Leanna Byrne
Deputy Editor
It’s the political debate that everyone’s been talking about all year: Mark O’Meara takes on Jack Leahy in the first ever UT Podcast (pardon the plug). Twenty-eight minutes of top-class discussion on the referendum. I could think of no other way to spend my Wednesday evening. Will Leahy unleash the red-head temper? Will O’Meara whip out an Enda-like charm? For those of you who wish to listen to every second I won’t spoil it for you.
Anyway enough about the podcast.
For this entry we asked Jack Leahy to explain to us why he felt that disaffiliation from the USI would be a step back for LGBT rights. Surely TCDSU would make provisions for losses in training events such as Pink Training?
“I don’t think they would stop,” said Leahy. “I think it makes sense to run a national student campaign through a national students’ union. A campaign with such a mandate would be a lot stronger and a lot more credible. Also, TCDSU sabbatical officers don’t currently run national campaigns and already they’re up to their eyes.
“Provisions can be made to arrange our own- but I can’t imagine an alternative being as professional, as eagerly anticipated, or involving as significant a peer support element.”
Fair enough.
What about equality issues and tacaíocht na Gaeilge? Manifesto space filler or could it actually turn out to be a real issue should we disaffiliate? Again Jack was adamant that “national campaigns are by their nature more effective than local campaigns when a national issue is on the table”.
In spite of Leahy’s belief that there are not enough hours in the day for TCDSU to act unilaterally, O’Meara finds this to be completely false.
“TCDSU has already acted unilaterally recently in order to ensure some sort of financial assistance was available to students who were struggling to pay the student contribution fee,” explained O’Meara. “This scheme came about because TCDSU took it upon themselves to work with the Bank of Ireland.The reason why TCDSU acted unilaterally was because the USI would not act. The USI were instead obsessed by their mantra of ‘free fees, nothing else’ and failed to consider the needs of the students who were suffering because of the fees that already existed in third-level education – fees which the USI failed to prevent.”
O’Meara also pointed out that the scheme has been copied throughout numerous third-level institutions.
So at the end of a long day down in the Hamilton and lurking around the Arts Block both sides have made lovely eloquent points. Nevertheless the YES side’s views seem to be very isolationist; whereas the NO campaign might be valuing the notion of democracy over their own students.
I would like to apologise to Mark O’Meara for inexcusably spelling his name wrong in the last entry. It doesn’t mean you’re less important, it just means that I’m a bit of an idiot.
