back.

Red Alert

Mea culpa to begin with here: For the record, I'm anti-war, anti-deportation and against the US's use of shannon. Nor am I disputing the fact that anyone brought up this motion at all at SU council. Like most UCD students I do also often view the 5 sabbattical officers as 'the' SU.

The SU should most certainly have views on issues. It's a question of perspective that matters. Now more than ever, the students in UCD are going to be squeezed for lack of services, increases in the registration amount, bringing back of fees (lets not forget that Hugh Brady is a proponent of fees). I feel strongly that we need to unite behind these issues first and then if we've time we can deal with the others in that order. The governing authority swiped the sports bar during the summer, my feeling is that was only a rehersal of things to come.

I don't think not paying the SU sub is the answer - I purchase my 70 cent paper each day etc and too-regularly drink in the bar. Not paying the SU sub also decreases its critical mass so the governing authority think they can do what they like and reduces the resources available to do good work. The sabbats and many of the reps do great work on the ground and a lot of them put their whole heart and soul into it but what really annoys me is that the bread and butter stuff gets lost in philosophical noise sometimes. (Fair dues to vainglory for sticking out boards! )

Stabshauptmann

If you did leave UCDSU and got refunded your fiver would you honestly not go into either the pubs or shops operated by the SU? I doubt it

The benifits of being in UCDSU outweigh the costs even if like me you never get involved with them in any way. If you dont like the USI then either go through the channells to disassociate the two unions (I think trinnity did) or just add it to the cost of the great pubs, shops and services UCDSU supply and I think you'll still find the benifits outweigh the costs.

AngelofFire

I think that this is the type of comment which can make students feel like the diverse opinions and backgrounds in UCD are not respected.

I think it's a little bit revisionary to say that the students unions prevented fees from coming back.

I wasn`t attacking the poster based on his/her background, i was attacking their viewpoint which compared the union to a student society which thus seemed to suggest that people should only get involved in the union if they are getting something out of it, i stated that the union was not about individuals, it was about defended the interest of students on a communal and democratic basis.

The Government had floated the idea of tuition fees in 2002 and 2004, but backed out prior to mass opposition from student unions and student protesters.

Vainglory

Red Alert wrote:

Mea culpa to begin with here: For the record, I'm anti-war, anti-deportation and against the US's use of shannon. Nor am I disputing the fact that anyone brought up this motion at all at SU council. Like most UCD students I do also often view the 5 sabbattical officers as 'the' SU.

The SU should most certainly have views on issues. It's a question of perspective that matters. Now more than ever, the students in UCD are going to be squeezed for lack of services, increases in the registration amount, bringing back of fees (lets not forget that Hugh Brady is a proponent of fees). I feel strongly that we need to unite behind these issues first and then if we've time we can deal with the others in that order. The governing authority swiped the sports bar during the summer, my feeling is that was only a rehersal of things to come.

I don't think not paying the SU sub is the answer - I purchase my 70 cent paper each day etc and too-regularly drink in the bar. Not paying the SU sub also decreases its critical mass so the governing authority think they can do what they like and reduces the resources available to do good work. The sabbats and many of the reps do great work on the ground and a lot of them put their whole heart and soul into it but what really annoys me is that the bread and butter stuff gets lost in philosophical noise sometimes. (Fair dues to vainglory for sticking out boards! )

Thanks

And in response..

In UCD, the threat of fees in 2002 was met with opposition from the Campaign for Free Education, which ran a slate of class rep candidates and organised protests and activism throughout the year. Dempsey did not succeed in bringing fees back, and one of the activists involved in CFE was Paul Dillon, President of UCDSU 03/04. It's not true to say that the CFE or even students alone were responsible for stopping fees, but it's equally stupid to say that they didn't play a major part in making sure that this happened

During Dillon's year as president, he was vilified by the college media when the union hired a bus to go down to Shannon and was also criticised for the union's involvement in the anti-deportation campaign. The "SU" was also accused of wasting student money and time on the Coke referendum.

However, this was also the year which saw library cutbacks reversed due to student activism and library occupations, fees well and truly put off the agenda and real achievements for UCD students on clinical placements (just ask any radiography student from around that time).

The myth that certain administrations have prioritised national or international issues over education and welfare issues to the detriment of "regular students" in the past is simply that ; a myth. A strong union will be strong on all issues it is mandated on, it will gain its strength from successes in the past on matters that its members choose to organise on.

