Joe Higgins opposes Lisbon based on HIS own lies

Steviemak

Joe Higgins rewrites Lisbon to serve his own agenda

Joe Higgins website http://www.joehiggins.eu/2009/09/lisbon-workers-rights/

Article 52 of the Charter is explicit in limiting the rights contained therein when it says:

Rights recognised by this Charter are based on Community Treaties or the Treaty on European Union and shall be exercised under the condition and within the limits defined by those Treaties.

Actual text

Article 52 (2)

Rights recognised by this Charter for which provision is made in the Treaties shall be exercised
under the conditions and within the limits defined by those Treaties.


Joe Higgins admitted to RTE News tonight that he misquoted the text on his website.

However this is not good enough as his wording fundementally changes the nature of the text implying that the charter is constrained by competition policy in the treaty .

Why can't the No actual argue the treaty and not their own prejudices??

ei.sdraob

NO campaigner lies

news at 11

marco_polo

Another Myth busted. :pac:

marco_polo

News report (RTE)

PopeBuckfastXVI

marco_polo wrote: »

News report (RTE)

So much for the Honest Joe image.

In other news, hilarious that there's more people on the panel at the 'people's movement' press conference, than there are listening.

finbar10

Steviemak wrote: »

Joe Higgins rewrites Lisbon to serve his own agenda

Joe Higgins website http://www.joehiggins.eu/2009/09/lisbon-workers-rights/

Article 52 of the Charter is explicit in limiting the rights contained therein when it says:

Rights recognised by this Charter are based on Community Treaties or the Treaty on European Union and shall be exercised under the condition and within the limits defined by those Treaties.

Actual text

Article 52 (2)

Rights recognised by this Charter which are based on the Community Treaties or the Treaty on European Union shall be exercised under the conditions and within the limits defined by those Treaties.


Joe Higgins admitted to RTE News tonight that he misquoted the text on his website.

However this is not good enough as his wording fundementally changes the nature of the text implying that the charter is constrained by competition policy in the treaty .

Why can't the No actual argue the treaty and not their own prejudices??

Another version of article 52(2) from the "Official Journal of the European Union" can be found at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:303:0001:0016:EN:PDF
(an official EU website).

The wording of this version is:

2. Rights recognised by this Charter for which provision is made in the Treaties shall be exercised
under the conditions and within the limits defined by those Treaties.

Anyone know the story regarding the different wordings?
Was the charter attached to Lisbon somewhat different
from earlier versions of the charter? Or are they differing translations
from a version in some "official" language? What's actually the version
we are voting on?

Rebelheart

Steviemak wrote: »

Joe Higgins rewrites Lisbon to serve his own agenda

Joe Higgins website http://www.joehiggins.eu/2009/09/lisbon-workers-rights/

Article 52 of the Charter is explicit in limiting the rights contained therein when it says:

Rights recognised by this Charter are based on Community Treaties or the Treaty on European Union and shall be exercised under the condition and within the limits defined by those Treaties.

Actual text

Article 52 (2)

Rights recognised by this Charter which are based on the Community Treaties or the Treaty on European Union shall be exercised under the conditions and within the limits defined by those Treaties.


Joe Higgins admitted to RTE News tonight that he misquoted the text on his website.

However this is not good enough as his wording fundementally changes the nature of the text implying that the charter is constrained by competition policy in the treaty .

Why can't the No actual argue the treaty and not their own prejudices??

I'm very disappointed with Joe to be honest. I'm definitely voting 'Yes' but I do think Joe Higgins is one of the few principled and honourable members of Dáil Éireann. I'd certainly trust him before Mary Lou or any of those other opportunists.

marco_polo

finbar10 wrote: »

Another version of article 52(2) from the "Official Journal of the European Union" can be found at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:303:0001:0016:EN:PDF
(an official EU website).

The wording of this version is:
Anyone know the story regarding the different wordings?
Was the charter attached to Lisbon somewhat different
from earlier versions of the charter? Or are they differing translations
from a version in some "official" language? What's actually the version
we are voting on?

The one you have posted is from the latest version(2006), the OPs version is from the 2000 text. Joe Higgins one is pulled out of his ass.

P. Breathnach

Rebelheart wrote: »

I'm very disappointed with Joe to be honest. I'm definitely voting 'Yes' but I do think Joe Higgins is one of the few principled and honourable members of Dáil Éireann...

