This has perhaps slipped under our radar, with the focus on Georgia over the last few weeks. Youngdan has asked us who are armed forces would be deployed against on a number of occasions. In this instance he is demonstrably right.

Use of the navy against protestors in canoes and wetsuits is grotesque seen from an Irish perpective. From the perspective of Shell and the Irish Government it is obviously a case of firm commitment to prevent any disruption to the Shell project, irrespective of any citizen rights to demonstrate.

Quote :

Labour's Cllr Keith Martin says the deployment of the warship LE Orla in Broadhaven Bay as part of the State's security provision for the Corrib gas project "was a gross overreaction by the government which would only escalate tensions and costs in relation to the situation in Rossport."

The patrol ship, LE Orla was stationed in the bay yesterday evening, as Shell E&P Ireland prepares to start offshore pipelaying with its 300m (984ft) ship, Solitaire.

"The fact that protesters have been using canoes to deliver messages to the pipelaying ship and that protesters were preparing to swim out in wetsuits to the ship does not warrant the deployment of a warship in the bay.

"The Gardai have their own speed boats and sub-aqua division and can deal with any breaches of the law. The positioning of the warship LE Orla in the bay is a misuse of our navy and a completely disproportionate reaction. Its like using a hammer to swat a fly. The involvement of the military in any "policing" matter should be a last resort.

"The Government should be de-escalating the situation in Rossport not involving the military. I have asked Labour's Spokespersons on Justices and Defence to take the matter up with the Government."

http://councillorkeithmartin.blogspot.com/2008/08/deployment-of-navy-gross-over-reaction.html

The Councillor is to be commended for his statement. I trust his Party when next in Government will rectify the laws that allow daylight robbery of Irish resources, with poor environmental controls.

Is it constitutional for the navy to be used against citizens and in the interests of a multinational corporation in this way?

i wouldn't think so.

tho if a few spanish trawlers can outwit the "navy" then i would think that the shell to sea lads are evenly matched!

Cllr Keith Martin is an opportunist. Having had many dealings with him in the past I'm well aware of where this guy's at. He's never once made his way to Rossport to show any form of solidarity. Cllr Martin has jumped onto many causes in the past, the most memorable one for me was when he painted himself as a champion of the disabled. Yet when it was put to him to describe something he had done to help the disabled, he couldn't. His one foray into the world of the disabled was that he'd accompanied a wheelchair user around Westport to discuss access issues.

Mr Martin was elected as an independent and only joined Labour after being elected. To my mind, there are very few folks in the Labour party, that are worth the time of day, Michael D. Higgins being a fine example of the few worthwhile folk.

Cllr Martin has simply pointed to an issue that's in the public domain. He's not offered a single solution and he's not offered to help.

The situation in Rossport is very tense and any offer of help or solidarity would be very much appreciated. Cllr Martin has offered neither, indeed, the few worthwhile members of Labour that I've referred to are well aware of what's going on and were aware well before the Mr Martin jumped into the spotlight.

It remains to be seen what Willie O'Dea will have to say about the deployment of the navy. Many interesting questions need to be answered. Not least of which is how dare he commit an armed force against peaceful protesters at our expense.

Jaysus, the Gardaí are even liasing with Interpol currently, in the hope of identifying folks who've come from abroad to show solidarity in Mayo. Course nobody's accused them of having committed any crime. Used to be, once upon a time, that one needed to be suspected of having committed a crime, before an international investigation was launched.

No country has worked so hard to steal from its people to feed fat fucks from outside the country.

I think we should have got a better deal on the oil. However, I won't criticise the Gardai and the army for protecting people going about their lawful business. I don't for one minute believe that these are "protestors". They are there to disrupt and impede not to protest. If they were protesting then who is there to see the protest? I only wish the Dublin taximen got the same treatment when they impeded traffic in the nation's capital on numerous occasions.

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

I think we should have got a better deal on the oil. However, I won't criticise the Gardai and the army for protecting people going about their lawful business. I don't for one minute believe that these are "protestors". They are there to disrupt and impede not to protest. If they were protesting then who is there to see the protest? I only wish the Dublin taximen got the same treatment when they impeded traffic in the nation's capital on numerous occasions.

Tanks rolling down O'Connel Street Zhou? I hope not. It seems to me that we have a civil, unarmed and non-militarised police force and we should use it if required to keep the peace. Using the navy seems to me to be grossly disproportionate and to be more about the government proving itself to be totally at the disposal of Shell, rather than about keeping order.

I also think that Willie O'Dea is a dangerous man, far too fond of guns.

