The 1.84 clarified.......again

sensibleken

this morning on newstalk 106 a representative of coir were again arguing that their stance that the minimum wage could be dropped to 1.84 if lisbon was adopted. they claimed on the broadcast that the labour court agreed with this position.

this prompted the chairman of the labour court, kevin duffy, to ring in to the station and state again that this claim is not true. that the labour court is not in agreement with coir on this matter and in fact their statement in the wake of the laval case was contrary to what coir are saying.

its clear from this national minimum wage remains a national competency and is not affected at all by the lisbon treaty. hopefully the court will issue a press statement in the coming days so that this absurd position will be put to bed and we can actually debate the pros and cons of the actual text of the treaty honestly

please see this link for a report on the labour courts findings in a case involving the teeu in the wake of laval
http://www.voltimum.ie/news/8223/infopro.tradeassoc.brand/Labour-Court-Receives-Final-Submissions---Decisions-Expected-Later-This-Month-.html

Sam Vimes

sensibleken wrote: »

this prompted the chairman of the labour court, kevin duffy, to ring in to the station and state again that this claim is not true

One lie down, 157 to go. Well not really because that assumes that they will now stop making that claim and they of course won't

meglome

Sam Vimes wrote: »

One lie down, 157 to go. Well not really because that assumes that they will now stop making that claim and they of course won't

Unfortunately the words Cóir and truth are not words you'd use in the same sentence (ah **** I just did). Some set on the guy to go on national radio and blatantly lie.

conchubhar1

we need more hard evidence like this on boards


but more coverage of this is a must for the govt to spread and tv stations also.

sceptre

sensibleken wrote: »

this morning on newstalk 106 a representative of coir were again arguing that their stance that the minimum wage could be dropped to 1.84 if lisbon was adopted. they claimed on the broadcast that the labour court agreed with this position.

this prompted the chairman of the labour court, kevin duffy, to ring in to the station and state again that this claim is not true. that the labour court is not in agreement with coir on this matter and in fact their statement in the wake of the laval case was contrary to what coir are saying.

It's unfortunately not the first lie we've heard from a national Lisbon interest group and doubly unfortunately it won't be the last.

These lies have legs though - people see the posters and some of them go away and assume because they're up there on a pole that they must be true (because they're not used to Irish media having any more than a slant on things, many people unfortunately take them at face value).

Coir are, put bluntly, a bunch of crazies. A bunch of idiots. A group of people that will blatantly bend the truth and lie just to get their position pushed (mostly because they're paranoid about abortion being introduced, which is completely covered under a previous treaty and doesn't lie within the competency of the EU and failing to understand that makes them double idiots as a first year EU law student could tell what the legal situation is). They'd be the biggest liability to their own side if it wasn't for them mopping up a section of the electorate that relies on ten-word posters to inform them of what the entire treaty is about.

You think you care they've been pretty much officially exposed as liars? Hell no, they'll still be here for the next few weeks continuing the same lie anyway and they'll be back for the next treaty, amendment or issue, probably under a different assumed name. 170 years of primary education and one of the best educated populaces in the world and these lying crazies still get to tip a few percentage points one way or the other when it comes to an EU treaty. That's actually scary.

Having said that, like all liars, the best thing that can be done with their lies is to continue to refute them. Over and over again. But I still say that their continued small successes and airtime are a damning indictment on our education system.

sensibleken

sceptre wrote: »

These lies have legs though

no doubt. i remember one of the vox pops from referendum day on the last one where a man was saying he was voting no because of the smoking ban (though coir never said that). unless people take an active responsibility in researching the truth lies will prevail

i had a heated arguement on saturday with coir members on the street in dublin who also stated that the move to qualified majority voting in the council was 'a dictatorship'. this shows the quality of their arguements

Acacia

If any of you are unfortunate to have read the Catholic rag "Alive!" you'll see it's full of Cóir anti-EU propaganda.

StealthRolex

As I understand it the case that should be reviewed is Rüffert, and not Laval.

It appears that this will allow a non-Irish firm working Ireland to employ non-Irish workers and pay them the minimum wage of their home country.

In Poland the minimum wage is 189Euro per month. This works out at 1.18 per hour.

To clarify - 1.84 is wrong it should be 1.18 or less. If the workers are Romanian they are only entitled to 0.40 per hour.

While Coir have their facts wrong the sentiment is correct. However, the damage has already been done by the Rüffert ruling and not by Lisbon.

Dublin_Gunner

As far as I'm concerned, anyone found to be placing political posters up with blatant lies and untruths in order to try sway a vote should be punishable under law.

Oh wait...

marco_polo

StealthRolex wrote: »

As I understand it the case that should be reviewed is Rüffert, and not Laval.

It appears that this will allow a non-Irish firm working Ireland to employ non-Irish workers and pay them the minimum wage of their home country.

In Poland the minimum wage is 189Euro per month. This works out at 1.18 per hour.

To clarify - 1.84 is wrong it should be 1.18 or less. If the workers are Romanian they are only entitled to 0.40 per hour.

While Coir have their facts wrong the sentiment is correct. However, the damage has already been done by the Rüffert ruling and not by Lisbon.

It appears you have fundamentally misunderstood the implications of the Laval and Rüffert rulings. There are no circumstances where anyone can be employed on less than the Irish minimum wage in this country . And in the cases of industries where a collective agreement has been registered with the Labour court the terms as set out in that agreement as the legal minimum standards in those industries.

The problem has only arisen thus far in countries where there is no statutory minimum wage and that countries collective bargaining structures which outline the minimum legal rates are not legally binding or contained legal loopholes that were exploited.

meglome

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned, anyone found to be placing political posters up with blatant lies and untruths in order to try sway a vote should be punishable under law.

Oh wait...

he he exactly. Unfortunately all you need to do is stick a question mark at the end and you're good to go.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Coir are actually crab people from under the earth, bent on world domination and the enslavement of humanity?

ixtlan

I have read the details of these cases, though I am not 100% clear. It seems the crucial issue is whether the pay rates at issue are legally binding. In the case of the minimum wage in Ireland it absolutely is. My understanding is that this cannot, repeat cannot, be breached by any person working in Ireland no matter what state they are from and no matter where their employer is based.

As regards rates over the minimum but subject to collective argreements, it seems somewhat unclear. Under what circumstances are those higher rates legally binding? I know Sweden has looked at this issue after Lavel and found that the resolution is not simple, and they believe it may require changes in EU law (not a treaty change) to get the outcome that they want.

However... MOST CRUCIALLY... this should not affect your vote on Lisbon.

It must be pointed out that most union groups are in favour of Lisbon, in particular the European Trade Union Confederation, ETUC.

Generally their position is as follows:

They see problems with existing EU law, resulting in the Laval and Ruffert cases. They want new laws protecting workers.

Lisbon, although it does not have the protections they wanted, is better than the existing situation, as the Charter of Fundamental Rights may be used to suport their claims for new law.

If Lisbon fails the EU will again be absorbed with institutional reform for several more years, making it less likely the the unions will get the attention they want on the matter of workers rights.

Ix.

StealthRolex

Thanks marco-polo, I stand corrected and will endeavor to complete the homework in future.

Still voting No though - for other reasons

enda1

StealthRolex wrote: »

Thanks marco-polo, I stand corrected and will endeavor to complete the homework in future.

Still voting No though - for other reasons

Why not let us know what they are? Perhaps you are misinformed on them too.

ixtlan

StealthRolex wrote: »

As I understand it the case that should be reviewed is Rüffert, and not Laval.

It appears that this will allow a non-Irish firm working Ireland to employ non-Irish workers and pay them the minimum wage of their home country.

Absolutely not.

It would be harsh of me to call it a lie, because I suspect you don't know any better, but it is UNTRUE.

Reviewing this case further the problem was even more complicated than it being a local collective agreement minimum wage... not a legal minimum wage.

It seems the relevant collective agreement referred only to public contracts and not private contracts, which meant that it was not universal and this seems to have caused the ECJ to rule that it was not correct to impose this requirement.

Now, again I say that there are problems here. It is unclear how a state can make a collective agreement sufficiently legally applicable to ensure that the ECJ would not have an issue, but it's certainly the case that in Ruffert there were a lot of things wrong with the local implemention of the "posting of worker" directive, in particular the fact that the collective agreement was not universal, and did not apply to private contracts.

