Previous editorials

Current editorial

February 2021

December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020

December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019

December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018

December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017

December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016 (supplement)

December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015

December supplement
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014

December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013

December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012

December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011

December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010

December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009

December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008

December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007

December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006

December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005

December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004

December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
July 200
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002

December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000

16 Ravensdene Park,
Belfast BT6 0DA,
Northern Ireland.
Tel: 028 9064 7106
Fax: 028 9064 7106

This is an archive of material
mainly from 1992 until December 2020.
Please go to our CURRENT WEBSITE
for material from January 2021 onwards.
What's new?

Billy King


Nonviolence News



These are regular editorials produced alongside the corresponding issues on Nonviolent News.

Editorials 174: November 2009

Democratic definitions and deficits; Lisbon

The second Irish vote, in the Republic, on the Lisbon Treaty looked fairly decisive, the ‘yes’ vote being carried by 67% to 33%. But major questions remain, not just about the campaign but (as we have been exploring in editorials in the last couple of issues) the nature of ‘democracy’, and the future direction of the EU. The extent to which there is real democratic backing for the Lisbon treaty across the EU is very debateable, and while various people on all sides issued predictions and guarded threats during the Irish campaign, it was clear the EU establishment was determined to railroad it through, and, in the current economic climate, veiled mentions of the effect of a second Irish ‘no’ in terms of negative consequences for Ireland worked wonders in pushing Irish people to vote yes. But it was not democracy as it should be. And the lack of citizen involvement and backing for EU developments does not bode well for the future.

The increasing militarisation of the EU, which the Lisbon treaty facilitates in various ways including the demand for increased military spending (traditionally low in the Republic), is a worry which will be with us in the years to come. There is the proposal to have an EU ‘defence’ budget (mooted by the French European Affairs minister in late September) similar to any other item of EU expenditure and this is likely to arrive as one of the next proposed developments in the militarisation of the EU. Ireland may have its opt outs from military operations remain but the nature of the EU is gradually being transformed, and a group of countries will be able to go ahead and act on behalf of the EU. While his star is fading regarding his prospects for it, the fact that a war criminal like Tony Blair could even be thought of for president of the EU Council shows something of where EU politics is at.

The so-called ‘free market’ economics which the EU espouses and which are strongly backed by Lisbon are another reason to be doubtful. Opposing the possibility of restrictions on international trade, or on the movement of capital, as Lisbon does, is not what is needed by the poor world. Witless introduction of competition in services such as bus routes and postal services has been leading to decreased quality of services in some instances and the automatic requirement for this kind of competition is a disservice to social development, facilitated by the EU.

The EU projects itself as ‘Europe’. All those who live in Europe are, by nature, European, and, if such citizens are opposed to certain EU policies they cannot be called ‘anti-European’, they cannot necessarily even be called ‘anti-EU’ if their vision for the EU and for Europe happens to be a different one to that espoused by the EU centrally. But the EU establishment has sought to portray anyone opposed to particular EU developments as ‘anti-European’. How we cooperate together in Europe is a big question and the EU has certainly facilitated cooperation in a wide variety of fields. However, to equate ‘Europe’ with the ‘EU’ is an Orwellian attempt to constrict policy debate and choice.

Copenhagen: Learning to cope with a non-carbon future

The measure of how far we have to go, and what we face if we don’t, is given in a map which the British government published during the month showing the impact of an ‘average’ 4C rise in temperature; this does not happen evenly across the globe and some parts of the word face catastrophe. See for example here

As we near the Copenhagen summit, this nightmare should be one which is firmly set in people’s minds, both citizens and leaders. But nightmares can make people tired, grumpy and uncooperative. This information should be the backdrop to the rich world thinking – Right, we have to have major change here, how can it be done so the poor – at home or abroad – do not suffer? How can it be done so we have a better quality of life for everyone afterwards? Instead, at the moment, it looks like governments are thinking more of short-tem national interests which is a really pathetic situation.

Getting off the consumer and consumerist treadmill, fuelled by cheap oil, will not be easy. We have been oil and carbon fuel junkies for far too long for it to be easy. But it can be exhilarating and exciting; to build a really sustainable future which cares for all the people. This is the big challenge, not just to make the transition to an economy with low use of carbon fuels, but one with high emphasis on the quality of life for all.

We have said it frequently before; when the pie stops getting bigger (‘a rising tide lifts all boats’), based on profligate carbon fuel use, then the slices of the pie have to be more fairly distributed. We live in a divisive society and this simply cannot, and will not be allowed to, continue as we move to a low carbon use future. People – citizens, community organisations, trade unions, even some political parties – simply will not accept it. So major changes have to take place, and a major shift in wealth.