Hermes wrote:

Cllr Keith Martin is an opportunist. Having had many dealings with him in the past I'm well aware of where this guy's at. He's never once made his way to Rossport to show any form of solidarity. Cllr Martin has jumped onto many causes in the past, the most memorable one for me was when he painted himself as a champion of the disabled. Yet when it was put to him to describe something he had done to help the disabled, he couldn't. His one foray into the world of the disabled was that he'd accompanied a wheelchair user around Westport to discuss access issues.

Mr Martin was elected as an independent and only joined Labour after being elected. To my mind, there are very few folks in the Labour party, that are worth the time of day, Michael D. Higgins being a fine example of the few worthwhile folk.

Cllr Martin has simply pointed to an issue that's in the public domain. He's not offered a single solution and he's not offered to help.

The situation in Rossport is very tense and any offer of help or solidarity would be very much appreciated. Cllr Martin has offered neither, indeed, the few worthwhile members of Labour that I've referred to are well aware of what's going on and were aware well before the Mr Martin jumped into the spotlight.

It remains to be seen what Willie O'Dea will have to say about the deployment of the navy. Many interesting questions need to be answered. Not least of which is how dare he commit an armed force against peaceful protesters at our expense.

Jaysus, the Gardaí are even liasing with Interpol currently, in the hope of identifying folks who've come from abroad to show solidarity in Mayo. Course nobody's accused them of having committed any crime. Used to be, once upon a time, that one needed to be suspected of having committed a crime, before an international investigation was launched.

No country has worked so hard to steal from its people to feed fat fucks from outside the country.

Hermes, do you have a personal view on the legality of using the Navy in these circumstances ?

CF wrote:

Hermes, do you have a personal view on the legality of using the Navy in these circumstances ?

I'd love to go into more detail than I'm going to go into, but won't, for fear that I'd give a heads up to State forces, in the event of any potential prosecutions arising from the current events at Glengad.

In the bigger scheme of things, there's no legal problem with drafting in the navy. Though ultimately, it's an act of redundancy and stupidity (I'll elaborate on this shortly). Then again, the navy were not called in to enforce the law. The navy were called in to get folks used to the idea that the threat of force with extreme prejudice can and will be used against them, should they not do exactly as they are told, like the good little slaves they're supposed to be. It couldn't be plainer: "Do as we say, or we'll fuckin' shoot ya!" The powers that be know that the threat of arrest is not acting to deter folks from exercising their right to protest. They don't want to arrest people because they know full well, that ultimately, the protesters will win in the courts, as they have lawful excuse (my opinion) - then, civil suits to follow. Of course, the threat to use extreme force is a bluff, with regard to the protesters. It's only meant to deter others from joining. Wouldn't do to make a martyr out of one of the 'hippies' now would it?

Another reason for the use of the navy is PR. Tis a great inducement for foreign multinationals. "This is how far we're willing to go to facilitate you."

Now to give my opinion regarding the redundancy and stupidity of this deployment.

Only commissioned officers are authorised to enforce the law. The grunts have no lawful authority. Of course, anyone may assist a member of an Garda Síochána. The gardaí could just as easilly have operated off the deck of the pipe laying ship when it arrives and have used Shell personnel if they felt under resourced. The use of any second party by the Gardaí of course begs a question of competency to be raised, considering that this is not some emergency situation that they've had no prior warning of.

The navy have of course pointed out that they will not be launching any operations under their own steam, they're there solely to facilitate the Gardaí. This is where some interesting questions arise. What legislation allows for the defence forces to be ordered about by the Gardaí? I look forward to seeing this raised in a courtroom. State of emergency anyone?

The naval ship is confined to deep water and therefore is missing and will miss out on the vast majority of the action, which is taking place and will take place in shallow waters. This leaves the navy with only two purposes. To act as a bodyguard for the pipe laying ship when it arrives (will also possibly make any approach to this ship fraught with more legal possibilities - tis one thing to approach a vessel with the intent to put a stop to it - tis quite another to approach a naval vessel charged with protecting Irish sovereignty). And of course, its second purpose: to force the Chief and his son at gun point to leave their lawful fishing grounds (they've refused the [Dutch] queen's shilling and are insisting on keeping their rights), as the powers that be know that any move made against this father and son in the courts would fail. Much easier to use unlawful force to remove them and to apologise afterwards - won't be cheap of course, but then again, this pipe layer costs €2,000,000+ per day."

It seems to me, that the State has not been given or indeed, probably hasn't sought good legal advice on the matter, as can be evidenced by the longtime behaviour of the Gardaí drafted in. Jaysus, the Gardaí even decided to re-write the law at one point by declaring a no-arrest policy.

