Give me a few good reasons why its in my best interests and others to vote yes?

Johnee · 28-09-2009 4:33pm

One thing that has surprised me about this whole debate is how much the Yes campaign have failed to communicate how much the EU has been responsible for women's rights in Ireland. Before we joined the EEC (as it then was), there was no equality of pay or rights between men and women. Married women had to retire from the civil service for God's sake. Since we joined, our government has been required by EU law to bring in:

*Equal pay for men and women.
*Equal rights for male and female workers.
* Anti-discrimination rules preventing sexual discrimination.
* Equal rights between part-time and full-time workers (which disproprtionately affect women as they are the majority of part-time workers)
* Equal social welfare entitlements for men and women.

Not to mention all the benefits of parental leave and so on that have been brought in by EU law. The EU has shown itself to be far more protective of women's rights, family rights, parents rights and workers rights than the Irish government has ever been of its own accord. And Lisbon continues that process with the Charter and so on. I dont understand how the No side have been successful in painting the EU as some sort of elite conspiracy out to get us when it has shown for 36 years that it is a worthwhile organisation with a strong commitment to social democratic values which has had a real and tangible effect on the lives of women and workers in European countries. And especially countries with governments (like ours has been for a long time) with a more Anglo-American (PD) attitude to workers. Why would that suddenly change? The Yes side has been dismal at communicating tihs (presumably because the parties dont want to be reminded that they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to give women eual rights).

To the OP - The EU has been responsible for a lot of the rights you have today as an Irish woman. The opportunities you got in college have been funded by a lot of EU money, without which our colleges would collapse due to a lack of exchequer funding. You can think of many examples from our lives where its had a postive impact that means it deserves our trust. Trust has to be earned. Our politicians havent done that. The No side hasnt done that. I think the EU has. Lisbon allows that process to continue and makes fundamental in the Charter a lot of the social rights that have been so important for workers and women in Ireland.

There's a lot of Lisbon that's concerned with institutional voting, etc that you really cant pin down precise effects. It doesnt mean Serbia will join. It certainly doesnt mean Turkey will join. In fact, Lisbon creates a blocking minority of four countries and given how many countries are opposed to Turkey's membership (France, Germany, etc), it makes it unlikely that will happen anytime soon, if ever. It means certain decisions can be made more easily. Who knows how they will be made? Based on past experience, you would have to say generally in a positive way (the EU has not only been positive for rights in Ieland, but also has been more positive than the US, etc internationally and leads the Western powers in standards on energy efficiency, in trying to make progress on global warming talks, in efforts to reach fairer agreements for poorer countries on globalisation). I'd prefer to trust the EU to continue doing what it has done successfully for 40 years in raising protection for workers and woman, in encouraging economic development, in supporting free trade and exports (vital for a small country like Ireland) than I would Fianna Fail, or Patricia McKenna, or Coir, or Sinn Fein or Fine Gael, or Anthony Coughlan (who's been claiming the next Treaty will lead to a loss of neutrality and greater militarisation for the last four or five of them).

And if we dont like what happens? Lisbon for the first time lets us leave the EU if that's what we want.

hatrickpatrick · 28-09-2009 4:47pm

Here are the alleged reasons I've seen on Yes posters:
-Ireland needs Europe
-Europe has been good for Ireland
-Women, workers, and children have all benefitted from the EU
-We need a strong voice in Europe

As you can see, points 1, 2, and 3 have absolutely nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty and point 4, whilst true, is actually an argument against signing away our vetoes. Go figure.

If you want real reasons to vote yes, read the treaty or a simplified version of it and decide whether you like the changes it introduces or not. Ignore the posters and campaign slogans from both sides, they're all full of ****.

Euro_Kraut · 28-09-2009 5:29pm

caseyann wrote: »

Where did i say anyone shouldnt be allowed to travel and work? I am merely stating the amount and the cost to which Irish people will loose.

I got the impression from your opening post that you did not think that Non-Irish people should get jobs ahead of Irish people. Correct me if I have picked that up wrong.

I can understand you veiw point to a certain extent, but its worth considering that if we were to apply restrictions to other in Europe they would apply the same to us. Also, I think morally that we couldn't expect to be allowed to emmigrate to the UK and elsewhere and than get upset when people come here.

ShooterSF · 28-09-2009 5:48pm

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

I got the impression from your opening post that you did not think that Non-Irish people should get jobs ahead of Irish people. Correct me if I have picked that up wrong.

I can understand you veiw point to a certain extent, but its worth considering that if we were to apply restrictions to other in Europe they would apply the same to us. Also, I think morally that we couldn't expect to be allowed to emmigrate to the UK and elsewhere and than get upset when people come here.

That's a good point. I was listening to a chap on newstalk a few days ago giving out about our immigration policy. I found myself nodding in agreement to a lot of his points. Then he was asked his opinion on illegal Irish in the states and I nearly crashed the car when I heard him say that was a different situation (OK legally it is but that's not where he went with it). It's amazing how patriotism can be so blinding. Somehow he managed to have two opposite opinions on the same subject matter depending on who was involved. I would have had much more respect for the guy if he had said they should be deported and banned from the states.

PaulieD · 28-09-2009 8:13pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I have a problem with this premise. Can you explain how EU membership pushed you out of a job?

Simple. The influx of cheap labour from the accession states.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 28-09-2009 8:17pm

PaulieD wrote: »

Simple. The influx of cheap labour from the accession states.