Was there a vacancy and a by-election that I didn't hear about?

todolist

Joe is seen as a bit of fun,an alternative voice.Respected and harmless.The reality is he's a believer in policies that are dis created and lead to mass murder in Russia and China.This guy is treaded as a a bit of a harmless eccentric.I know he means well but he really hasn't got a clue.

Daftendirekt

I notice he still hasn't changed the text on his website...

PopeBuckfastXVI

I used to think he was honest, if mistaken, in his policies.

But then I saw the two false claims he made about Lisbon:

1. It meant privatisation of healthcare and education
2. It was a 'self-amending' treaty, requiring no future referenda

I realised he's either too stupid to understand the treaty, or he understands the treaty perfectly fine and is happy to lie to the Irish people about it.

He's either incompetent or dishonest and either way I wouldn't trust him any more than I'd trust a 3 card monte dealer.

This latest incident just confirms my opinion of him.

Jim_Cannon

Cliff's Notes: Yeah we made a tiny mistake in the quoting of one paragraph of the Treaty in one press release that is featured on the website. Blair Horan ironically made a similar mistake in his press release! The error doesn't invalidate our argument at all - in fact the 2007 Charter emphasises our point as the Official Explanation which we have been highlighting is given explicit legal basis within Article 52.

Press Statement - Joe Higgins MEP (Socialist Party)
9 September 2009

Blair Horan’s hysterical reaction to wording error reflects the Charter Group's clutching at straws to defend support for anti-worker Lisbon Treaty

Lisbon WOULD mean institutionalisation of anti-worker case law of the European Court of Justice

Mr Blair Horan, Secretary of the Pro Lisbon Treaty Charter Group which includes some trade union leaders, issued a press statement today entitled: "Joe Higgins MEP has stooped to falsifing(sic) the Charter."

This hysterical reaction arises out of a mistake in a quotation from the Charter of Fundamental Rights in one article on my website (www.joehiggins.eu) dealing with workers’ rights as affected by the Lisbon Treaty.

Mr Horan then goes on to quote what he says is the correct Article 52, except he makes a mistake and quotes an outdated version from the Charter as initially published in 2000 which is no longer valid! He should have quoted from the officially promulgated Charter of 14 Dec 2007 (2007/C 303/01) (See Appendix for correct quotation).

Mr Horan’s reaction is hysterical in the extreme, in attempting to ascribe to me a deliberate falsification of the Charter, as his own press statement contains two inadvertent mistakes. The real reason of course is to draw attention away from the anti-worker judgements institutionalised in the Lisbon Treaty.

A review of the 2007 Charter and the Official Explanations strengthens the argument I have been making. It shows that Lisbon would institutionalise the anti-worker case law of the European Court of Justice.

Paragraph 1 of Article 52 provides for limitations "on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter." Paragraph 7 then refers to the Official Explanations, saying they "shall be given due regard by the courts of the Union and of the Member States".

The official explanation of this paragraph explicitly states that:

"This wording is based on the case-law of the Court of Justice: '... it is well established in the case-law of the Court that restrictions may be imposed on the exercise of fundamental rights, in particular in the context of a common organisation of the market....'"

Those workers and trade unions who have been subject to rulings of the European Court of Justice know very well what the common organisation of the market means. It has meant that the rights of vulnerable migrant workers and unions trying to defend wages and conditions have been repeatedly deemed to be lesser than the rights of contractors to exploit them.

This Charter Group is now asking people to institutionalise these cases within the Lisbon Treaty, thereby copperfastening these anti-worker judgements and the race to the bottom in workers' wages and conditions. This attack must be rejected by defeating the Lisbon Treaty for a second time.

It beggars belief that some trade union leaders should be supporting the ratification of a Treaty which further endorses the anti workers’ rights agenda of the European Court of Justice and the EU Commission.

Appendix :

The correct version of Paragraph 2 of Article 52 in the 2007 Charter of Fundamental Rights reads as follows:

"Rights recognised by this Charter for which provision is made in the Treaties shall be exercised under the conditions and within the limits defined by those Treaties."

The Official Explanations referred to were prepared under the authority of the Praesidium of the Convention which drafted the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The full text of the Charter and Explanation is available online http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ%3AC%3A2007%3A303%3ASOM%3AEN%3AHTML.