To give an idea of what I mean (particularly with regard to 'unlawful force'), have a look at this video, uploaded by Niall Harnett, the chap who is punched in the face by the Garda. The Gardaí in this video are allegedly acting under the public order act. Of course, the Public Order act gives them no power to do what they're doing in this video. The public order act empowers them to issue instructions to folks and it gives them the power to arrest (using necessary force if applicable) - nothing more.

The law has very little to do with what's going on in Mayo with regard to the State and its actions, other than violating it that is.

LINK TO VIDEO - (fraid I can't get this video to embed).

I don't know why that won't embed now ..

There were few protesters there on Saturday and the news isn't covering it as much as it used to. Are some of the Rossport 5 coming out to protest? I've a feeling people are giving up - are they?

Auditor #9 wrote:

I don't know why that won't embed now ..

There were few protesters there on Saturday and the news isn't covering it as much as it used to. Are some of the Rossport 5 coming out to protest? I've a feeling people are giving up - are they?

I'll contact the Politube site to enquire about the embed issue - great little site, no crappy conditions like youtube.

The Saturday protest was reasonably small as the call out only came a couple of hours before the protest via texting messages (to left foot the Gardaí).

I'm not sure if any of the Rossport 5 attended. I do know that there is no longer any rift between the various groups. There was a bit of a rift a few months back, when a certain group contacted Shell and proposed an alternative site for the refinery. The rift has since been closed.

Different folks have different priorities. These priorities are easilly forgotten when folks work together in close proximity for long periods. I've always viewed this issue in the following way: Folks have different end-goals - when someone reaches their destination, they get off the train and the rest of the passangers continue on the journey. I'd have had no problem if Shell had accepted the offer to move and some of the protesters had ended their fight. I'd be back in Shell's face the next day after having celebrated with the successful protesters the night before. This approach wasn't initially followed but it is the view now.

If anything, the fight has been reinvigorated and people are more determined than ever not to be shoved to the side, regarding the determination of their destinies.

RTE is no surprise. They won't broadcast anything that doesn't make for good propaganda for their corporate masters. And deploying an armed body against a peaceful and non-armed body makes for very bad propaganda.

I've used the embed code on the portal - it's below the music now. Is it a html/php thing?

What rift are you referring to? Were some people interested in allowing the pipeline to go in a certain route though some were not but now by and large most people there do not want the pipeline anywhere near the coast?

Should the Rossport 5 or some people from there not have been involved with Eamon Ryan in negotiating better terms? But that's parliamentary democracy we have to swallow generally. It's a pity Shell wouldn't shag off back to where they came from - we're getting nothing from them anyhow - is even the area in Erris getting anything? I'd say very little - it's all generally Garda overtime.

What they'll get is a polluted freshwater lake in Carrowmore..

Just watched that video on the portal. Very - what's the word - conflicting emotions causing ?

Is Niall correct in saying the site is illegal under Irish law, or is that an opinion of his ? Why is there no absolute opinion on the legality of the works ?

I only have a very broad brush view of this as I have not followed the planning and licensing process in any detail.

Broadly, the Irish State has a strategy of giving these resources away and facilitating this process legally. There has been a planning and licensing process that has been gone through.

In terms of works, it is at the discretion of local authorities and ultimately An Bord Pleanala to decide if unauthorised works are going on.

I assume that the people opposed to the works have referred the matter of any unauthorised works at each stage to the local planning authority and to An Bord Pleanala in accordance with the Planning Acts. If An Bord Pleanala find that something is not development, that is the end of the line - the High Court route is not likely to be fruitful.

If An Bord Pleanala determine that the works are unauthorised the Local Authority must take enforcement action against the developer.

In my view the problem is not the legality or otherwise of various items of work, it's the prostrate and prostituted attitude of successive governments on the whole issue.

"Get Your Ass to Erris"

P.ie thread from November (nearly a year ago) where Aragon, Qtman, Badinage and others are at it. We dug up some Planning Permission stuff but I'm not sure I follow it.

The thread had 66 posts and 3299 views - it's obviously a very emotive subject.

Well it is emotive I think, as EU treaties are, maybe because they strike at one's very notion of sovereignty ?

cactus flower wrote:

Broadly, the Irish State has a strategy of giving these resources away and facilitating this process legally. There has been a planning and licensing process that has been gone through.

