but the problem Ped is they dont!!!!!:mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by ped_ped
Printable View
but the problem Ped is they dont!!!!!:mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by ped_ped
Garret Fitzgerald comments on the campaign:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...253887213.html
Why do you keep focusing on the Commission? What about the Council and the Parliament? The Commission doesn't ratify legislation.Quote:
Originally Posted by ped_ped
bailing us out or taking us over? that gormley green keeps mentioning war and i am just wondering does he work for angela merckl the german pm. Gormley looks like some war general from world war 2, come to think of it the germans failed with 2 world wars to take over the world, maybe the 3rd war is on but its economic as opposed to guns and bombs. The germans have bought large tracts of poland as well where they can supply cheap goods to their market. if we vote yes are we voting for the germans to rule us... i wonder
Ruled by the Germans? Sounds good to me! Beats the crap out of FF anyway.
But that's the thing. Even if they vote Batt out, the opposition will be voted in and no opposition party has come out and said, plain and clear, that they will not introduce third-level fees.Quote:
Originally Posted by ped_ped
Neither side are looking out for their constituents.
There's also the case of the Cork TD who basically told the residents of one part of his constituency to f-off because they didn't vote for him. I can't think of the guys name right now.
Yes, but I'd still rather have my choice or morons making our laws rather than have moron's thrust upon us. It's still democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
Are they taking away our right to elect MEPs too?:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by ped_ped
I was thinking the along the same lines upon seeing the FF posters. "We're better off in Europe" or something like that. I wasnt aware the vote was we're in or we're out! Classic example of the straw man argument. Is that the best they can do? Not impressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
They also say "for the economy". Aren't we a net contributor to the EU? By their logic, we'd be better off actually leaving Europe instead of voting No and imaginarily leaving Europe*.
adam
(*I'm aware of the European markets, simply making a point. Also that imaginarily might not actually be a word.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevB76
They really would be better taking a back seat and saying very little.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
Although Eamonn Gilmore's "people on the doorsteps are all asking about NAMA", whilst no doubt true, was fairly pathetic point scoring at a time when the parties had agreed to focus on Lisbon.
Although I prefer the Labour Party to the other parties*, I'd only bearly be able to throw Gilmore further than the other party leaders, if you catch my drift. Say what you like about Quinn and Rabbitte, at least you could trust them. (As far as you could ever trust a politician, that is.)
adam
* I used to be a member, but I've asked them for a refund of my last membership because of this. I'd forgotten about it until now, I've given them a week before I take them to Small Claims court for it.
That's the argument from them. Last time I looked, we were "in" Europe, and full, contributing, pro-EU members. We just disagree with the Treaty, and if it's a "tidying-up" exercise, sure what's the harm?Quote:
Originally Posted by KevB76
It's not a tidying up exercise, it's not about being in or out of Europe, it's not anything to do with economics, it's a power-crazy document, and the majority of people both here and in other states hate it, and want nothing to do with it.
Excellent article by Vinny Brown in the Sunday Business Post yesterday, where he appears to have seen the wood from the trees.
Ivan Yates tore Brian Hickey of Cóir to pieces this morning over the mininum wage claims and being a front for Youth Defence.
The minimum wage claim is a red herring but workers rights are under threat from the EU. Go to http://www.socialistparty.net go to the side panel where the videos are - the first video will explain clearly how this is fact under the terms of the treaty.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Quote:
Joe Higgins MEP explained:
"Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty would give the Charter of Fundamental Rights the same legal standing as the EU Treaties. This is said to be a big step forward which will have a major effect on improving workers’ rights. This is absolutely false.
"We show today that, in fact, to ratify Lisbon would copperfasten the ‘right’ of business to exploit migrant workers and enforce wages and conditions away inferior to accepted norms in particular Member States of the European Union.