Acting on a mandate from council and hiring a bus to Shannon Airport (Warport?) does not stop SU reps on various commitees in the college defending the student position on many issues, nor does a presence at an anti-deportation protest mean that the SU bookshop or grinds file will fall into neglect. SUs, like their members, have positions and opinions on a wide range of topics, and this should be reflected in their activism throughout any year. No motion or mandate should be stifled in the name of "prioritising" student issues..each SU issue is a student issue, as they have all been brought to the fore by students. The definition of student issue should not be "one which affects students", but rather "one which students care about, and have the initiative to organise on".

You say that we need to unite behind these issues first and then "if we've time we can deal with the others in that order." These things don't always come set out in a nice chronological pattern. Do we do nothing about an anti-deportation rally in November because we want to save time for our library protests in March? The SU is a huge resource. Money is not tight. There was a surplus last year, and there is more than enough money there to be spent wisely on issues that students have demonstrated they care about. Students were the biggest interest group in society to mobilise against the war and they are a huge presence at any anti-deportation protest.

And "philosophical noise" ? A lot of people would feel very strongly that an Irish government which is complicit in people being killed in Iraq for oil and sending asylum seekers back to warzones is a lot more than just "philosophical noise".

Lastly, there is no UCDSU subscription. You pay a student centre levy, but that is nothing to do with the SU. The reg fee, while it goes towards funding the SU, also goes towards funding for things like exams, etc. The college makes that decision. If there was no reg fee, there would still be a union. If the registration fee was abolished, the SU would get its money from the same place it always has, the college. If there was an attempt to cut the amount of money given, then I'm sure there would be bloody murder, and rightly so. The reg fee just goes into the college budget, and a lot of colleges don't even relate the SU funding to student numbers or the fee.

John_C

Vainglory wrote:

And "philosophical noise" ? A lot of people would feel very strongly that an Irish government which is complicit in people being killed in Iraq for oil and sending asylum seekers back to warzones is a lot more than just "philosophical noise".

The point is that a lot of people would also have the exact opposite view. If a student is in favour of the war in Iraq and in favour of deportations they'll feel like they're not being represented by their Union. While I don't deny that a majority vote was held in council on these issues I do still think that the union has no business getting involved in them. I was first elected to council the same year as Paul Dillon and I worked with him on a few small issues. He's a nice person and I have plenty of time for him but I didn't agree with a lot of his policies. Like Angus O'Huraihain (sorry for the spelling) before him he was very devisive by getting involved in too many national issues which are always going to alienate from the union students who don't agree with his political opinions.

The union would be much better off if it avoided getting involved in national or international politics when the issues don't affect students. If any students then want to get involved in politics there are plenty of political parties and other organisations active on campus.

Vainglory

If a student is in favour of the war in Iraq and in favour of deportations they'll feel like they're not being represented by their Union...

Right...

So from now on, the Union cannot take positions on subjects that the student population is not entirely united on? One, two, three or even three hundred students who disagree with a stance democratically decided at SU council immediately renders that body "unrepresentative"? In anarchist society, decisions can be made by consensus agreement on any issue, with one person able to block decisions that the entire rest of the group agree on. Is this a better arrangement than that of simple democracy? I don't think so, I'm sure you don't think so, and neither do most European countries. Hence their choice of government style.

UCD is a cross section of society, and it is natural that there be disagreements on policy within the SU. However, this doesn't mean the organisation sits there and stagnates and dithers about the fact that not everyone is always going to agree with how council votes and the SU's democratically decided actions. That is democracy, democracy is what we've got to work with here, and the best thing about that is that if you don't like the way it's going, feel free to change it.

While I don't deny that a majority vote was held in council on these issues I do still think that the union has no business getting involved in them..

The union? What's the union? Five sabbatical officers? No, it's not. It's everyone. What you're basically saying here is that the sabbats, exec officers etc have "no business" following the mandates that they are given by UCD students, because you don't think they're worthy of time, money or effort. Like I said before, there's no higher authority to dictate which mandates should be followed or not. They're all mandates, the officers have no choice but to follow them. No business ? They could be impeached if they didn't.

Everyone has a different view on what's the union's business and what isn't, and the system that we use to figure that out is elections, referenda and Council meetings. There might be another system (dictatorship? tarot card reading?) but within the system that we have at the moment, that's how we decide how we as officers spend our time. There are people out there who think the national government shouldn't be involved in issue X or Y, but they express that through voting and campaigning, and it's just the same within UCDSU.

The union would be much better off if it avoided getting involved in national or international politics when the issues don't affect students. ..

Would you feel comfortable turning to a student who had brought a motion on deportations to council and telling them they had no place using their democratic right to do this in their own student union, established to represent students whatever way those students so decide , because it didn't "affect" him or her on a day to day basis?

That's the great thing about democracy...the members of the organisation control the direction of the organisation. Only the members can be lauded for its successes, and only the members can be blamed for its failures. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand here. Whether things go well or bad is in the most part decided by what our membership wants us to do. Debate and disagreement is healthy and necessary , it should not stifle or obstruct the work of an SU when the integrity of the democratic structures upon which it is based upon cannot be questioned.

LovelyHurling

In all fairness lads its just a few squid let the goodlooking *ahem i mean... hardworking* girl get on with her job. Yeah yeah yeah I do know how many Foster's could be bought with that dosh but hey - if you ever get deported it'll all be groovy you'll have the whole entire USI on McDowells back like Mary Harney riding a donkey at the circus.

HOWEVER since we're on the whole issue of UCDSU sticking its nose into issues that not everybody agrees with, well Im no holy Joe myself in fact I think religion is for the minions but well maybe it should actually stick to you know student matters and out of the moral theological realm of contraception as makes you excommunicatiable by the Big Rev.

All's Im saying is you don't get the IFA campaigning about the war in Iraq. Doesn't mean they don't care just means they ain't in the tractor driving business for that particular cause.

But hand over the money I say. SU's not great, but ah they're alright

Blush_01

You're hilarious. (Genuine, re: your post above.)

Just one thing that was brought up that I feel needs to be addressed... The Coke referendum was a bit of a sham really, wasn't it? I didn't agree with it personally. That doesn't mean that I'm pro Columbians being killed. It does mean that maybe the focus from one side was on saving the world, and on the other on saving irish jobs. Can anyone tell me what's happening in Columbia at the moment in relation to Coca Cola? (Genuine query, people seem to have lost interest now that their egos have been soothed and big bad Coke isn't parading around UCD like it owns the place.) Yet I can tell you what happened to Irish workers where Coke was concerned. http://www.lasc.ie/news/priceofloyalty.html

What was going on with Coke was brought to light. But I bet you the contents of my wallet (which is currently 6 receipts, 3 60c stamps, a Tesco key fob and €2.59 in change) that they're not the only company in the world behaving in a dispicable manner. They're just the ones who got caught this time, like Nestle did a few years ago, doesn't mean they're the only ons who do it, it just means they're worse at covering up their tracks.

John_C

Vainglory,
I think we've got our wires crossed a little bit. I have no problem with the decision making process in the Union (or for that matter with the concept of democracy). That doesn't mean that I will necessarly agree with every decision which will be reached. (If you need an analogy you may consider your opinion re: military the use of Shannon Airport. You disagree with the policy and you may or may not have voted for the current government but you still accept Ireland's democracy and aren't proposing that we revert to tarrot cards or another form of decision making).

While I don't agree that three people who oppose a decision should be able to hold the union up I do think that those three people might feel left out. Problems arise when the union makes decisions which several thousand students disagree with and then makes several of those decisions each year. That quickly leads to a situation where the majority of students don't get involved in the union or even vote in elections.

We can agree to disagree if you like but that is the situation as I see it. Ive been in UCD since Alison Gibney's time. I was involved in the union for a while and am still involved in a few different clubs and societies. In my time here there has always been a (usually quite vicious) conflict in SU council and between those involved with the SU as a whole between Fianna Fáil on one side and socialist parties on the other. I'm not opposed to debate or disagreements but I've seen enough meetings descend into either shouting matches or simply slagging and petty name calling to know that there is a problem which needs to be adressed. Before a problem can be addressed it needs to first be recognised.

Vainglory

wrote:

I have no problem with the decision making process in the Union (or for that matter with the concept of democracy). That doesn't mean that I will necessarly agree with every decision which will be reached.

Nobody's asking you to agree with any particular decision, just to stop saying that the union has no business getting involved in issues it has been democratically mandated to be involved in. The SU has business in these issues because it has a mandate ; the latter gives rise to the former whether you agree with the substantive issue or not.

wrote:

(If you need an analogy you may consider your opinion re: military the use of Shannon Airport. You disagree with the policy and you may or may not have voted for the current government but you still accept Ireland's democracy and aren't proposing that we revert to tarrot cards or another form of decision making).