It's not fair to say the government gave the resource away. As I understand it, the government is working on the principle that if a company spends their own money finding a profitable source of gas, then it is theirs to develop. The government stopped searching for oil and gas, I think, in 1992; so if the private companies don't search then no one will. The gopvernment wouldn't have a resource to gaive away if it wasn't for the private company. It is a gamble looking for these resources and the companies won't do it for no reward. Of course the government is open to criticism for not searching for these resources themselves and for not perhaps securing a better deal. But it isn't a black/white issue.

As for the use of the navy, I don't see why the guards couldn't have been used, assuming of course there was call for intervention in the first place. I don't see how this is different from the army guarding the money vans of private banks. Hermes assertion that this is the government showing how far Ireland will go for the oil/gas companies would make more sense if the army had been used on terra firma situations.

Presumably the Gardaí don't have a coastal defence unit and that is why the Navy is being used. I don't know where to find the precise roles of the various armed forces and the Gardaí but it is quite possible that the Gardaí are neither charged with, nor resourced to, defend the security of the State at sea.

I would imagine that there would be even more complaints if we spent 100 million buying a similar ship for the Gardaí to do the same job than just use the resources that are already at the State's disposal.

905 is correct, this is not a black and white issue. If the Irish Government went off and did some exploration, sank sum drills at a cost of hundreds of million only to find that a field was not profitable, think of the outrage that would occur. Presumably the Government has taken the decision that there is not enough natural resources around the Irish coast for the Government to profitably and legitimately explore it. Consequently they license the fields to other bodies to explore and take the risk. Yes those firms will also get alot of money if they turn out to be successful but equally the State will get taxes without the risk.

-----
Edit:
From the Navy's website

Quote :

The Naval Service is available to support the civil authorities as
required. Usually the Naval Service assists the Gardai and Customs and
Excise in operations of a marine nature. There are also other areas the
Naval Service can be called on such as the Cork Harbour Emergency Plan
where the Naval Base and its resources may be called on in the event of
a major disaster, environmental or otherwise.

johnfás wrote:

Presumably the Gardaí don't have a coastal defence unit and that is why the Navy is being used. I don't know where to find the precise roles of the various armed forces and the Gardaí but it is quite possible that the Gardaí are neither charged with, nor resourced to, defend the security of the State at sea.

I would imagine that there would be even more complaints if we spent 100 million buying a similar ship for the Gardaí to do the same job than just use the resources that are already at the State's disposal.

The Labour fellow mentioned in the opening posts was under the impression that the Gardaí couild have used some sort of water unit. But I think the navy was probably more of a question of pragmatics than anything else, though I'm unfamiliar with the details of the incident.

Since we're talking about the constitutionality of the use of the armed forces, it might help to have the relevant articles here.

Quote :

6. 1° The right to raise and maintain military or
armed forces is vested exclusively in the Oireachtas.


2° No military or armed force, other than a military or armed force
raised and maintained by the Oireachtas, shall be raised or maintained for any
purpose whatsoever.

That's the only reference to armed forces I could find after a quick glance. There doesn't seem to be anything there prohibiting the army from being used to handle protests in substance, though I presume it was some member of the executive rather than the Oireachtas that made the orders and that would raise constitutional issues. I'll have a skim through Kelly tomorrow and see what he has to say about it.

The argument that the Irish government did not give away our resources is deeply flawed, in that, it's wrong.

Suggesting, that we could not extract the gas ourselves does not by any standard of argument, contradict the argument that our resources were given away.

Looking at rising fuel costs and being well aware of peak oil, the 'cost' argument flounders. This is not a recognition of course, of the cost argument having any validity regarding the giveaway, it's simply a recognition of the fact that the costs were prohibitive.

When this gas is extracted, under the current giveaway deal, we'll have no claim on it whatsoever. It'll be put up for sale on the international market and sold to whomsoever is willing to pay the most for it. In other words, this deal, in no way, contributes to energy security for Ireland. In fact, we know it depletes from it, as the gas whilst in the ground, is energy security, regardless as to the cost of extracting it (and again, as its value rises, the cost of extraction pales in comparison to its potential profitability).

Our constitution defines our government as stewards of our national and natural resources. Only the owner of a property may give it away for free. There is a valid argument, that the stewards of a property may sell the property - this would be valid management, especially if the sale resulted in a profit. However, our natural resources were not sold in this instance and thus the giveaway was illegal under Irish constitutional law (in my opinion). Mere opinion it may be, but I've see nothing whatsoever to contradict it, from either the courts or the State.

Internationally however, the matter is much clearer, this giveaway is highly illegal. See United Nations Resolution on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources - Resolution 1803 (XVII)

Resolution 1803 (XVII) wrote:

1. The right of peoples and nations to permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources must be exercised in the interest of their national development and of the well-being of the people of the State concerned.

