QuoteGarret Fitzgerald comments on the campaign:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...253887213.html
but the problem Ped is they dont!!!!!Originally Posted by ped_ped
Garret Fitzgerald comments on the campaign:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...253887213.html
#NeverStopNotGivingUp
Why do you keep focusing on the Commission? What about the Council and the Parliament? The Commission doesn't ratify legislation.
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.
#NeverStopNotGivingUp
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.
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.
Extratime.ie
Yo te quiero, mi querida. Sin tus besos, yo soy nada.
Abri o portão de ouro, da maquina do tempo.
Mi mamá me hizo guapo, listo y antimadridista.
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.
Are they taking away our right to elect MEPs too?
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.
LTID
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.)
They really would be better taking a back seat and saying very little.
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.
Last edited by dahamsta; 06/09/2009 at 5:58 PM.
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?
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.
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.”
TO TELL THE TRUTH IS REVOLUTIONARY
The ONLY foot.ie user with a type of logic named after them!
All of this has happened before. All of it will happen again.
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.
" I wish to God that someone would be able to block out the voices in my head for five minutes, the voices that scream, over and over again: "Why do they come to me to die?"
Unfortunately Ned O'Keefe was just expressing what the rest of them believe. They just have more brains than to say it.
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)
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
#NeverStopNotGivingUp
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks