2 questions

conchubhar1

1 - can someone explain the laval court case ruling and it's implications for ireland?

is this where cóir are getting their minimium wage figure of 1.83?

i'm not sure if this is wholly lisbon related

2 - battle groups - seriously wtf? defensive? rebuilding? look at the name

what are they all about?

K-9

Laval would have little effect in Ireland. Sweden had no minimum wage or labour court registered wage agreements and that led to Laval. We can legislate to clear up any loopholes.

More here:
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/industrialrelations/dictionary/definitions/lavalcase.htm


The EU Directive itself is good and protects workers, both immigrants and nationals, if Govts. like Sweden would implement it properly.

On 2, do you mean COIR and their mention of EU Battlegroups?

Can anybody name a EU Battle group?

Scofflaw

These are not Lisbon questions. Laval happened without Lisbon, the battlegroups happened without Lisbon.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Hitman Actual

conchubhar1 wrote: »

is this where cóir are getting their minimium wage figure of 1.83?

Cóir arrived at their 1.83 figure by taking the average of the minimum wages across all 27 member states. But as they know that this is pure fantasy as regards Lisbon or any other EU mechanism, the added the "?" after it.

MrMicra

conchubhar1 wrote: »

2 - battle groups - seriously wtf? defensive? rebuilding? look at the name

what are they all about?

An EU battlegroup is a group of soldiers which can be deployed quickly when authorised to be deployed by the EU Council of Ministers. Deployment requires a unanimous decision by the Council of Ministers. Under the Lisbon treaty it will not be possible for the Council of Ministers to change the vote required from unanimous to QMV.

The term battlegroup means that the group of soldiers can fight a battle. The average size of a battlegroup is 1500 but we are in the Nordic group with the Scandanavians and Estonians and this battlegroup is about 3000 soldiers.

The theory underlying the battlegroup is that if the Council of Ministers met in an emergency session and got unanimous approval for an inervention (say in Bosnia). There would be 2 battlegroups ready to go straight away and they would be the country they were sent to (again say Bosnia) in 5 days and they would be able to fight.

The battlegroup was pushed by France based on their own experience in Yugoslavia where they were heavily involved (and individual squadrons exceeded their mandate several times) to create an international force that would be able to 'shoot back' when fired on.
The moral authority for the battlegroup concept is claimed to be Srebrenica. It is claimed by proponents of the concept that UN peacekeeping is too limited in its scope and that sometimes soldiers must make peace before they can keep it.
Soldiers and officers throughout Europe definitely including our own officers are supportive of the battlegroup concept. I respect that support and I recognise that officers may feel that they are strong and have a moral duty to protect the weak, however the battlegroup concept throws up an obvious problem for Ireland.

How can we honestly participate in EU operations under the triple lock system. Either we operate under a fictional presumed UN authorisation before such authorisation has in fact been given or we risk damaging the effectiveness of the Nordic battalion.

It is true that we can leave the Nordic battalion or that the battalion could be dissolved and reconstituted without us. I would regard both as embarrassing but maybe this is something that we cannot be part of. We do not have to be part of the battlegroup system and even if our soldiers and officers are keen to be involved Ireland doesn't have to be.

As regards your vote on Lisbon. The system whereby battlegroups can be deployed already exists and cannot be amended under Lisbon.

Therefore Lisbon has no impact on the deployment of battlegroups with one important caveat: the introduction of the Common Security and Defense Policy will make it possible for a country in difficulty (again say Bosnia) to present its case to the EU centrally instead of lobbying each country individually (which they would of course continue to do).

conchubhar1

Hi - thanks for responses.


I stated that the first I was unsure if it was lisbon related or not

second one - I never said it was lisbon related.

Hence the title being two questions... not two lisbon related questions