7. Violation of the rights of peoples and nations to sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources is contrary to the spirit and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and hinders the development of international co-operation and the maintenance of peace.

8. Foreign investment agreements freely entered into by or between sovereign States shall be observed in good faith; States and international organizations shall strictly and conscientiously respect the sovereignty of peoples and nations over their natural wealth and resources in accordance with the Charter and the principles set forth in the present resolution.

Couple the above with the fact that there are now two naval gunboats (though in fairness, it may turn out that one is only replacing the other) in the picture and we have clarity.

First of all, how can we give away what we didn't have? The government didn't have the gas to give away.

The cost factor versus the rising cost of feul is easily argued in hindsight. But before 1996 when fuel was cheap and there was no confirmed gas off the shore things might have looked different.

Second, I was under the impression that domestic consumption of the gas was part of the deal.

Third, you seem to think that the government has no claim whatsoever to that oil now, that it is lost forever to the public. Are you saying that there is no possible way we can re-nationalise that gas, or that we lost all control over that particular territory? I see no reason why either of these are no longer possibilities. I would have thought myself that 'permamnet sovreignty' of the corrib gas rested ultimately with the state.

Im agreement with you 905

I had spent a god 30 minutes drafting a more considered reply - but the gremlins who are very active here today proceeded to throw it out when I tried to post it

Fecking livid I am

905 wrote:

First of all, how can we give away what we didn't have? The government didn't have the gas to give away.

The cost factor versus the rising cost of feul is easily argued in hindsight. But before 1996 when fuel was cheap and there was no confirmed gas off the shore things might have looked different.

Second, I was under the impression that domestic consumption of the gas was part of the deal.

Third, you seem to think that the government has no claim whatsoever to that oil now, that it is lost forever to the public. Are you saying that there is no possible way we can re-nationalise that gas, or that we lost all control over that particular territory? I see no reason why either of these are no longer possibilities. I would have thought myself that 'permamnet sovreignty' of the corrib gas rested ultimately with the state.

I agree with you 905. It can be dealt with by taxation, and if need be by legislation. Where there's a will there'a way.

You all agree with me? Ha! 905: 1, Indymedia: 0.

Unless a company actually owns a country, alá the East India Company or United Fruits, I can't see how they can lay unquestionable claim to a resource. Of course, de facto they maybe well in control (I suppose United Fruit falls into this category) but the international law will be on the state's side.

I'd love to know if Hermes is right about the gas potentially going abroad.

Ireland has no legal entitlement to the gas that Shell takes from the Corrib. According to the terms and conditions of its exploration license, the Shell consortium is entitled to sell the gas to the highest bidder, even if the bidder is outside the State.

I'm afraid I cannot provide a link to a copy of this license and I don't have a copy on my computer to quote from. However, check out - LINK - and scroll down about 3/7s of the page until you arrive at the entry for Thursday, November 30, 2006: 15 Myths and Realities of the Corrib Gas Scheme (read the rest of the myths too, there's some real beauts in there).

Short of that, I cannot prove this negative. It should be a very easy matter to prove me wrong, if indeed we are entitled to the gas. You'll hear plenty of bluster and shite from politicians regarding energy security, etc., but you'll never be pointed to such claims in black and white, with signatures at the bottom. It would be easy to consign Shell to Sea to history if their claims were not valid. Why hasn't this happened, why do we instead get mindless rhetoric and propaganda? I don't claim infallibility and would appreciate being shown the errors of my ways and indeed, if I were, I'd not work to promote false beliefs or campaigns - it'd be doing me a favour. It doesn't happen though, instead, the State is happy to spend millions, in double digits, on deploying the Gardaí, to beat folks like me down and commit a substantial portion of our security forces to ensuring that I get the message. I hear the message loud and clear and it's not telling me I'm wrong, it's telling me to "shut the fuck up!"

With regard to the ownership of the gas, we are becoming semantical. For example: Why can't I declare my land a separate country, if it's truly mine? We can wend through the dreary implications and consequences of such arguments, but at the end of the day, we're no more enlightened and we still look forward to no benefit whatsoever from the resource we term as "ours." The fact of the matter is that the gas is worth billions and when it's gone we will have received no compensation at all that equals the worth of the giveaway. At least while locked away under the seabed, the gas is a potential asset that can benefit our country. We get no energy security whatsoever from the giveaway, unless one considers that having more gas on the open market is security. Gas in the Corrib is not under the control of the State or the Irish people and the maximum benefit derrived from its disposal will not be had by the Irish people. Unlawful.

Why can't we tax it?