FAO mangaroosh

The Volt

Seeing as how you 'missed' this post a few times already I've made a thread of it for you

mangaroosh wrote: »

And don't bother suggesting the No side has lied unless you are going to back it up.

You, depsite all of the evidence placed in front of you still stick to the notion that the no side are completely truthful while the yes side lie through their teeth.

Here's your back up.:mad:

WORSE THAN A LIE
The best thing for workers would be the introduction of this social chapter surely? Add to this that John Monks, General Secretary of ETUC actually recommended a yes vote to all of the trade union officials as well. He did of course say he had a few issues with it, overall he was satisfied but nothing is perfect. Of course the 'no' campaigners picked these problems he had with it out of his report, highlighted these and ignored the fact that he supported it overall.
http://www.ictu.ie/press/2009/07/10/...ecretary-etuc/

This is exactly the kind of shenanigans that the no side has carried out in this campaign and in previous ones. Mangaroosh in particular, I would love to hear your take on this seeing as how you're so quick to point out that the yes side is full of lies, manipulation and scaremongering. I'm dying to hear your justification for things like this.

roosh

Voltwad wrote: »

Seeing as how you 'missed' this post a few times already I've made a thread of it for you



You, depsite all of the evidence placed in front of you still stick to the notion that the no side are completely truthful while the yes side lie through their teeth.

Here's your back up.:mad:

WORSE THAN A LIE
The best thing for workers would be the introduction of this social chapter surely? Add to this that John Monks, General Secretary of ETUC actually recommended a yes vote to all of the trade union officials as well. He did of course say he had a few issues with it, overall he was satisfied but nothing is perfect. Of course the 'no' campaigners picked these problems he had with it out of his report, highlighted these and ignored the fact that he supported it overall.
http://www.ictu.ie/press/2009/07/10/...ecretary-etuc/

This is exactly the kind of shenanigans that the no side has carried out in this campaign and in previous ones. Mangaroosh in particular, I would love to hear your take on this seeing as how you're so quick to point out that the yes side is full of lies, manipulation and scaremongering. I'm dying to hear your justification for things like this.

If you are going to try and back up your claim, please provide a working link.

But, just to break it down, just because the head of some Union advocates a Yes vote, it does not necessarily mean that it is good for those in the Union. Afterall, the politicians of France and Holland pushed through the Lisbon Treaty after their voters had voted No, on what it pretty much the same thing. Indeed the Lisbon Treaty is supposed to tackle their concerns. If it had done so adequately, don't you think they should have been given the chance to vote on it again?

Is it even remotely possible that campaigning for a Yes vote, by the head of the Union, will curry favour with the next government, and there might be something in it for him, as opposed to those he represents?

Also, I am referring to the campaign posters for the No side. Show me any of the lies please.

Let me ask you also, have you looked at the Yes campaign? Have you scrutinised why they are telling you to vote yes? Have you realised that the reasons they are telling you are just to scare you into voting Yes?


Which is worse do you think: the fact that those looking for increased power over your life are telling you lies to get you to give it to them OR the fact that those telling you not to give it to them are not actually lying to you, rather using clever slogans?

The Volt

The article is there on the website:

Address by John Monks, General Secretary, ETUC
10 Jul 2009

President, delegates, fellow guests, thank you for the invitation to address your biennial congress once again.

Two years ago, in Bundoran, I remember praising David Begg’s thoughtful introduction to the report of your Executive Council and in particular the warnings about casino capitalism.

Well, a lot has happened over the last two years, and no one can say that the unions at least didn’t ring the alarm bells.

We warned against this system expressly designed to make rich people richer and trade unions weaker; this system designed to make welfare states cheaper and inequality greater; this system of shareholder value designed in the Reagan / Thatcher era but continued ever since; this system centred in the English-speaking world in New York and London but infecting everywhere, with Dublin as an enthusiastic participant.

But now, this system has had a heart attack. And it is workers who are paying the price – with our taxes, with our wages and pensions, and worst of all, as unemployment soars, with our jobs.

The party caused by casino capitalism is well and truly over.

Actually, I am trying to stop calling it casino capitalism because someone told me that casinos are more efficiently run than many banks – and often more effectively regulated.

And now we say “no return to business as usual” as the banks and other financial complexes, having been bailed out by the taxpayers, try to go back to their old ways, resisting tooth and nail modest proposals for regulation that are being discussed in Brussels and elsewhere.

It is not an exit strategy from Governmrnt spending we want. It is an exit strategy from casino capitalism.

Europe needs to be bold. And not just on banks but on the real economy too.

The European authorities, including national governments, seem nervous in the face of the crisis and are not, just when they need it, showing the necessary ambition and imagination.