Scofflaw

Jim_Cannon wrote: »

Cliff's Notes: Yeah we made a tiny mistake in the quoting of one paragraph of the Treaty in one press release that is featured on the website. Blair Horan ironically made a similar mistake in his press release! The error doesn't invalidate our argument at all - in fact the 2007 Charter emphasises our point as the Official Explanation which we have been highlighting is given explicit legal basis within Article 52.

What happened, though? Did quantum fluctuations randomly add a few extra words?

amused,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

Here was the orignal letter in the times from Semtember 1st

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2009/0901/1224253586477.html

Madam, – In the email exchange with Pat Cox (Opinion, August 29th) Joe Higgins MEP quoted selectively from Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and proposed that the charter, and the treaty, is “institutionalising the rights of business to exploit workers in the name of the social market”. In a statement on June 18th he claimed that the EU treaties and the charter give priority to the rights of business to make a profit. Both claims are factually incorrect.

The quote that Mr Higgins uses from Article 52 which covers the scope of guaranteed rights, and states that “Rights recognised by the Charter which are based on Community Treaties, shall be exercised under the conditions and within the limits defined by those Treaties” is the second of three paragraphs in this Article. This paragraph simply states that Charter Articles that derive from the Treaty have the same purpose as they have in the Treaty. It would be rather odd if they meant something different to the Treaty.

The first paragraph of Article 52 states that any limitation on charter rights must be provided by law and respect the essence of those rights, while the final paragraph states that rights that derive from the European Convention on Human Rights have the same meaning as laid down by the convention.

Some charter Articles have the treaty as their sole source. Article 36 on protection for public services derives solely from Treaty Article 16, and the paragraph of Article 52 that Mr Higgins quotes simply states that they have the same purpose. The main sources of the charter Articles that relate to workers’ rights are the European Social Charter and the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights for Workers. In a number of charter Articles such as Article 23 on equality between men and women, the treaty is an additional source – in this case Article 141 on the right to equal pay. There is not a shred of evidence to present any of this as a negative in terms of workers’ rights. In fact it was the European Court of Justice in a 1976 ground- breaking judgment that gave real force to the fight for equal pay for women.

The statements by Mr Higgins that the Ruffert European Court judgment allowed for payment of only 50 per cent of the agreed pay rate, and that the Luxembourg judgment ruled that it was illegal for that country to insist on social protections for posted workers are not correct. The main issue in both judgments was that the European Court of Justice ruled that both Luxembourg and Germany had failed to properly transpose the Posting of Workers Directive into their domestic law.

However, there are some concerns for trade unions arising out of the approach taken by the European Court of Justice in some of these judgments. The Declaration on Workers’ Rights secured by the Irish Government last June will assist the ongoing process to address these concerns.

The current treaty provides in Article 43 a right of establishment (business), and in Article 49 a right to provide services in any member-state, and this has given rise to a concern that these “economic freedoms” may take precedence over workers’ rights.

The Lisbon Treaty in Article 6 would give the charter the same legal value as the current treaty Articles thus giving workers’ rights a new and enhanced status. This represents a rebalancing of rights in favour of workers which future European Court of Justice judgments will then have to take account of.

All of the treaty revisions since we joined in 1973 have added new Articles that protect and promote workers’ rights, and the Lisbon Treaty with the Charter of Fundamental Rights is a further significant advance.

All of the evidence shows that the advancement of workers’ rights in this country is almost singlehandedly due to our membership of the European Union. This evidence can be viewed on our website at www.thechartergroup.ie. – Yours, etc,

BLAIR HORAN,

Secretary,

The Charter Group,

Jim_Cannon

Scofflaw wrote: »

What happened, though? Did quantum fluctuations randomly add a few extra words?

amused,
Scofflaw

To be honest, we're not quite sure. I suspect it was a case of, in a hurry, taking the quote from somewhere else (another article or something from someone else, where it was wrong for whatever reason) as opposed to taking it directly from the text of a Charter.

We have put out numerous press releases with the quote from the Charter of 2000 and this is the only one where it is misquoted. For example, see Joe's extensive article in this edition of the Village magazine - the correct quote is given there. Or at the press conference which was shown on the RTE piece - the wrong quote was not given out there either.

The only place this misquote appeared was in one press release that was not picked up on by anyone and then featured on the joehiggins.eu website. The Charter Group obviously found it there - so fair enough, we made a mistake and admit that. But to suggest that it was deliberate (as Horan did) did is a bit ridiculous, especially considering that he quotes the old Article in his press release!

Macha

Hysterical? I don't see what's so hysterical about the letter...

Wow, Jim Cannon, yes how dare anyone suggest you might have done misrepresented something intentionally. None of that goes on with the No campaign at all, no way.

Jim_Cannon

taconnol wrote: »

Hysterical? I don't see what's so hysterical about the letter...

The letter is not hysterical. Horan's press release (available on the Charter website) is.

Scofflaw

Jim_Cannon wrote: »

To be honest, we're not quite sure. I suspect it was a case of, in a hurry, taking the quote from somewhere else (another article or something from someone else, where it was wrong for whatever reason) as opposed to taking it directly from the text of a Charter.

We have put out numerous press releases with the quote from the Charter of 2000 and this is the only one where it is misquoted. For example, see Joe's extensive article in this edition of the Village magazine - the correct quote is given there. Or at the press conference which was shown on the RTE piece - the wrong quote was not given out there either.

The only place this misquote appeared was in one press release that was not picked up on by anyone and then featured on the joehiggins.eu website. The Charter Group obviously found it there - so fair enough, we made a mistake and admit that. But to suggest that it was deliberate (as Horan did) did is a bit ridiculous, especially considering that he quotes the old Article in his press release!

It's traditional at this point to blame over-zealous underlings, although one can see how that might not be a very tenable socialist position.

Ah well, you're doing much better than Eire Go Brach at least.

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

Jim_Cannon wrote: »

To be honest, we're not quite sure. I suspect it was a case of, in a hurry, taking the quote from somewhere else (another article or something from someone else, where it was wrong for whatever reason) as opposed to taking it directly from the text of a Charter.

We have put out numerous press releases with the quote from the Charter of 2000 and this is the only one where it is misquoted. For example, see Joe's extensive article in this edition of the Village magazine - the correct quote is given there. Or at the press conference which was shown on the RTE piece - the wrong quote was not given out there either.

The only place this misquote appeared was in one press release that was not picked up on by anyone and then featured on the joehiggins.eu website. The Charter Group obviously found it there - so fair enough, we made a mistake and admit that. But to suggest that it was deliberate (as Horan did) did is a bit ridiculous, especially considering that he quotes the old Article in his press release!

Well Jim not only is the text of the article incorrect but the one line explaination above the article reflects the changed meaning of the unfortunate copying error.

Was that a unforunate error as well? Surely if it was an unnoticed error in quotation the explaination should reflect the usual meaning of the proper article.

Article 52 of the Charter is explicit in limiting the rights contained therein when it says:

"Rights recognised by this Charter are based on Community Treaties or the Treaty on European Union and shall be exercised under the condition and within the limits defined by those Treaties."

Also a direct quote from Primetime on Monday "But, Article 52 of the charter says that the rights are limited and that those rights have to be limited within the treaties of the european union"

Pull the other one.

rowlandbrowner

taconnol wrote: »

Wow, Jim Cannon, yes how dare anyone suggest you might have done misrepresented something intentionally.

intentionally? it was misquoted once.

taconnol wrote: »

None of that goes on with the No campaign at all, no way.

You can't throw the Socialists in with Coir, UKIP, Open Europe et al and refer to it as a collective No Campaign.

nesf

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

In other news, hilarious that there's more people on the panel at the 'people's movement' press conference, than there are listening.

Yet somehow they get TV coverage at the start of the 9 o' Clock news.

nesf

rowlandbrowner wrote: »

intentionally? it was misquoted once.

Yeah, but the misquote dramatically changed the meaning of the article. It's utterly inexcusable for there to be any error in the wording of a part of the constitution in this debate. Utterly.

That they didn't bother to recheck it before putting it up on their website, especially after they found it to contradict everyone else's position on the article, speaks volumes of the lack of professionalism of the people involved in that part of his campaign. These are legal documents, you've got to transcribe them exactly or you're not going to be able to interpret them correctly. Joe's been in the Dáil, he should know this. That's what surprises me most, this isn't a rag-tag group thrown together over the last week but a group that was supposedly helping a TD interpret law for much of the past decade.

rowlandbrowner wrote: »

You can't throw the Socialists in with Coir, UKIP, Open Europe et al and refer to it as a collective No Campaign.

Agreed that the Socialists shouldn't be lumped in with Coir et al, but there is a lot of lies and misinformation coming from some parts of the No campaign and this will make people extremely suspicious of any mistakes made when quoting the treaty.

meglome

rowlandbrowner wrote: »

You can't throw the Socialists in with Coir, UKIP, Open Europe et al and refer to it as a collective No Campaign.

No it would be unfair to lump them in with Cóir and U-KIP, although they do have a lot in common, saying No at each and every turn. Reminds me of Ian Paisley of old.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

...

And then I learned the voting pattern of the main proponents of the no side (table shamelessly stolen from Scofflaw )

Group | Accession | SEA | Maastricht | Amsterdam | Nice | Lisbon
| | | | | |
Sinn Fein | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
Socialist Party | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
Workers' Party | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
Socialist Workers' Party | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
P McKenna | - | - | NO | NO | NO | NO
Anthony Coughlan/National Platform | - | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
COIR/YD/SPUC | - | - | NO | NO | NO | NO
PANA | - | - | - | NO | NO | NO


...

Joycey

meglome wrote: »

No it would be unfair to lump them in with Cóir and U-KIP, although they do have a lot in common, saying No at each and every turn. Reminds me of Ian Paisley of old....

Table of No votes

Whats your point? The fact that the SP among others on the left have maintained their position that they are not against a united Europe in and of itself, but merely the centralisation of power in the capitalist establishment in Europe who work only to serve a certain elite of incredibly wealthy business interests in each country, is not something to simply brush aside. Whether you agree with the central argument or not is irrelevant, they are not simply voting no as a result of reactionary or xenophobic tendencies, so a comparison with COIR is rediculous.

Neither are they simply resorting to scare tactics as are the various Yes campaigners at the moment, insinuating that Ireland will no longer "belong" to Europe should we reject the treaty, or resorting, as Cowen did on the news the other day, to what is essentially blackmail, saying that we dont want to piss off the capitalist establishment in Europe - the ECB - for fear that our credit will dry up. Those are scare tactics, the equivalent of the sh1te that Ganley was propagating the last time round. While the SP made a regrettable error in posting misinformation on Higgin's site, you can hardly claim that they are waging their campaign entirely based on a contentless appeal to populist fears, as I would argue the Yes side are.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Joycey wrote: »

Whats your point? The fact that the SP among others on the left have maintained their position that they are not against a united Europe in and of itself, but merely the centralisation of power in the capitalist establishment in Europe who work only to serve a certain elite of incredibly wealthy business interests in each country, is not something to simply brush aside. Whether you agree with the central argument or not is irrelevant, they are not simply voting no as a result of reactionary or xenophobic tendencies, so a comparison with COIR is rediculous.

Neither are they simply resorting to scare tactics as are the various Yes campaigners at the moment, insinuating that Ireland will no longer "belong" to Europe should we reject the treaty, or resorting, as Cowen did on the news the other day, to what is essentially blackmail, saying that we dont want to piss off the capitalist establishment in Europe - the ECB - for fear that our credit will dry up. Those are scare tactics, the equivalent of the sh1te that Ganley was propagating the last time round. While the SP made a regrettable error in posting misinformation on Higgin's site, you can hardly claim that they are waging their campaign entirely based on a contentless appeal to populist fears, as I would argue the Yes side are.

I'm sure the Socialist party are very much for a united Europe, eh comrade?

rowlandbrowner

meglome wrote: »

No it would be unfair to lump them in with Cóir and U-KIP, although they do have a lot in common, saying No at each and every turn.

The Socialist Party weren't even in existence for the first 3 votes on that chart, why does it have them listed as voting No.

Martin 2

Joe Higgins will be on KFM (Kildare FM) http://www.kfmradio.com/ in the next few minutes. They should announce a text number for questions as well.

Joycey

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I'm sure the Socialist party are very much for a united Europe, eh comrade?

A Europe which is united around the interests of the normal working people who comprise the vast majority of its population as opposed to those who stand to benefit from the increased decision making "efficiency" or the freedom to import cheap labour in order to force local workers to accept worse conditions or outright replacement.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Joycey wrote: »

A Europe which is united around the interests of the normal working people who comprise the vast majority of its population as opposed to those who stand to benefit from the increased decision making "efficiency" or the freedom to import cheap labour in order to force local workers to accept worse conditions or outright replacement.

So you want a Europe united around the interests of the normal working people, but you don't want those normal working people to have the ability to move around and work, or 'import their labour', where they please in your 'United' Europe?