So again I will say, these rulings do not, REPEAT DO NOT, say that the minimum wage can be breached. That is an absolute legal minimum that cannot be touched, and if you want more definitive protections, vote yes to Lisbon and let the European unions work on those changes.

Ix.

StealthRolex

enda1 wrote: »

Why not let us know what they are? Perhaps you are misinformed on them too.

The militarisation and associated costs, changes in voting regulations, establishment of a legal EU state are among them however this thread is about 1.84.

There are two main ones though.:

1. I have always subscribed to "if you don't know, vote No" and in the absence of an adequate explanation of this Treaty from either side I intend to stick with this. I am not going to vote Yes just because a politician suggested that this is a good thing. Whether they are just as mis-informed or expert propogandists doesn't make any different. I didn't trust the politicians who oversaw the negotiations of this treaty and I don't trust those, domestic or otherwise, who are now asking us to vote Yes again.

2. I have asked many Yes supporters for one reason, founded in fact, as to why I should vote Yes. All I hear are it's good for Ireland and it will bring jobs or that voting No is bad for Ireland and will cost jobs. This is just namby-pamby political hogwash and pseudo-speak. To me the reasons for voting Yes hold less water than the reasons for voting No. At least the No camp are trying to present fact based arguments and even if their facts are wrong they are making an effort which is sorely lacking in the Yes camp.

The only "fact" I am currently aware of is that this Treaty is essentially the EU constitution rebadged and as I do not want to be a citizen of a said entity as described by the existing treaties as amended by Lisbon I plan to exercise my constitutional right as an Irish Citizen to object to said amendment.

I've been reading the consolidated Treaty on European Union and Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and there are things there I don't like.

Lisbon has been presented in some quarters as a decision on the kind of Europe we want. The kind of Europe I want differs sufficiently from the kind of Europe this Treaty describes so my decision is No.

PopeBuckfastXVI

StealthRolex wrote: »

2. I have asked many Yes supporters for one reason, founded in fact, as to why I should vote Yes. All I hear are it's good for Ireland and it will bring jobs or that voting No is bad for Ireland and will cost jobs. This is just namby-pamby political hogwash and pseudo-speak. To me the reasons for voting Yes hold less water than the reasons for voting No. At least the No camp are trying to present fact based arguments and even if their facts are wrong they are making an effort which is sorely lacking in the Yes camp.

See my sig...

ixtlan

StealthRolex wrote: »

and even if their facts are wrong they are making an effort which is sorely lacking in the Yes camp.

Actually, as a yes supporter, I kind of agree with this in a kind of sad disappointed way.

I wanted to see posters saying

Cheaper energy through joint EU negotiations
Combat people trafficking through better police co-operation
Give the Dail power to review EU legislation
Give more power to your elected MEPs.

but anyhow... yes, read sink's excellent list of reasons.

Ix

jhegarty

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned, anyone found to be placing political posters up with blatant lies and untruths in order to try sway a vote should be punishable under law.

Oh wait...

If that was the case the government side of the Dial would be very empty after the summer holidays.

meglome

jhegarty wrote: »

If that was the case the government side of the Dial would be very empty after the summer holidays.

Huh?

jhegarty

meglome wrote: »

Huh?

I am implying/suggesting/stating that the governments election campaign turned out to be less than truthfull.

MG

1.84 per hour is about 3800 per annum based on a 40 hr week.

Personally I'd abolish the minimum wage anyway - the dole is effectively the minimum wage

ixtlan

StealthRolex wrote: »

There are two main ones though.:

1. I have always subscribed to "if you don't know, vote No" and in the absence of an adequate explanation of this Treaty from either side I intend to stick with this..............

2. I have asked many Yes supporters for one reason, founded in fact, as to why I should vote Yes. ......................

Is it worth pointing out to you that your two main reasons are not for voting no, but rather for spending more time studying the treaty? You are right the Yes side is doing a poor job of it, but you can work to overcome this.

Having said that I can see that you are putting much more effort and consideration into it than most people, yes or no.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I've been reading the consolidated Treaty on European Union and Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and there are things there I don't like.

Lisbon has been presented in some quarters as a decision on the kind of Europe we want. The kind of Europe I want differs sufficiently from the kind of Europe this Treaty describes so my decision is No.

That may certainly be the case for you. I'm just concerned that the first half of your post suggests you are not sure, while the second half suggests that you are. I'd suggest looking at Sink's reasons, and considering that Lisbon is a much more minor treaty than many of the previous ones.

Ix.

StealthRolex

ixtlan wrote: »

I'd suggest looking at Sink's reasons, and considering that Lisbon is a much more minor treaty than many of the previous ones.

Ix.

Ok then - took a look and I don't like 1, 3, 5, 6 or 7. It's personal but I don't think they are good reasons to vote Yes.

2 is ok but doesn't balance with what I understand of the weighted voting system

4 is brilliant but why isn't it like that already? Ah, I know - it's there because the politicians think we don't trust them. I wonder why.

8. nice idea but what's the purpose of Interpol?

9 and 10 are other reasons to vote No. They point to the development of a Federal Union with foreign aspirations.

/* initiate rant mode */
I can agree with reducing staff and costs but we should start this at home. We have 4 times as many TDs as the UK has MPs per head of population. We have overpaid civil servants and senior TDs, and the ridiculous situation where TDs and ex-Taosigh can claim their pensions while claiming TD salary and expenses.
While the expense and cost of our politicians is nothing to do with Lisbon it just get's right up my nose that those who are asking us to vote Yes can afford to retire to the Bahamas if it all goes tits up in the future or it turns out to be not as described or understood.
/* rant mode off */

Like it or not this Lisbon vote appears to be the only thing preventing the current format of the european union of communities from becoming a federal state system with military aspirations, now or in the future.
If this is the kind of Europe you want you know how to vote. This is not what was presented to us in the 70's and while political evolution happens the purpose of democracy is to allow the people to decide their destinies. Maybe the other treaties have done the damage to democracy. Maybe this is the Alamo.

As for the future of democracy in Europe - try Article 48

PopeBuckfastXVI

StealthRolex wrote: »

Ok then - took a look and I don't like 1, 3, 5, 6 or 7. It's personal but I don't think they are good reasons to vote Yes.

2 is ok but doesn't balance with what I understand of the weighted voting system

4 is brilliant but why isn't it like that already? Ah, I know - it's there because the politicians think we don't trust them. I wonder why.

8. nice idea but what's the purpose of Interpol?

9 and 10 are other reasons to vote No. They point to the development of a Federal Union with foreign aspirations.

/* initiate rant mode */
I can agree with reducing staff and costs but we should start this at home. We have 4 times as many TDs as the UK has MPs per head of population. We have overpaid civil servants and senior TDs, and the ridiculous situation where TDs and ex-Taosigh can claim their pensions while claiming TD salary and expenses.
While the expense and cost of our politicians is nothing to do with Lisbon it just get's right up my nose that those who are asking us to vote Yes can afford to retire to the Bahamas if it all goes tits up in the future or it turns out to be not as described or understood.
/* rant mode off */

Like it or not this Lisbon vote appears to be the only thing preventing the current format of the european union of communities from becoming a federal state system with military aspirations, now or in the future.
If this is the kind of Europe you want you know how to vote. This is not what was presented to us in the 70's and while political evolution happens the purpose of democracy is to allow the people to decide their destinies. Maybe the other treaties have done the damage to democracy. Maybe this is the Alamo.

As for the future of democracy in Europe - try Article 48

It's precisely because I can't retire to the bahamas if it all goes tits up that I'm voting 'yes'.

What is your interpretation of Article 48?

StealthRolex

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

It's precisely because I can't retire to the bahamas if it all goes tits up that I'm voting 'yes'.

What is your interpretation of Article 48?

Future changes to the Treaties will not require an Irish referendum

PopeBuckfastXVI

StealthRolex wrote: »

Future changes to the Treaties will not require an Irish referendum

That's not actually true.

Here's the relevant text of Article 48, I've bolded the bit that means Ireland will continue to hold referenda to ratify amendments to the treaties, same as before:

4. A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to the Treaties.
The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

In Ireland the constitutional requirement, as we all know, is that we hold a referendum.

Source:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/st06655-re01.en08.pdf

Maybe it's time to start questioning why people are telling you lies about the treaty, perhaps there's nothing real in there for them to attack?

marco_polo

StealthRolex wrote: »

Future changes to the Treaties will not require an Irish referendum

Sorry but that is completely untrue.

Article 48
......

The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

sensibleken

it should also be pointed out that coir are not the only ones at this. The peoples movement have stated in their leaflet

'its seems reasonable if not absolutely clear to the court that ...contractors from other member states could exercise could exercise their freedom to provide services in their freedom to provide services in this jurisdiction under the EC treaty at the same rates and conditions of employment as apply in their country of origin' (Labour court, Dublin 2009)

http://www.people.ie/leaflet/lisbon2.pdf

note the ... this replace the actual text of the courts findings section 32.11 that states 'In the absence of the REA contractors from other member states could exercise etc.'

http://www.teeu.ie/downloads_teeu/Labour_Court_Determination_REP091_Electrical_REA.pdf

this statement says that if it wasnt for the fact that we have the Registered Employment Agreement Laval could be applied. But we do have it so it does not and cannot as long as we have that legislation.

so the actual text of the labour courts findings is the complete opposite of what the peoples movement is stating as fact.

seriously if there is a valid argument for voting no, why lie about it

StealthRolex

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Maybe it's time to start questioning why people are telling you lies about the treaty, perhaps there's nothing real in there for them to attack?

So what does paragraph 7 mean ?

skelliser

coir a guilty of this but the yes side arent angels either.
"yes for europe"
"yes for jobs"
what do these mean, does it mean that if you vote no your anti-europe and anti-jobs.
imo it sums up the attitude of the yes campaign, the strategy is to gloss over the detail and fool/scare people
into voting yes.

StealthRolex

What about the Common Security and Defense policy?

skelliser

StealthRolex wrote: »

What about the Common Security and Defense policy?

according to fine gael deputy spokeswomen Ms Lucinda Creighton
on vincent brown a few months ago its,
"more bang for your buck" i **** u not!!

PopeBuckfastXVI

StealthRolex wrote: »

So what does paragraph 7 mean ?

It means that decision making mechanisms can be moved, by unanimous consent, from Unanimity to QMV, in existing EU competencies, excluding military or defence competencies.

PopeBuckfastXVI

skelliser wrote: »

coir a guilty of this but the yes side arent angels either.
"yes for europe"
"yes for jobs"
what do these mean, does it mean that if you vote no your anti-europe and anti-jobs.
imo it sums up the attitude of the yes campaign, the strategy is to gloss over the detail and fool/scare people
into voting yes.

I would sum up both campaigns by saying the strategy is to gloss over the detail and fool/scare people into voting.

StealthRolex

skelliser wrote: »

coir a guilty of this but the yes side arent angels either.
"yes for europe"
"yes for jobs"
what do these mean, does it mean that if you vote no your anti-europe and anti-jobs.
imo it sums up the attitude of the yes campaign, the strategy is to gloss over the detail and fool/scare people
into voting yes.

This is a salient point. The treaty will not provide jobs for the likes of us though it might just create a few more positions for the elected and appointed few. The President of Europe being one.
Voting on the treaty, Yes or No, is nothing to do with remaining in Europe or leaving it which is the implication of " Yes for Europe".

StealthRolex

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

It means that decision making mechanisms can be moved, by unanimous consent, from Unanimity to QMV, in existing EU competencies, excluding military or defence competencies.

And what's that in English?

This is my point here. I'm not knocking what you're saying and I'm not taking the piss but reading this Treaty, consolidated or otherwise, is a minefield of legalese.

What does it really mean? The No camp may misinterpret, inadvertently or by design while the Yes camp politicians tell us not to worry we have a "guarantee" or some other mumbo jumbo.

This treaty has an effect on the existing treaties that will affect our future. Does anyone really know what those effects will be?

marco_polo

StealthRolex wrote: »

So what does paragraph 7 mean ?

This means that a area of decision making may be moved from unaniminity to QMV following a unamious decision from the European Council (Heads of State). All member states retain a veto on this proceedure thus enabling them to prevent any area moving to QMV if they so wish. It specifically does not apply to military or defence.

Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or Title V of this Treaty provides for the Council to act by unanimity in a given area or case, the European Council may adopt a decision authorising the Council to act by a qualified majority in that area or in that case. This subparagraph shall not apply to decisions with military implications or those in the area of defence.

PopeBuckfastXVI

StealthRolex wrote: »

And what's that in English?

This is my point here. I'm not knocking what you're saying and I'm not taking the piss but reading this Treaty, consolidated or otherwise, is a minefield of legalese.

What does it really mean? The No camp may misinterpret, inadvertently or by design while the Yes camp politicians tell us not to worry we have a "guarantee" or some other mumbo jumbo.

This treaty has an effect on the existing treaties that will affect our future. Does anyone really know what those effects will be?

In plain English it means that the EU has certain powers called competences, here's how it has them.

Some are exclusive, only the EU has these powers, think about things like the regulation of the common market, competition law for instance.

Some are shared, think about areas where both the EU and we legislate, for example food safety. The EU set's a minimum standard, we are free to go further.

Some are supporting. So the EU can help us out with an area, Tourism is set to be a supporting competence of the EU after Lisbon, so they could use their institutions to let us present a united tourist front with e.g. the UK or France, they would help out, but not overrule us.

Then there are areas, like healthcare or national citizenship, where the EU has absolutely no competence at all.

The way the European Council takes decisions is by Qualified Majority Voting (Everyone get's a weighted vote, and majority rules), or Unanimity (everyone has an equal say, and anyone can block legislation, even if it's 1 against 26).

What paragraph 7 says, is that if the European Council decides by Unanimity (absolutely everyone, including Ireland agrees), then you can move the decision making process of an existing competence from Unanimity to QMV. It doesn't let you make any new area an EU competence, and it doesn't let you increase the competence in any existing area. Only change the way the Council voting happens. This paragraph specifically excludes any competence which may have a military relation, or a defence competence.

Now you should as yourself, why are people lying to you and trying to confuse you? And why are those people mostly asking you to vote 'No' on the back of their lies? Could it be they can't find anything real that most people would object to, so they have to make stuff up to fool you into voting their way?

A little more scepticism of the 'No' campaign, might not be a bad thing...

StealthRolex

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Now you should as yourself, why are people lying to you and trying to confuse you? And why are those people mostly asking you to vote 'No' on the back of their lies? Could it be they can't find anything real that most people would object to, so they have to make stuff up to fool you into voting their way?

A little more scepticism of the 'No' campaign, might not be a bad thing...

Accepted. Now about the Common Security and Defense Policy thing. Do we have a guarantee that this won't cost us anything to opt out?

And if we do vote Yes and we opt in when do I get my gun? I really like that right to keep and bear arms thing they have in the US. Kinda fancy getting a Springfield Armoury Professional model 1911. Not sure yet on what to carry as a backup.
Darn, maybe we'll have to buy European weapons to bolster the EU arms business. Ok, I'll go with Sig Sauer. But in 45. Can't stand those wee 9mm pop-guns.

Seriously though, the CSDP will cost us tax money, whether we provide human resources or not and I find the fact that a European "Economic" union wants to have a military set up as well somewhat repugnant.
We have the UN. We have NATO. Heck, we even have half the Warsaw Pact!
Why do we want even the option of an EU military entity with a foreign policy?

PopeBuckfastXVI

StealthRolex wrote: »

Accepted. Now about the Common Security and Defense Policy thing. Do we have a guarantee that this won't cost us anything to opt out?

And if we do vote Yes and we opt in when do I get my gun? I really like that right to keep and bear arms thing they have in the US. Kinda fancy getting a Springfield Armoury Professional model 1911. Not sure yet on what to carry as a backup.
Darn, maybe we'll have to buy European weapons to bolster the EU arms business. Ok, I'll go with Sig Sauer. But in 45. Can't stand those wee 9mm pop-guns.

Seriously though, the CSDP will cost us tax money, whether we provide human resources or not and I find the fact that a European "Economic" union wants to have a military set up as well somewhat repugnant.
We have the UN. We have NATO. Heck, we even have half the Warsaw Pact!
Why do we want even the option of an EU military entity with a foreign policy?

I'd like a shotgun with some large shot everytime I see a Coir poster!

Here's what our legally binding* guarantee says about what the CSDP will cost us:

It does not affect the right of Ireland or any other Member State to determine the nature and volume of its defence and security expenditure and the nature of its defence capabilities.

Full text is at: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055617733

There you go, it won't cost us a rusty cent...

*source: http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0617/eulisbon.html

Dublin_Gunner

jhegarty wrote: »

If that was the case the government side of the Dial would be very empty after the summer holidays.

I had hoped my post wouldn't require an explanation...


My take on Lisbon, in a broad sense, sees the EU becoming more of a regulatory body than anything else. Over simplified I know, but I think it sums it up.

Scofflaw

marco_polo wrote: »

Sorry but that is completely untrue.

It's not even just that the simplified revision procedure still requires ratification in the usual way:

Simplified Revision Procedure: is new and simpler, involving the proposal of a single amendment, in the same way we amend our Constitution, but limited only to certain institutional and voting changes. This method can only be used for:
(a) amendments to certain internal EU policies, provided they do not increase EU competences;
(b) moves from unanimity to QMV (except for military and defence issues) ;
(c) moves to co-decision (ie involving the Parliament in legislation).

Unanimity in the European Council and EP consent is required in each case; national ratification is also required for (a), and any national parliament may veto a proposed decision under (b) or (c). Any proposal to increase the EU's competences would have to use the current "full Treaty" method.

So it's a very limited tool in terms of amending the treaties* - and still anything that impacted Irish sovereignty would require a referendum (and the judges in the Crotty case didn't rule out a QMV change as impacting Irish sovereignty).

*Although you wouldn't consider it limited, of course, if you're a pure sovereigntist, because then any move from intergovernmental unanimity to supranational QMV is wrong in itself, whatever the issue concerned. However, national ratification still applies,just as it would to a full treaty in which there were unanimity->QMV moves, so it's hard to see why there would be an objection to the mechanism of such a move specifically.

Possibly one of the most FUD-ridden areas of Lisbon discussion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BetterLisbon

i believe the issue is the posting of workers directive. As far as i can see this would allow temporarily posted workers to be treated under the terms of their home states labour law. In the abscence of a social progress protocol lisbon will copperfasten the status quo. In fact article 16 of the charter could be used to strengthen this carry on.
Article 52 of the charter restricts the rights contained in it to the terms of the treaties so claims the charter can advance workers rights on its own is bogus.
We are campaigning for a no on other issues aswell. A 2nd no will get us a better deal just like denmark got a better deal at maastrict. It will work as follows:
1- CFSP is hived off to NATO and the WEU.
2- The hardcore stuff on justice and home affairs is adopted by enhanced cooperation.
3- We get a citizenship opt-out like denmark.
4- bits and pieces of the institutional reform are salvaged in a mini treaty.

sensibleken

BetterLisbon wrote: »

i believe the issue is the posting of workers directive. As far as i can see this would allow temporarily posted workers to be treated under the terms of their home states labour law. In the abscence of a social progress protocol lisbon will copperfasten the status quo.

no i does not. this claim is usually backed up by quoting the laval case. in that judgement the european court found in favour of the the latvian company and against the swedish trade unions because sweden did not have a legally binding minimum wage nor was their collective bargaining enshrined in law. so there were no swedish laws saying that the latvians could not use collective bargaining that was negotiated in latvia. this is the same in ruffert judgement which also was found due to shortcoming in domestic law.

the labour court clarified this. the lisbon treaty affects this is no way. it will be the same the day after it is passed or the day after it fails

marco_polo

BetterLisbon wrote: »

i believe the issue is the posting of workers directive. As far as i can see this would allow temporarily posted workers to be treated under the terms of their home states labour law. In the abscence of a social progress protocol lisbon will copperfasten the status quo. In fact article 16 of the charter could be used to strengthen this carry on.
Article 52 of the charter restricts the rights contained in it to the terms of the treaties so claims the charter can advance workers rights on its own is bogus.
We are campaigning for a no on other issues aswell. A 2nd no will get us a better deal just like denmark got a better deal at maastrict. It will work as follows:
1- CFSP is hived off to NATO and the WEU.
2- The hardcore stuff on justice and home affairs is adopted by enhanced cooperation.
3- We get a citizenship opt-out like denmark.
4- bits and pieces of the institutional reform are salvaged in a mini treaty.

In essence the Posting of Workers states that if the miminum legal standards of the country in which a person is working temporarly is lower than their normal wage in their own country then they may be paid their normal wage while working there.

