For a practical example of the Republic of Ireland undermining the Aarhus Convention Agreement, and a REALLY good one at that, I would suggest that you carefully consider the contents of the an Board Pleanala Appeal dated February 21st 2004 at the following address: http://www.finnachta.com/BordPleanalaAppeal.htm 
 
Please note carefully the names of the THREE senior Republic of Ireland government ministers which appear in the "Cc:" list of the An Board Pleanala Appeal at the above location.
 
A common dictionary meaning of the word "undermining" (which I feel you could have looked up for yourself incidentally) is as follows: "to weaken gradually and/or insidiously" .  
 
I do hope you are not going to rush back to me asking yet more questions, until you have first properly considered the answers provided above. Anybody can ask endless questions, and cause endless destructive distractions by such means - but what, I wonder, is the value of doing that for you exactly? Such tactics are of little value to me - that I do know. 
 
For those not familiar with the basics of the Aarhus Convention Agreement, there is a "Ten Second Tutorial" at the top of the following page: http://www.finnachta.com/TheAarhusConvention.htm 


============ ========= ==


PETER SWEETMAN <naas97200@yahoo. co.uk> wrote:

Interesting point,

How would define "undermining" ?

Do you have examples of undermining?

"Vercingetorix (Ireland)" wrote:

No, but the Republic of Ireland did sign the Aarhus Convention Agreement in 1998; and, because it has signed it, it is legally and morally obliged NOT to do anything to undermine it - according to legal advice I have received from Amnesty International, and which you (or anyone else) can check for yourself.

In fact, and as people like Mr Vincent Salafia (lawyer) well know, the Republic of Ireland has been undermining the Aarhus Convention Agreement left, right, and centre since 1998: and it continues to do - in spite of the High Court case of last year case referred to below (which Mr Salafia was at the very centre of), and which cost the taxpayers of the Republic of Ireland some six hundred thousand Euros (as I recall it) in court costs - much of which would have been for lawyer's fees I imagine?

At the same time, and this is the really fascinating bit, the expensive court case in question failed COMPLETELY - as far as I know - to protect ANY of the ancient monuments in and around the Tara / Skreen Valley.

Correction, something yet more fascinating is the fact that there are reports and signs around that Mr Salafia is planning yet more legal action to "save Tara".

============ ========= ==

PETER SWEETMAN  wrote:

Ireland has not ratified the Aarhus Convention.

"Vercingetorix (Ireland)"  wrote:

Was the matter of the Aarhus Convention Agreement ever raised in the Tara court case which took place last year (the one which cost the taxpayers 600,000 Euros)?

If not, why not?

Please note that Dail Eireann members (and Tara activists) have been informed on several occasions regarding the straightforward, blatant, and completely unlawful Bunreacht na hEireann (Constitutional) violation connected with the Aarhus Convention agreement.

One such example of Dail Eireann members being informed (dated 28 Nov 2004) can be viewed at:
http://www.constitutionofireland.com/OireachtasMembersEmail28Nov2004.htm

============ ===

Greg Casey wrote: Off you go Brendan and Good Luck to you.

Greg Casey

_____

From: natureireland@yahoogroups.com [mailto:natureireland@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Brendan Kelly
Sent: 18 January 2007 16:15
To: natureireland@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [nature-irl] Please attend the M3 toll hearing tomorrow in
Navan

I was not present simply because this is not my area of expertise.

I prefer to see issues like this resolved through a Local agenda 21 type
Process which FSC is. Vincent has taken the proper approach. He has kept
all his options open. The Issue of clear felling now has to be decided by
the FSC Process. If the result of the FSC Process is favourable to the
Save Tara group I believe it will have a major effect on the decision not in
Irish Law but in EU Law. The Aarhus Agreement encourages us to try and
resolve these issues outside courts and as close to the problem as possible.
Vincent has tried to do this and this will be an advantage to him.

I do not believe the Oral hearing will make any difference. The decision is made by the Irish government and the Legal System is selected by the government. Ireland has signed up to the Aarhus agreement and if they now go ahead without respecting the wishes of people like Vincent there will be a call to have all EU grants stopped.