You might want to straighten out your ideas of what you actually want there comrade.

oscarBravo

Less of the name-calling, please.

Martin 2

Martin 2 wrote: »

Joe Higgins will be on KFM (Kildare FM) http://www.kfmradio.com/ in the next few minutes. They should announce a text number for questions as well.

The show opened and closed with the allegation of deliberate falsification of the text of article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights on his website. He said this was a textual error and doesn't change the central message of how the Treaty might affect the operation of the Charter. At the end of the show he said that the allegation was a monstrous Stalinist distortion.
-Talked more about worker's rights.
-Mentions contractors exploiting migrant workers, mentions Laval, Viking and Luxembourg.
-Complains about Ryanair and Intel's advocation of a Yes vote.
-Admits Irish neutrality won't be affected by the treaty but says it would increase militarisation in Europe
-Dismisses Coir poster, stating that the minimum wage after Lisbon could be 1.84 euro, as a distraction from the real issues

Joycey

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

So you want a Europe united around the interests of the normal working people, but you don't want those normal working people to have the ability to move around and work, or 'import their labour', where they please in your 'United' Europe?

Martin 2 wrote:

-Mentions contractors exploiting migrant workers, mentions Laval, Viking and Luxembourg

...

PopeBuckfastXVI

Joycey wrote: »

...

I'm still not sure... do you believe in the free movement of labour or not?

BlitzKrieg

On laval

the Lavel ruling and a number of other such rulings have to do with weaknesses in the existing 1996 Posting of Workers directive, which now has to be revised. Those who are making these claims ignore the fact that the ETUC sees the Lisbon Treaty as very much part of the solution to the problems raised by some recent ECJ rulings, with the binding Charter of Fundamental Rights, the restated values and objectives, the binding social clause, and the provison enabling the EU to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights.

As I believe was said somewhere else, if the laval case was run under Lisbon, the result was quite likely to have been different.

Scofflaw

rowlandbrowner wrote: »

The Socialist Party weren't even in existence for the first 3 votes on that chart, why does it have them listed as voting No.

Because they were previously Militant Tendency in the Labour Party, and opposed the treaties listed.

Whats your point? The fact that the SP among others on the left have maintained their position that they are not against a united Europe in and of itself, but merely the centralisation of power in the capitalist establishment in Europe who work only to serve a certain elite of incredibly wealthy business interests in each country, is not something to simply brush aside. Whether you agree with the central argument or not is irrelevant, they are not simply voting no as a result of reactionary or xenophobic tendencies, so a comparison with COIR is rediculous.

Neither are they simply resorting to scare tactics as are the various Yes campaigners at the moment, insinuating that Ireland will no longer "belong" to Europe should we reject the treaty, or resorting, as Cowen did on the news the other day, to what is essentially blackmail, saying that we dont want to piss off the capitalist establishment in Europe - the ECB - for fear that our credit will dry up. Those are scare tactics, the equivalent of the sh1te that Ganley was propagating the last time round. While the SP made a regrettable error in posting misinformation on Higgin's site, you can hardly claim that they are waging their campaign entirely based on a contentless appeal to populist fears, as I would argue the Yes side are.

The funny thing is that despite the opposition of the Irish Socialists to every EU treaty, labour conditions here are almost infinitely better than they were when we joined - and that progress isn't the result of progressive Irish governments fighting a lone battle against a regressive Europe.

So frankly the narrative you're putting forward is extremely unconvincing, and you're pretty lucky that's the case, because if the Socialists had managed to convince the Irish electorate to vote No to all the EU treaties they've opposed, we'd still be stuck in the dark ages of labour legislation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

rowlandbrowner

Scofflaw wrote: »

So frankly the narrative you're putting forward is extremely unconvincing, and you're pretty lucky that's the case, because if the Socialists had managed to convince the Irish electorate to vote No to all the EU treaties they've opposed, we'd still be stuck in the dark ages of labour legislation.

not if they convinced the electorate to vote them into government, however improbable it may be the goal of the Socialist Party is to presumably be in government and with that in mind their voting record makes sense. One Example: I’m sure a Joe Higgins led national government would oppose private medical companies operating in Ireland, EU policies favour them and Lisbon actualy renders the national government unable to close the door on them by removing the WTO veto, makes sense that they would vote No to lisbon and past treaties.

Stark

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I used to think he was honest, if mistaken, in his policies.