I don't really accept an analogy that compares UCDSU to the national government. UCDSU is a lot more immediately accountable to its electorate, for one thing.

If one of the sabbatical officers (comparable to a minister, in your analogy) makes a decision between Council meetings that people disagree with, that decision can be debated and overturned at the next meeting by a vote and if the officer then breaks that mandate then he/she could be impeached. Bertie Ahern never asked the electorate if they minded US warplanes landing at Shannon and making Ireland complicit in this war for oil, and he sure as hell isn't planning on holding any sort of a vote or referendum on the issue anytime soon. Unless of course you count the General Election, which is constitutionally required to be held every 7 years. UCSDU Council meets every two weeks.

Basically, I accept that the people of Ireland voted FF and the PDS into government, but I don't believe they have any mandate to allow those planes to land in Shannon. Their actions in Shannon have nothing to do with the democratic process. The fact that I oppose this policy does not mean I oppose democracy ; it means I oppose an action taken by a government that was democratically elected but made no effort to democratically discover the feelings of the Irish people on an issue that has such importance for our neutrality.

If the President of UCSDU made a comparable decision in terms of importance, without any mandate from his election, and refused to be held accountable by Council or the student body, then I'd call that undemocratic too and say that yes, he has no business getting involved in whatever issue it was. But fortunately, that's not how it works here.

wrote:

While I don't agree that three people who oppose a decision should be able to hold the union up I do think that those three people might feel left out. Problems arise when the union makes decisions which several thousand students disagree with and then makes several of those decisions each year.

If those hypothetical several thousand students cared enough about these "decisions" to do something about it then those same decisions would never be made in the first place. Just to paint the picture...Last year, class reps were elected with 30 votes from their class on average. In some cases, it was much lower. If these alleged several thousand students who would prefer the SU to concentrate on issues which directly effect students' day to day lives in UCD ran a slate of Class Rep candidates and voted together they would probably win every seat. Thus, they'd control Council, and they'd control the sabbatical officers.

But this doesn't happen. Why not? Because "they" (if they exist) obviously don't care enough to do it. And if they don't care enough to get involved and try to change things, then they most certainly can't whinge when the SU does things that they disagree with. .

LovelyHurling

Vainglory wrote:

Nobody's asking you to agree with any particular decision, just to stop saying that the union has no business getting involved in issues it has been democratically mandated to be involved in. The SU has business in these issues because it has a mandate

Ahern never asked the electorate if they minded US warplanes landing at Shannon and making Ireland complicit in this war for oil, and he sure as hell isn't planning on holding any sort of a vote or referendum on the issue anytime soon.

I don't believe they have any mandate to allow those planes to land in Shannon. Their actions in Shannon have nothing to do with the democratic process.

If the President of UCSDU made a comparable decision in terms of importance, without any mandate from his election, and refused to be held accountable by Council or the student body, then I'd call that undemocratic too and say that yes, he has no business getting involved in whatever issue it was. But fortunately, that's not how it works here.

If these alleged several thousand students who would prefer the SU to concentrate on issues which directly effect students' day to day lives in UCD ran a slate of Class Rep candidates and voted together they would probably win every seat. Thus, they'd control Council, and they'd control the sabbatical officers.

But this doesn't happen. Why not? Because "they" (if they exist) obviously don't care enough to do it.

If I could just come in on a related point, there's a difference between disagreeing with a political decision and disagreeing with the UCDSU's involvement in a praising or berating a political decision. It's a fairly huge difference.

UCDSU has no business mentioning Shannon Airport unless the next sentance out of their collective mouth relates to student travel. Out of curiosity, when were USI/ UCDSU mandated to campaign on something like the use of Shannon?


UCDSU/ USI = Student Matters Interest Group

Oireachtas Eirinn = People Welfare Organization and Lawmakers

Vainglory

wrote:

UCDSU has no business mentioning Shannon Airport unless the next sentance out of their collective mouth relates to student travel. Out of curiosity, when were USI/ UCDSU mandated to campaign on something like the use of Shannon?

I will keep this brief because I've said already why mandates on issues mean that the mandated organisation has business getting involved in those issues.

The only thing that UCDSU has no business doing is breaking mandates given to them by its members. We are mandated to campaign against things like the Criminal Justice Bill, McDowell's racist deportations, and the G8 meeting which advocates the privatisation of education. We were mandated to take a bus to Shannon for the Peace Camp, and are mandated with regard to the Coke and Nestle boycotts. End of story. I'm not as well up on USI mandates, they'd be able to tell you down at Ceann Áras. The principle of whether or not USI would have business being involved in these issues is still the same, though.