"This happens because the Lisbon Treaty institutionalises the rulings of the European Court of Justice which endorsed the action of foreign contractors in importing workers from one Member State to another and seriously breaching the agreed rates of pay and various protections for such workers either agreed in trade union/employer agreements or imposed by local or national authorities.
"Some of the key cases where these judgements were handed down were: Vaxholm/Laval in Sweden 2004, Ruffert in Germany in 2008, and Luxembourg in 2008.
"Should the abuses involved in these cases, and endorsed by the ECJ, become general it would drive down the wages and conditions of all workers in a disastrous ‘race to the bottom.’
"With the passing of Lisbon it would still be as legal for employers, including highly profitable companies, to sack workers and ‘outsource’ their work in order to avail of much cheaper labour for maximisation of profit. Little wonder that anti trade union employers like Intel and Ryanair have not problem putting hundreds of thousands of Euro into trying to get The Lisbon Treaty passed.”
IMO, the fact workers in much of the rest of the EU have considerably better rights that in Ireland outweighs a hypothetical premise that may be able to be exploited in the Lisbon Treaty.
So much of the No sides argument relies on ignoring both history and current reality and living in a world of hypothetical situation and doomsday scenarios.
That the No side is arguing that the Treaty is both pro-immigration (freedom of labour movement) and anti-workers rights tells its own story tbh.
That's Ned O'Keefe. His comments and the brief, low reaction in our media to them says much about the warped nature of the Irish political landscape. That should've been a by-election. His position is untenable to my mind. That constituency deserve to have another vote on his suitability to hold a public office with that information to hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
Unfortunately Ned O'Keefe was just expressing what the rest of them believe. They just have more brains than to say it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie
What does "institutionalise the rulings of the ECJ" mean? If the ECJ has already given those judgments does that not mean the judgments are already applicable with or without Lisbon? (genuine, ignorant questions)Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
I think this is a good piece, lays out the basic reasons I'll be voting Yes.
Nothing from the No side has ever seemed other than a straw man argument.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...254065845.html
I'll read this tonight but isn't Jamie Smyth the IT's tech reporter? And not a very good one at that...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
Yes those particular rulings already exist but with the Lisbon Treaty there will be no scope for mounting a challenge to similar rulings in the future as the treaty specifically cites ECJ case history as the precedent for any future ruling. Its the difference between a law that is open to interpretation going against you and later that ruling being the basis for a clause in the constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdom hoop
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
On your first point - workers in the likes of France and Germany started from a higher level of workers rights but those rights have been chipped away at since the ninetees. There have been massive general strikes in Italy, France, Spain, Germany and Greece against all these attacks and many of the big trade union confederations in these countries are against Lisbon and the general direction the EU has taken.
Now even if it were the case that these countries had fantastic workers rights now, that would not change the content of the treaty and the treaty specifically states that any rights in the charter are conditional on that they do not interfere with the right to operate in a free market and the EU's own explanation of this cites the Laval and Luxembourg cases as examples.
Now also look at the heads of state you have promoting the treaty - Merkel, Sarkozy, Berlusconi, Brown, Cowen - hardly friends of the workers now are they?
Your other point is disingenious as you will know full well that the left anti-lisbon campaign is not anti-immigration and those of us who oppose the Lisbon treaty from a perspective of workers rights, protecting public services and anti-militarism want nothing to do with them.
SIPTU are for the Treaty, are they not interested in workers rights?Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
More than most posters on here I respect your opinion (I don't necessarily agree with it!) but you are aligning yourself with the looney right whether you like it or not. There's nothing disingenious about my point, Cóir have argued both the workers rights point whilst beating the immigration drum.
Getting back to the issue of workers rights across Europe, much of continental Europe, as a result of hard coded legislation and a level of militancy (neither of which Lisbon can change) have worker protection far in excess of Ireland. So should we draw the conclusion we are fighting someone elses battle?
By the same token, you're aligning yourself with the government (on Lisbon), that has left this country broke. The same government that insists that Lisbon, NAMA, and mega-levies are essential to sorting out our problems.