But then I saw the two false claims he made about Lisbon:

1. It meant privatisation of healthcare and education
2. It was a 'self-amending' treaty, requiring no future referenda

I realised he's either too stupid to understand the treaty, or he understands the treaty perfectly fine and is happy to lie to the Irish people about it.

He's either incompetent or dishonest and either way I wouldn't trust him any more than I'd trust a 3 card monte dealer.

This latest incident just confirms my opinion of him.

On the self amending Treaty argument, I asked someone what they meant by this and they quoted the following article on Lisbon:

Article 48 TEU

The government of any Member State or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties on which the Union is founded. If the Council, after consulting the European Parliament and, where appropriate, the Commission, delivers an opinion in favour of calling a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States, the conference shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to those Treaties. The European Central Bank shall also be consulted in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.”

It's the exact same wording as in Nice:

Article 48 TEU Nice

The government of any Member State or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties on which the Union is founded. If the Council, after consulting the European Parliament and, where appropriate, the Commission, delivers an opinion in favour of calling a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States, the conference shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to those Treaties. The European Central Bank shall also be consulted in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.”

All it means is that member states are allowed negotiate a new treaty, but that the treaty must be put through a ratification process according to a member state's constitutional requirement. ie: a referendum in Ireland.

ilovelamp2000

There's one thing I find funny about the attack on Joe Higgins being discussed on Boards.

If anyone adopted the approach the attackers did while arguing a topic on this forum they'd be banned for trolling.

FutureTaoiseach

He's not a liar. The problem is there are different versions of this Charter - one from the EU Constitution period and a slightly modified one for the Lisbon period. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that this was a clerical error. However, I agree with his underlying argument on the Charter, because of the Viking judgement, where the Charter was cited by the ECJ, in terms of the limitations that can be imposed on workers-rights. That is certainly the view of the European Trade Union Institute:

ETUI wrote:

The shipping line Viking runs ferry services between Finland and Estonia under the Finnish flag. The company’s management decided to re-flag their ferries - using the Estonian flag. The decision was also taken to employ Estonian labour in order to take advantage of the fact that wages are lower in Estonia. In response, the Finnish Seamen’s Union (FSU) warned the company Viking that they might take collective action to stop the re-flagging process. To avoid the danger of being undercut, it also asked the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) under its “Flag of conveniences campaign” to ask their members not to start negotiations with Viking unless they were based in Finland. According to this campaign, the ITF affiliates agreed that only trade unions established in the state of beneficial ownership should have the right to conclude collective agreements covering the vessel concerned. The ECJ recognised the right to take collective action, including the right to strike as a fundamental right which forms an integral part of the general principles of Community law. Nevertheless, this right might be restricted, as reaffirmed by Article 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which states that it is to be protected in accordance with Community law and national law and practices. Furthermore the exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions. In the Laval and Viking cases the ECJ states that national employment law comes inside the scope of Community’s free movement legislation. This means that no special treatment is applied in the employment law sphere. The judges go even further when they consider that the freedoms can be invoked against trade unions (this is called: horizontal direct effect), meaning that employers can now take trade unions to court, to get a judgement on the legality of a collective action.
The ECJ sees the right of trade unions to take collective action as a restriction on the freedom to provide services or the freedom of establishment. Collective action must be justified. It must have a legitimate aim, respond to overriding reasons of public interest and be suitable for securing the attainment of the objective pursued and not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it. Those conditions are often called the proportionality test, which is now introduced by the court with respect to the trade union rights...

PopeBuckfastXVI

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

He's not a liar. The problem is there are different versions of this Charter - one from the EU Constitution period and a slightly modified one for the Lisbon period. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that this was a clerical error.

One that resulted in him interpreting the article the way this 'clerical error' rendered it?

How many other 'clerical errors' inform his opinions?

marco_polo

Rosco1982 wrote: »

There's one thing I find funny about the attack on Joe Higgins being discussed on Boards.

If anyone adopted the approach the attackers did while arguing a topic on this forum they'd be banned for trolling.

If it was a simple mistake of taking the wrong text from somewhere on one occasion, then why did he also use the changed meaning that this gave the article on numerous occasions while debating?

Stark

Ah yes, the "oops, that was actually the EU constitution I was talking about" clerical error. Funny how that one crops up a lot.