And UCSDU and USI are campaigning organisations, not Interest Groups. Issues that students care about are student issues, ie the issues students consider to be important.

LovelyHurling

Right but how do they get their mandates? I wasnt around but I know there was a student vote on the Coke (sorry I mean Coca Cola) ban, but what about Shannon and "things like" McDowells bill?

I totally agree with you just doing your job on what you are directed to do by the students, that would be expected, but a group of lads in a closed room defining mine or anybody else's statement about certain *political* decisions is what is getting people angry.

It's highly possible that I'm wrong of course, but is it correct to say that the students didnt vote on Shannon? Because don't chastize Bertie for not asking the people if you didnt ask the students

Vainglory

LovelyHurling wrote:

Right but how do they get their mandates? I wasnt around but I know there was a student vote on the Coke (sorry I mean Coca Cola) ban, but what about Shannon and "things like" McDowells bill?

I totally agree with you just doing your job on what you are directed to do by the students, that would be expected, but a group of lads in a closed room defining mine or anybody else's statement about certain *political* decisions is what is getting people angry.

It's highly possible that I'm wrong of course, but is it correct to say that the students didnt vote on Shannon? Because don't chastize Bertie for not asking the people if you didnt ask the students

Re : McDowell's bill - A motion mandating the Deputy President to run a campaign against the Criminal Justice bill was proposed by a class rep who was asked by his class to do so. It was then voted on in an open manner at Council. And passed, with a resounding majority, by his fellow class reps who all, like him, had been elected democratically in elections where every student had a vote. It isn't a closed room ; it's open to everyone.

Re : Shannon - If you look at it this way, the student who brought the Shannon motion was asking his fellow democratically elected class reps what they thought on the issue, and to vote on it, which they did. The issue didn't just pop out of the air and the SU didn't just take a random stance on it...the position was only created because a vote was taken and
it was decided that way. The motion would have been on notice for a week beforehand, during which class reps would get feedback from their class on which way they should vote.

Council makes a lot of decisions because it wouldn't be practical to have everything done by referendum ; however, if something is decided at council then it can be overturned by referendum. Referendums can be called automatically if a certain number of student signatures are collected (the returning officer Michael D. Clark would be able to tell you) so whatever Council does, students who care enough to organise can always use the democratic process to try and change things.

LovelyHurling

Vainglory wrote:

Basically, I accept that the people of Ireland voted FF and the PDS into government, but I don't believe they have any mandate to allow those planes to land

OK so are you saying that democratically elected SU reps can act without a mass votebut democratically elected TDs cannot?!!!

What Im saying on here is why are the SU not on the government's back of student welfare issues, you guys were not elected as political representatives in a constituency named UCD, most people voted for you as a union, just like the IMO, INO, ASTI, TUI, SIPTU, etc.

And don't think like Im taking a dig at yourself or the SU I have a lot of respect for anyone who sacrifices a year of college to do that sort of job not to mention the daunting task of putting yourself up for election. What bugs me is that UCDSU appears to see roles for itself other than what it ought to be - the student's union. An interest group campaigning on student matters.

Pythia

We are mandated to campaign against things like the Criminal Justice Bill, McDowell's racist deportations

Who says they're racist? Is that the SU's opinion?

A lot of people would feel very strongly that an Irish government which is complicit in people being killed in Iraq for oil and sending asylum seekers back to warzones

You obviously have an agenda here. You are not being objective.
Not all deportations are of asylum seekers. They are of failed asylum seekers or economic migrants. And many of the places they are being returned to are infact quite safe.
People are not being killed in Iraq for oil, the war is not about oil. I hope the SU aren't spreading those kind of statements around. Or can the SU 'be democratically mandated' to spread lies?

Vainglory

wrote:

OK so are you saying that democratically elected SU reps can act without a mass votebut democratically elected TDs cannot?!!!

That's not what I'm saying at all. Like I said, if the SU President did something of comparable magnitude in the student sphere as allowing war planes to land in Shannon airport, without having included it in his election manifesto or without a direct mandate from Council, then I would criticise him/her for that. This is what the government have done. The difference (thank god) is that if something like that happened in UCDSU, then the President would be overruled by Council or by referendum quite quickly. Bertie on the other hand can put his head in the sand and ignore the issue until we hopefully punish him for that at the General Election.