But we need also a major change in mindset, to a ‘can do’ low carbon future mindset which refuses to accept the impossibility of the radical change needed, and jumps at the opportunity to build a more human and humane society, a caring society which does not look down on anyone, and offers everyone the best possible chance in life, and suitable support to those who need it.

This can be done. It can be done as part of change from consumerism to a post-consumerist society which has time for people and their needs.

Copenhagen (the UN climate change summit starting 7th December) is the latest opportunity to help build a non-carbon future internationally. If we fail to jump this hurdle then we are falling way, way behind in the race to stop a terrible future for the people of the world. We already have an incredible amount of catching up to do. ‘Business as usual’ is, literally, a recipe for disaster and one which the future citizens of the world will find hard to forgive. If the deal which is need is not accomplished in Copenhagen then we do not have a lot of time to get there, and ‘history’ will judge us harshly; how could they baulk at what needed done, they will say, when they knew what they knew?

We need clear and binding agreements for radical reductions in carbon emissions; the G77 proposal that the developed world cut its emissions by 40% in 2020 is what we should be aiming for (with subsequent reductions thereafter). Ireland, so far, has been quite content to be with the mass of countries in dragging its feet on global warming and carbon emissions. The Celtic Tiger may be a dimming memory but Ireland remains a rich country, with high carbon emissions. Failure to act decisively and radically now is condemning not only the poorest of the poor to an ongoing life of misery, but will create a growing and massive band of climate change victims, largely people in the poor world who are totally innocent of causing global warming themselves. It is also storing up trouble for Ireland itself through storm damage and loss of low-lying land in the near future. It is going to cost the rich world, not just to adjust itself but also to pay for the changes the poor world needs to make. But there is no choice.

We must continually emphasise that cutting our carbon habit is also an opportunity to build a fairer, more just and equitable society. Without the move to a more just society, Ireland and other western countries will not accept the radical changes needed. This requires not just a radical change in energy use and generation, it also requires a radical change by political elites in this country, and that is a stumbling block which they, and we, must overcome.

Eco-Awareness Eco-Awareness

Larry Speight brings us his monthly column –

Three Wisdoms

A personal experience which I feel sums up our response to climate change is the occasion I bought a rabbit for my daughter in Sligo to find on arrival home that it had died on the journey. As the rabbit was healthy when I bought it I surmise that it died of fear. It unknowingly was the author of what it most certainly did not want to happen, which is to die. The response of the majority of humankind is like that of the rabbit as the likely outcome of the Copenhagen climate change talks suggests. Science tells us what the probable outcome will be if we don’t radically reduce our dependency on fossil fuels, yet we almost point blank refrain from preventing what we don’t want to happen.

The fate of humankind does not have to be that of the rabbit. The rabbit would not have known the likely end result of its response to being placed in a new and uncomfortable situation. If it did it would probably have adapted an alternative response. A trait that distinguishes us from other species is that we have knowledge going back thousands of years as inscribed in landscapes, manuscripts, artefacts and the ruins of ancient civilizations. This knowledge enables us to predict the likely outcome of our behaviour. We also have the imagination to find ways of avoiding undesirable outcomes. Thus we wash our hands before we eat, are compelled to wear car seat belts and have smoke-free zones. Our adaptability largely accounts for our success as a species.

The challenge for humankind today is not to develop new technologies, which we are good at doing but to rapidly move to the next stage of our evolution as a species. We need to morph into creatures that actually practice our humanitarian wisdoms, many of which are contained in belief systems and stories written and unwritten that are held to be sacred. One such wisdom is that from the Great Law of Peace of the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy (N.E. USA) which teaches that we should consider the impact our decisions will have on the seventh generation. Another wisdom, which is shared by the major religions, is to love your neighbour as yourself. Almost all religions teach us not to over-indulge, which is what the global economy is based upon and we are encouraged to do, even by political leaders vocal about their religious beliefs.


What would the outcome of the Copenhagen climate change talks be if the negotiators applied the above three wisdoms? Almost certainly we would not have the United States urging countries to sign an agreement in which countries pledge to cut their greenhouse emissions without binding timetables and targets. This is self-delusion. If the political representatives of humanity sign such an agreement in December we will almost certainly share the fate of the rabbit mentioned above as it will lock the global community into patterns of behaviour that will seal the fate of humankind and our fellow species.

Whether we acknowledge it or not we are part of the political process, makers of the world and authors, in partnership with others, of the destiny of our species. This means that we can be the change we quest and live the three wisdoms, not as in old religious speak to save our souls but to save creation. One way we can do this is through joining the Transition Towns movement, which promotes local eco-sustainable forms of living. They can be contacted at the following e-mail address.

Copyright INNATE 2021