In countries where collective agreements are legally binding the miminum legal standards is the rate specified in that agreement, in countries where a a minimum wage exists but agreements are not legally binding that is the miminum legal standard. In countries with neither of the above it is the employees regular wage in their own country.

The current situation is an unforseen consequence of the diversity of Labour laws across the EU not a conspiracy against workers.

In addition Lisbon in no way copperfastens the Directives because that operates under the false presumption that EU law is immovable and set in stone. The ETUC even has a Social Protocol that it will Lobby the commision for in in the Event of Lisbon being passed.
http://www.etuc.org/a/5175

In addition to this the Eurpean Parliament has also applied major pressure on the commission come up with a proposal to alter European Law with regard to this matter (They cannot initiate legislation themselves). Which is why organisations such as the Labour party have no problem supporting Lisbon. Because it has nothing to do with the matter of the Services or Posting of Workers Directives, or the various judgemenrts at all.

http://www.nho.no/getfile.php/filer%20og%20vedlegg/andersson-rapporten.pdf

Also I see increased cross border cooperation on Justice and Policing and is essential where there a free movement area of citizens and I am very disappointed that we opted out in the first place, notice that we have been exporting alot of our major criminals to Spain and Holland where they operate their Irish operations with impunity. We already have a triple lock on our neutrality so the defence point is mute. Finally why on earth would we want an opt out on European citizenship?

sensibleken

marco_polo wrote: »

Which is why organisations such as the Labour party have no problem supporting Lisbon.

not to mention th ICTU and a caucious endorsement from SIPTU with an acknowledgement that the charter of fundamental human rights furthers the cause of human rights and could strengthen the case for legally binding collective bargaining, contrary to their position last year. as we are entitled to change our minds after further analysis and consideration based on actual facts

ixtlan

sensibleken wrote: »

it should also be pointed out that coir are not the only ones at this. The peoples movement have stated in their leaflet

'its seems reasonable if not absolutely clear to the court that ...contractors from other member states could exercise could exercise their freedom to provide services in their freedom to provide services in this jurisdiction under the EC treaty at the same rates and conditions of employment as apply in their country of origin' (Labour court, Dublin 2009)

http://www.people.ie/leaflet/lisbon2.pdf

note the ... this replace the actual text of the courts findings section 32.11 that states 'In the absence of the REA contractors from other member states could exercise etc.'

http://www.teeu.ie/downloads_teeu/Labour_Court_Determination_REP091_Electrical_REA.pdf

this statement says that if it wasnt for the fact that we have the Registered Employment Agreement Laval could be applied. But we do have it so it does not and cannot as long as we have that legislation.

so the actual text of the labour courts findings is the complete opposite of what the peoples movement is stating as fact.

seriously if there is a valid argument for voting no, why lie about it

Thanks for this, sensibleken. This has clarified for me the situation in Ireland. I wasn't 100% clear that the REA was fully legally enforcable.

Also, it's worth repeating your post with the links.

This is a shocking twisting of the truth on the part of the people's movement, worse that most of other lies and distortions. Here they are taking a positive statment, removing some words and turning it into a negative statement.

I feel like someone should print up a few hundred thousand leaflets and ask people to read the 2 paragraphs, then ask them to e-mail the people's movement to ask them why they did this.

Ix.

Penny Farthing

StealthRolex wrote: »

As I understand it the case that should be reviewed is Rüffert, and not Laval.

It appears that this will allow a non-Irish firm working Ireland to employ non-Irish workers and pay them the minimum wage of their home country.

In Poland the minimum wage is 189Euro per month. This works out at 1.18 per hour.

To clarify - 1.84 is wrong it should be 1.18 or less. If the workers are Romanian they are only entitled to 0.40 per hour.

While Coir have their facts wrong the sentiment is correct. However, the damage has already been done by the Rüffert ruling and not by Lisbon.

Factually wrong. The case only applies in states without legally specifed pay rates. We have, as do almost all of Europe, so it doesn't apply here and couldn't. If any employer tried it they would be in the courts and convinced.

Both Ruffert and Laval were based on gaps in local laws, gaps that most states do not have and which the states which had them promptly fixed.

The minimum wage here is €8.65 and it is an offence to pay anyone less for any work done in Ireland. It is black and white.

The Cóir poster is simply their attempt to create a Lisbon urban myth.

StealthRolex

I stand corrected