SIPTU, IBEC and co are the social partners that the government consult on economic policy, so they're not going to annoy the government by recommending a No vote.
Personally, I don't care how abortion is affected by the treaty, but at least Coir have the will to fight the battle to it's conclusion, unlike Libertas who took their ball and ran home, as soon as the election results went against them. Joe Higgins could have done that with his party 2 years ago, but he chose to soldier on, and now he's got his reward as an MEP, and prominent leader of the No campaign.
ORA, can we not sink to subtle "looney" jibes please?
I sometimes wonder if SIPTU are interested in workers rights. Personally I believe their leadership is more intersted in not rocking the boat and keeping their high paid jobs. You could have mentioned that UNITE and the TEEU have come out against Lisbon, as have the Dublin Port strikers and the Coca Cola strikers.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
As for who has worker protection far in excess of Ireland - most EU nations don't as it happens. Probably only Germany, France, Holland, Belgium Luxembourg and the Scandanavians and as I said, particularly in the former two, those rights have been under attack for the last twenty years. Instead of letting the EU drag everyone to our standard and far beyond (there will be more Irish Ferries type situations so it is hardly someone elses battle), we should be striving for Europe to be implementing workers rights of the type you mention, the ones that our counterparts in Germany and France used to have.
I wasn't referring to IBEC, I think its patently clear why they are supporting the Treaty. In reference specifically to SIPTU,they refused to sign the Commission on Taxation report and have opposed the Government on a number of other issues where they feel workers rights are being eroded.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
I've accepted the No side is composed of more than Cóir, but I would imagine a fairly sizeable part of country share my view that they (Cóir) are loonies. But I will choose better words to describe them!Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
While I think that's stretching things a bit, they have had an easy ride of it for the last few years and I think this is only dawning on them now. I doubt they'd be of the same mindset if the economy continues as-is and the strikes start rolling our more often.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
You can call Coir what you want, within reason, my problem is the implication that if someone agrees with one or more of their opinions, they're looney by association. It's a weak debating tactic and to be perfectly frank beneath you. Let's try to keep debate here above the level of the Dail.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
adam
Really? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
What are the views on a possible (rumoured) return of Declan Ganley to the No campaign?
I think it will have a fair impact and give a section of the 'No' camp a big boost. The 'Yes' side will come out with a lot of predictable stuff that I would imagine could easily be countered.
He see's the No side gaining ground, and wants to hop back on the bandwagon to claim (undeserved) credit, again, for a No vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by SMorgan
Or, perhaps, he sees the No side gaining ground, figures all is not lost and wants to help, if he can, towards the final push?
I don't care about his personal motives, he know's what he's talking about and if he contributes in any way to a No, I'll be happy.
...if he produced a loan repayment schedule. Otherwise the 'predictble stuff' any critic of Ganleys might come out with stands.Quote:
Originally Posted by SMorgan
He's welcome back to fight for the No cause, but I think he's left it too little, too late. Running a campaign 3 weeks before the vote is cast, is hard to pull off.Quote:
Originally Posted by SMorgan
Mickey Martin didn't take too long to comment on the results of the Sunday Business Post Poll :rolleyes:, however the Irish Times polls tend to be the more accurate ones, and the outcome of their next one will be more indicative of where the wind is blowing.
I finally got around to reading this last night. A typical Smyth article, factual but cherry-picked, with a new gloss of valueless opinion. No thanks. The only thing this article does for me is confirm that Lisbon is about making it easier for politicians; not for our benefit, but for theirs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
And in the absence of concrete reasons why thats a bad thing, where's the problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
Hey, if you think it's ok for politicians to get more power at the expense of the people they're supposed to represent, that's your lookout. I won't support it.
You didn't say more power, you said "making it easier for politicians".Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
But yes, I'm comfortable that Lisbon in practical terms doesn't given them materially more powers. And on that I suppose we'll agree to disagree.