Europe, with its funds for farmers, its structural funds and its access to markets, has powered prosperity in many countries. We need now a real recovery plan co-ordinated across the EU. The European Union is like a European trade union; whenever we do things together, we are more effective, more powerful and more impressive than if we act separately. We want a plan which keeps up wages, not bonuses. And a plan which leads to better balanced, more sustainable, greener economies. Less short term speculation. More serious investment in real, sustainable goods and services.

We have been campaigning on these themes and were overwhelmed by the support we received during our days of action in mid-May when we turned out 350,000 workers in 4 European capitals.

President, two years ago, you were also discussing the then named “Reform Treaty”, to become the Lisbon Treaty. On the margins of this Congress you were putting the squeeze on Taoiseach Bertie Ahern not to follow the UK in its “red lines” opt-out of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

You won that one. But the wider issue is still with us, as you very well know.

Now, as a Briton, I wouldn’t presume to try telling the Irish what to do. I think only Saint Patrick and, perhaps, Jack Charlton got away with that. And I don’t want to emulate President Sarkozy either.

But as General Secretary of the ETUC, that counts your Congress as a most valued member, I think I also owe it to you to be clear and frank about where we stand on the EU institutional issue. That is particularly the case as I have been quoted in pitiless detail by some, when it suited.

First, the ETUC supports ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and I hope the Irish people approve it. We don’t say it delivered all what we wanted by a long chalk. It missed some opportunities to reinforce social Europe. But we also said it was a step forward compared to existing provisions, for example in relation to the legal enforcement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, commitments to full employment, the social market economy, and public services. We urged European leaders to use it as the springboard for a more ambitious programme of social progress. We are persistently working on that.

We recently won equal rights for agency workers – a big step for Ireland and the UK – and stronger European Works Councils, so it is ridiculous to say that social Europe is inert. We want more, and want Europe to move forward, not remain bogged down in institutional wrangling, particularly in these perilous economic times.

My next recommendation to the ETUC will be that we move to take on the whole question of shareholder value driven companies. The crisis has vividly illustrated the short-term spivishness of not just the financial markets but of many of our leading companies. We need to build in responsibility not just to shareholders but to workers, communities, countries and the environment. We can’t do that at the national level. But the European level offers a chance for progress.

Second, we have been campaigning for a “Social Progress Protocol”, seeking to rebalance four decisions of the European Court of Justice that we believe have subordinated fundamental workers’ rights to the economic freedoms set down in the Treaties. You had a taste of this with the Irish Ferries case. Those judgments are based on the existing treaties, not on the Lisbon Treaty. The Lisbon Treaty with the newly enforceable Charter will help, not hinder, our position.

We have always been clear that we are not calling for the protocol to be attached to the Lisbon Treaty. Indeed we are the ones who suggested that Croatian accession – or maybe Iceland’s, whichever comes first - may be the right occasion. So there is no connection with the Lisbon Treaty ratification. There is no conditionality in the ETUC’s support for Lisbon.

Third, there is the question of the “Irish guarantees”. We were glad that the Irish Government included workers’ rights as part of its negotiations with the other 26 Member States. It was correct to do so: workers’ rights certainly were a big issue in your referendum a year ago. From the polling I have seen, it was one of the issues of most importance for both the Yes and the No voters. I conclude that people do not think that Lisbon is a threat to workers’ rights but rather that people want more.

And more is what we did not get. That is why we are – I am – disappointed, but not really surprised. The British government – mine - was at the forefront of those who opposed the initial Irish proposals throughout the night during the European Council meeting last December and in the subsequent negotiations that gave us the so-called Solemn Declaration adopted by the Council last month.

The paradox is that the UK, in defending its red lines ostensibly aimed at protecting British industrial relations from foreign interference, in fact is tolerating the Court impinging on British and other European workers’ rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining. But then, maybe it’s not a paradox but just the rule that, given options on the strengthening collective rights at work, the British Government too often chooses the least favourable. I say that with some bitterness.

That will not stop us campaigning for our Social Progress Protocol and for a revision of the posted workers’ Directive whose weakness is at the heart of many of the conflicts before us. The directive originally was meant to set a floor for terms and conditions. The ECJ has turned it into a ceiling and a threat to collective bargaining. It needs changing to provide that posted workers receive at least the rate for the job in the country of destination.

A single labour market in Europe must have adequate traffic rules, or people will turn against it and against Europe. There must be equal pay for equal work. The Lisbon treaty does not solve this problem but our fight goes on. We are saving the EU from itself as well as repairing our fundamental rights.

