I'll read this tonight but isn't Jamie Smyth the IT's tech reporter? And not a very good one at that...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.
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.
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.
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.
SIPTU are for the Treaty, are they not interested in workers rights?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
adam
Really?
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.
Neale Fenn on retiring: 'I think once you finish you might as well finish rather than making all sorts of comebacks.'
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.
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
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.
" 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?"
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.
Mickey Martin didn't take too long to comment on the results of the Sunday Business Post Poll, 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.
And in the absence of concrete reasons why thats a bad thing, where's the problem?
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".
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.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks