Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
PRESIDENT MICHAEL D Higgins has said that the decision from Donald Trump to pull the US out of the landmark Paris Agreement on climate change was “regressive and pernicious”.
Speaking a day before the US President is due in Ireland for his first official visit since taking office, Higgins said that America should reconsider its decision to leave the agreement.
Higgins made the comments today in a speech delivered at the European Federation of Public Service Unions Annual Congress at the RDS.
He said that trade unions had a strong role to play in “pushing for fair, ambitious and binding international agreements” on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
“While the EU has a set of binding emissions targets for 2020 and 2030, we must now plan for full decarbonisation of our European economies by 2050, encouraging the rest of the world to follow suit, and urging in the strongest possible terms the USA to re-consider its regressive and pernicious decision to leave the global Paris Agreement,” Higgins said.
Trump is due to spend two nights at his Doonbeg resort from tomorrow before returning to Washington on Friday.
Globalisation
Touching on some other topics in his speech, President Higgins said that those at risk of being excluded in society were being “abandoned to become the prey of xenophobes, homophobes and racists”.
Higgins also said the trade union movement must continue to play a role in order to ensure workers aren’t made the “casualties of globalisation, but rather that globalisation is made to work for the world’s workers”.
“The ongoing displacement of secure, certain, regular employment, for which trade unions were established, by uncertain, precarious jobs and characteristic chronic insecurity is a major cause for concern,” he said.
Michael O’Leary needs to remember that he is the CEO of an independant airline, and when government’s need to make such decisions for whatever reason, of course they will favour their airline that they pump public money into…anything else would have them lynched.
@Joe_X: I don’t think thats the point. It’s the favouritism towards Lot Airlines (illegal under European law) that is the source of the complaint. If it’s true; Ryan Air is correct to complain.
@Vonvonic: It is and Ryanair are right. Pure protectionist policies that will drive prices up for those who have fewer alternatives. Not the first time this Polish government have attempted to have their cake and eat it too, when it comes to EU membership. Fair dues to Ryanair in this instance, one of the few corporations with the resources to take on Governments engaging in sharp practice.
@Eoin Roche: 100% This has Kaczyński written all over it.
@Vonvonic, Eoin Roche: So say it was an Irish Airline and the Irish government was putting public money into it, would you still be happy about that? After all it would be our tax money that the government would be putting into it, qould you still favour Ryanair’s complaint?
@Joe_X: Not a question of liking it or not. It’s a question of legality.
@Vonvonic: We can say what we want about Ryanair but Lot Airlines are a truly awful experience
@Vonvonic: True, but now I have read the report correctly, I actually don’t think it is a case of favouritism or legality but safety of Polish airspace. Now, we all know how much Michael O’Leary, and therefore Ryanair likes to complain if it looks like another airline even looks like it is getting an advantage. Not for the fact another airline is getting more, but because it is free publicity, and despite being the country’s biggest success story, Ryanair really tries to portray itself as the underdog the whole time. Look at all the giving out they has done about Lufthansa over the years. However, when it comes to some cities which have 2 airports, it is nearly always the secondary one that Ryanair flies into, as it is cheaper. The thing is, most public money allocated to the airports would go into main airport’s facilities, and Ryanair would give out about that. Frankfurt in Germany is an examle of that. Warsaw is an even better example at the moment, as the article is saying that due to the ATC industrial actions the government has to reduce flights. Now this is so they can ensure that there is enough ATC staff to monitor and control aircraft in Polish airspace and it would make sense to give priority to the city’s main airport as it would be larger with better facilities, and that is the point of the Ryanair complaint. The secondary airport has to take the hit because there are not enough ATC staff to ensure the safety of both.
Why can’t the Polish Air traffic controllers sneak in a few extra charges to Ryanair?
Landing: €400
Taxiing: €150
Gate fees: €270
Schedule changes: €620
Would you like to add Fuelling to you visit?
Population of Poland was 38mln two months ago is 41mln at the moment. I wouldn’t worry about tourism at the moment.
From an economic perspective it would reduce tourism to their country. It would however reduce carbon emissions.
have your say