And here I come to the heart of the argument. Europe is not an a la carte menu where you pick and choose what you want. It is a package that has done great things for Ireland and many other countries and it will need to do more great things before we can exit from this crisis.

European solidarity is essential in the face of the crisis and in support of the hardest hit economies. The adoption of the Lisbon Treaty helps, not hampers that process of solidarity, one reason, incidentally, why the British Conservatives don’t like it.

Anyway its future is in the hands of the Irish people, and the eyes of the whole of Europe will be on you when you go to the polls on October 2. 25 countries have already made their decision and you will make yours. And to those of you who are minded to vote No, no doubt for good trade union reasons, before you vote just have a look at some of those in the rest of Europe who are praying for the same result – the British Conservatives, the narrow nationalists, the racists and the fascists.

Europe is far from perfect but it is a far better deal for working people than any of that lot will offer.

Thank you for your attention and good luck to Irish trade unionists and the whole of Ireland.

http://www.ictu.ie/press/2009/07/10/address-by-john-monks-general-secretary-etuc/

roosh

Voltwad wrote: »

The article is there on the website:

Address by John Monks, General Secretary, ETUC
10 Jul 2009



http://www.ictu.ie/press/2009/07/10/address-by-john-monks-general-secretary-etuc/

And what part of that was lied about?

The Volt

mangaroosh wrote: »

But, just to break it down, just because the head of some Union advocates a Yes vote, it does not necessarily mean that it is good for those in the Union. Afterall, the politicians of France and Holland pushed through the Lisbon Treaty after their voters had voted No, on what it pretty much the same thing. Indeed the Lisbon Treaty is supposed to tackle their concerns. If it had done so adequately, don't you think they should have been given the chance to vote on it again?

No but he's advocating it because he believes it is. Why would they advocate something that wasn't good for their members?

Is it even remotely possible that campaigning for a Yes vote, by the head of the Union, will curry favour with the next government, and there might be something in it for him, as opposed to those he represents?

You demonstrate your conspiracy theorist's side here. People usually come up with conspiracy theories when they don't like the truth, for whatever reason you cannot accept that a man who has to answer to thousands of people all over Europe has his workers and unions interests at heart. Is there no possibility of that?

Also, I am referring to the campaign posters for the No side. Show me any of the lies please.

€1.84 after Lisbon is a lie, question mark or no question mark. There is no possible way that Lisbon can affect our minimum wage and even people on the no side have been quick to move themselves away from this arguement.
Privitisation of Health and Education is a lie. Thee is absolutely nothing in the treaty that even incinuates that Health or Education will be remotely privitised.


You have been shown these lies and all of the other ones i'm not including by other responses on more than one occasion.

Let me ask you also, have you looked at the Yes campaign? Have you scrutinised why they are telling you to vote yes? Have you realised that the reasons they are telling you are just to scare you into voting Yes?

I do not affiliate myself with the Government, I believe Lisbon to be the correct way forward for workers, this country overall and the European Union. I vote yes for my own reasons, no one elses and I most certainly have not been scared into it.

Which is worse do you think: the fact that those looking for increased power over your life are telling you lies to get you to give it to them OR the fact that those telling you not to give it to them are not actually lying to you, rather using clever slogans?

That's a load of nonsense. Anyone with half a brain can go read the treaty, compare it to the lies, see that there is nothing in the treaty to back up the lies of the no side. You are being lied to by the UKIP (The Labour Court itself has had to come out publicly and state that the figures in their leaflets are false so you have a right wing (http://www.thechartergroup.ie/assets/media%20release%20minimum%20wage%20focus%20on%20facts-ignore%20lies.doc), racist bunch of looneys thinking they can tell Paddy what to do and how to vote, evidently they can to a certain extent), Sinn Fein, Joe Higgins, Declan Ganley and a whole bunch of Looney organisations that have never contributed anything to society.

MrMatisse

Dont be intimidated by them.

Setting up a whole thread to attack you. Unreal.

MrMatisse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFd5Cci_pE4

a bit random but hopefully we will be playing this loudly on October 2nd!

The Volt

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Dont be intimidated by them.

Setting up a whole thread to attack you. Unreal.

Them? I'm one person. And I did so because he avoided the topic on more than one occasion.

sceptre

OK guys, we don't set up thread just to poke someone with needles for ignoring points.

Voltwad, while you mightn't like it if mangaroosh repeatedly ignores your point, you don't get to highlight his name in a thread title. Not that difficult to understand.

Really-Stressed, if I need moderator-style input I'll get it from the moderators thank you. If you've a problem with a post, report it to make my job easier, not making intimidation accusations to make my job harder. Not that difficult to understand.