On the subject of "mass votes", of course it's not practical to have every decision taken by referendum. Interim and day to day decisions must be made by our elected representatives. What makes this okay, however, is that ultimately, referendum can overturn any decision at the end of the day if needs be. So our elected representatives in UCDSU are always, always accoutable to us.

wrote:

What Im saying on here is why are the SU not on the government's back of student welfare issues, you guys were not elected as political representatives in a constituency named UCD, most people voted for you as a union, just like the IMO, INO, ASTI, TUI, SIPTU, etc.

We are . USI is . Being active on political issues doesn't mean you aren't active on education and welfare issues, the two aren't mutually exclusive. On a day to day basis, the work of SU officers is predominantly to do with education and welfare issues. But sometimes, issues arise that students care about and want their organisation and their elected representatives to take a position on them. And that's okay too.

wrote:

What bugs me is that UCDSU appears to see roles for itself other than what it ought to be - the student's union. An interest group campaigning on student matters.

This is how I see the role of UCDSU. To follow the mandates it is given by those members who care enough to get involved.. To be accountable to their members. To represent students in all areas that students wish themselves to be represented in. I don't see how campaigning on national and international matters contradicts that. Do you?

Vainglory

wrote:

Who says they're racist? Is that the SU's opinion?

It's my opinion. But the SU has a mandate to oppose the deportations. I'll get you the wording tomorrow.

wrote:

You obviously have an agenda here. You are not being objective

Nobody's objective...human nature dictates that we are subjective creatures. I post here in my own personal capacity and I'm entitled to do that. You don't become deviod of personal opinions just because you get elected and you don't have to either.

wrote:

Not all deportations are of asylum seekers. They are of failed asylum seekers or economic migrants. And many of the places they are being returned to are infact quite safe.
People are not being killed in Iraq for oil, the war is not about oil. I hope the SU aren't spreading those kind of statements around. Or can the SU 'be democratically mandated' to spread lies?

Could argue about these for ages, but we would get radically off the point, I think.

Pythia

So if I propose something which is false or extremely stupid and I get a majority vote at one of these meetings, then it will become SU policy?

LovelyHurling

I disagree with a lot of the things you say, in fact Im very John-Paul-esque in terms of my theory of mutual exclusivity (in the above USI-UCDSU sense) *three in a bed is fine!*

But anyway fair ****s to you I suppose a UCDSU member who gets involved in this kind of thing isnt bad to have around and again not making a dig at you just the union itself



which I intend to change in an elaborate coup.

John_C

Vainglory wrote:

But this doesn't happen. Why not? Because "they" (if they exist) obviously don't care enough to do it. And if they don't care enough to get involved and try to change things, then they most certainly can't whinge when the SU does things that they disagree with. .

I think this is the nub of our disagreement. We both agree that the majority of students are uninterested in the union to the point where a class rep can be voted in with 30 votes.
Where we disagree is that I see this as a problem and I have stated what I think is the reason for the problem and I have stated what I think is the solution.
You don't think that this is a problem because the union still represents people who care enough to get involved.
I think that this is something where we're not going to agree but thank you for your opinions. I enjoyed our discussion.

AngelofFire

Who says they're racist? Is that the SU's opinion?

These deportations are also in breach of the Geneva convention on human rights. The SU is not an individual therefore if doesn`t have an opinion, it has a position. whether an individual student agrees with that position and whether a student thinks that the SU should be entitled to take a postion on such an issue are two completely different things. The Legitimacey of a policy is derived both directly and indirectly from the student body as outlined in the SU constitution

---

Article 8 The Union council
*1.************ Subject to the Referendum, the governing body of the Union Shall be the Union Council.

---

The SU council a body which is elected by the students on an STV basis makes the decisions with regard to policy, policy can also be initiated by the student body on a one member one vote basis by referendum. The referendum can even overturn a decision made in council. There is not one article in the SU constitution (a document whos legitamacey also derives from the student body as only a referendum can change it) which can be even interpreted as stating that the union cannot take a stance on issues like deportation and war.

Therefore even on an objective standpoint the union is more than entitled to adopt an anti deportation or an anti war stance. If people are unhappy with such policies they can try and change them using the legitamite democratic apparatus which is in place and they are more than entitled to do so. But statements that the SU cannot take a stance on such issues even when there is a democratic mandate from the student population are false.