An Taisce and FIE have objected to roads been built for years.
Others of us have now tried to take the Local Agenda 21 path and An Taisce
and FIE should step aside if they do not support this approach. There are
now 2 separate approaches to resolving issues like this. I do not interfere
with An Taisce and FIE taking the legal, court, oral hearing path and An
Taisce and FIE should not interfere or otherwise hinder those of us on the
Local Agenda 21 path.

_____

From: natureireland@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:natureireland@ yahoogroups. com]
On Behalf Of Brendan Kelly
Sent: 18 January 2007 16:15
To: natureireland@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: RE: [nature-irl] Please attend the M3 toll hearing tomorrow in
Navan


Pity you did not bother to turn up in time and listen to the submissions
rather that at the death and make a fool of yourself, and do no good to the
campaigne.

For Brendan's information;

Both An Taisce and FIE were represented at the hearing, who else?

Vincent Salafia <uatuathal@yahoo. com> com> wrote:

Hi everyone,

Here's a copy of a release sent out today, regarding the M3 toll
hearing tomorrow, listing some of our objections. If you can think of
more please let us know.

You can review the 2002 toll scheme at:
<http://www.nra.ie/PublicPrivatePartnership/TollingDocumentation/>

Irish Times and RTE will be there so please try and make it, even for
the first hour or two, to show your opposition.

16 January 2007

'M3 toll scheme oral hearing set to be a farce'

A number of objections will be made to the National Roads Authority
hearing for the M3 motorway draft toll scheme, to be held at the
Ardboyne Hotel, Navan, County Meath on Wednesday 17th January.

The NRA is refusing to confirm or deny whether non-statutory objections
will be permitted at the hearing. So, it is most likely the inspector
will only listen to 4 objections, made 5 years ago.

Objections made by our group will include:

1. The hearing is a farce. The purpose of the legal requirement in the
Roads Act of having hearing is to give the public the right to say
'No'. But the PPP contract is going to be signed anyway in weeks,
regardless.

2. The timing of the hearing is wrong. The NRA should not have waited 5
years to hold the hearing on tolls, because it involves the public
approval of spending hundreds of millions of taxpayers money.

3. The 2002 toll scheme is out of date, being based on 2000 prices and
the NRA should prepare an amended draft toll scheme, like they was for
the Dublin Port Tunnel in 2006.

4. Only four objections were made to the scheme in 2002 because it was
not properly advertised, and the public have not been allowed by the
NRA to find out what these objections are.

5. Circumstances have changed radically since 2002, particularly the
new data on the economics of climate change by transport emissions,
which require a new cost-benefit analysis of the M3.

6. The M3 project funding has expired. It was part of the National
Development Plan 2006, which has now expired. Since it will now be part
of the National Development Plan (2007-2013) there should be a new
cost-benefit analysis.

7. The public/private partnership aspect of tolling is against the
common good. It allows for vast quantities of toll revenue to be paid
to private corporations rather than the public purse, and is a bad deal
for the taxpayer. The Government should finance the road itself and
then operate the toll.

8. The NRA is not an appropriate authority to decide on tolling schemes
(as they affect) inner suburb roads.

9. Tolls will act as an unacceptable restraint on trade and tourism and
will place an additional financial burden on people living in Meath who
may have to pay two tolls on the M3 and two more on the M50, once
improvements are made. That would add up to 8 tolls per day for a
round-trip to Dublin, costing approximately 16 euros.

10. The heritage of towns like Kells and Navan will continue to be
eroded by traffic because many people will use the N3 and avoid the
tolls, particularly lorries, as has been seen in Slane, where they
drove even faster through the town when the M1 opened.

Demonstrations will be held against the NRA and a formal complaint will
be made that the Eurolink consortium, that is the prefered bidder, has
already begun preparaory construction work, before the contract has
been signed. They have set up a depot at Racetrack Road on the N3,
south of Dunshaughlin and are hauling earth and machinery into the
area. Some of that machinery may already be involved in earth-moving in
the Tara/Skryne valley.

ENDS

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ rtions of t
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/

 

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger .yahoo.com