Scofflaw

rowlandbrowner wrote: »

not if they convinced the electorate to vote them into government, however improbable it may be the goal of the Socialist Party is to presumably be in government and with that in mind their voting record makes sense. One Example: I’m sure a Joe Higgins led national government would oppose private medical companies operating in Ireland, EU policies favour them and Lisbon actualy renders the national government unable to close the door on them by removing the WTO veto, makes sense that they would vote No to lisbon and past treaties.

That's kind of a bizarre statement. Presuming that you mean by "private medical companies" companies like VHI, I have no idea why you think it has anything to do with either the EU, the WTO, or Lisbon. The EU has a very limited role in health - support only, and Lisbon has a specific restriction on such action which is stronger than the one in Nice:

7. Union action shall respect the responsibilities of the Member States for the definition of their health policy and for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care. The responsibilities of the Member States shall include the management of health services and medical care and the allocation of the resources assigned to them.

Nor, of course, does your point address the issue that if we'd voted No to all the treaties the Socialist Party wanted us to vote No to, we'd have missed out on most of the progressive social legislation of the last twenty years.

Really, the SP is just playing "lefter than thou" to the gallery.

cordially,
Scofflaw

meglome

rowlandbrowner wrote: »

not if they convinced the electorate to vote them into government, however improbable it may be the goal of the Socialist Party is to presumably be in government and with that in mind their voting record makes sense. One Example: I’m sure a Joe Higgins led national government would oppose private medical companies operating in Ireland, EU policies favour them and Lisbon actualy renders the national government unable to close the door on them by removing the WTO veto, makes sense that they would vote No to lisbon and past treaties.

The reality is they didn't get into power but have still objected to the EU at ever turn. The same EU which has brought forward nearly all of our workers rights legislation. What is it, do the EU make them look bad or something? I'm sorry but the vast majority of what the EU has done has been great for Ireland and that makes me very suspicious of people who refuse to support that, ever.

Liam Byrne

Well, I read the "official" leaflet that arrived in the door here, and I'm not convinced that Higgins is the only one lying or being confusing/evasive with the truth!!

Page 3 : Council of Ministers

From 2014, a qualified majority would require that a) 55% of the member states agree; b) those member states supporting the decision must represent 65% of the population. A decision cannot be blocked by fewer than four member states, no matter how large their population

Page 7 : Taxation

Ireland's policies on direct taxation cannot be changed by the EU unless there is unanimous agreement on the Council of Ministers. Ireland therefore has the power to veto any such change and the Lisbon Treaty does not change this.

So does Page 7 (a paragraph) over-rule the explicit "proposed changes" from Page 3 ?

If so, why doesn't Page 3 mention "excluding key areas of interest to Ireland such as taxation" ?

Given the shambles that "our own" shower have made of the country, I'd almost prefer to be ruled completely from Brussels, so I'd be edging towards voting "yes"; but the feeling of being conned by this Government plus the arrogance of their "keep voting until you do as we say" attitude is making me think twice.

I mean, if we vote "yes", will we have another referendum in case people change their minds again ? Or does this only apply when we don't agree with those "in power" ?


P.S. We should also give Higgins a break; it appears that he's read BOTH treaties, unlike Cowen & Lenihan.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Qualified Majority Voting rules only apply to areas where Qualified Majority Voting applies (strangely enough!!), and taxation is not one of those areas.

Does this answer your question? If not I'll need more detail from 'page 3' as I don't have the leaflet in front of me.

marco_polo

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well, I read the "official" leaflet that arrived in the door here, and I'm not convinced that Higgins is the only one lying or being confusing/evasive with the truth!!

Page 3 : Council of Ministers



Page 7 : Taxation



So does Page 7 (a paragraph) over-rule the explicit "proposed changes" from Page 3 ?

If so, why doesn't Page 3 mention "excluding key areas of interest to Ireland such as taxation" ?

Given the shambles that "our own" shower have made of the country, I'd almost prefer to be ruled completely from Brussels, so I'd be edging towards voting "yes"; but the feeling of being conned by this Government plus the arrogance of their "keep voting until you do as we say" attitude is making me think twice.

I mean, if we vote "yes", will we have another referendum in case people change their minds again ? Or does this only apply when we don't agree with those "in power" ?

In some areas such as Taxation, Foreign Policy and Defence decisions are made by unaminity, in others areas such as the internal market they are made by QMV via the ordinary legislative proceedure so there is no conflict between the two statements.

As our constitution stands only the Governement may call referenda.