You mean when we had virtually full employment?

PaulieD · 28-09-2009 8:17pm

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

To discriminate in the provision of employment based on nationality is illegal.

Not in Germany. Or Austria. The accession states citizens need a work permit to commence employment. Funny that the Europhiles never mention that.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 28-09-2009 8:18pm

PaulieD wrote: »

Not in Germany. Or Austria. The accession states citizens need a work permit to commence employment. Funny that the Europhiles never mention that.

We were talking about Ireland...

And even in Germany and Austria I'm pretty sure it's illegal to discriminate between 2 people purely on the basis of nationality, all other things being equal. Open to correction on that though.

PaulieD · 28-09-2009 8:23pm

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Just wondering do you think Irish people should be allowed to travel to the UK and be treated as equal in applying for jobs?

The Common Travel Area between both countries predates their EU membership. It has nothing what so ever to do with the EU.

PaulieD · 28-09-2009 8:26pm

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

We were talking about Ireland...

And even in Germany and Austria I'm pretty sure it's illegal to discriminate between 2 people purely on the basis of nationality, all other things being equal. Open to correction on that though.

Employers have to prove that no German citizens are either qualified or available for the job before emplying a citizen from the accession states.

PaulieD · 28-09-2009 8:32pm

View wrote: »

We copied the British cabinet's decision when deciding to allow unrestricted access from the 10 accession states in 2004 and we copied them again in deciding to restrict access from the 2 latest in 2007.

You don't seriously think that the Government ignored the British cabinet's decision when making its own "independent" decision, do you?

Some of the politicos on these boards are very badly informed. It was Brian Cowens decision to open our borders to the accession states. He presumed at the time, that the UK would issue a work permit scheme.

Oifig An Aire Gnóthaí Eachtracha
Baile Athá Cliath 2

Mr. Tom Kitt T.D.
Minister for Labour, Trade & Consumer Affairs
Davitt House
65A Adelaide Road
Dublin 2

12 March 2002

Our Ref: EU20018

Dear Tom,

I refer to your letter dated 6th March concerning a query from XXXXXXXXX in relation to EU enlargement and the access of citizens of new member states to the rest of the EU.

Ireland took the decision to allow the citizens of new EU member states full and free access to live and work here from the first day of accession. I took the opportunity to inform the Foreign Minister of each candidate country directly in a letter last June.
I understand that three other EU member states, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden have also taken a similar decision to us.

The rest of the existing Member States have reserved the right to restrict the access of citizens of new member states (excluding Cyprus and Malta) for up to seven years from the date of accession. This position reflects the fact that certain member states have serious concerns that immediate access could result in distortions to domestic labour markets. In fact, authoritative studies predict that such severe distortions are unlikely and it is quite possible that Member States will be in a position to open up their borders sooner than the maximum of seven years.

I trust that this satisfactorily answers XXXXXXXX’s query.

With kind regards

Yours sincerely

Brian Cowen T.D.
Minister for Foreign Affairs

K-9 · 28-09-2009 8:39pm

PaulieD wrote: »

Some of the politicos on these boards are very badly informed. It was Brian Cowens decision to open our borders to the accession states. He presumed at the time, that the UK would issue a work permit scheme.

Oifig An Aire Gnóthaí Eachtracha
Baile Athá Cliath 2

Mr. Tom Kitt T.D.
Minister for Labour, Trade & Consumer Affairs
Davitt House
65A Adelaide Road
Dublin 2

12 March 2002

Our Ref: EU20018

Dear Tom,

I refer to your letter dated 6th March concerning a query from XXXXXXXXX in relation to EU enlargement and the access of citizens of new member states to the rest of the EU.

Ireland took the decision to allow the citizens of new EU member states full and free access to live and work here from the first day of accession. I took the opportunity to inform the Foreign Minister of each candidate country directly in a letter last June.
I understand that three other EU member states, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden have also taken a similar decision to us.

The rest of the existing Member States have reserved the right to restrict the access of citizens of new member states (excluding Cyprus and Malta) for up to seven years from the date of accession. This position reflects the fact that certain member states have serious concerns that immediate access could result in distortions to domestic labour markets. In fact, authoritative studies predict that such severe distortions are unlikely and it is quite possible that Member States will be in a position to open up their borders sooner than the maximum of seven years.

I trust that this satisfactorily answers XXXXXXXX’s query.

With kind regards

Yours sincerely

Brian Cowen T.D.
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Surprised it took you so long to find this thread Paulie.

Do you have a link for that letter?

PaulieD · 28-09-2009 8:48pm

[quote=K-9;62301028]Do you have a link for that letter? [/quote]

It is freely available on oireachtas.ie . I cannot provide the exact link as it is a word document. A quick google and you will find it.

K-9 · 28-09-2009 9:14pm

PaulieD wrote: »

It is freely available on oireachtas.ie . I cannot provide the exact link as it is a word document. A quick google and you will find it.

Couldn't find it by Google. What section do you go to on the site?

PaulieD · 28-09-2009 9:23pm

K-9 wrote: »

Couldn't find it by Google. What section do you go to on the site?

http://www.google.ie/#hl=en&ei=JBvBStjpKY_W-QbzycS6AQ&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=brian+cowen%27s+letter+to+tom+kitt+accession&spell=1&fp=e51dcc0862117ee1

Third from bottom.

prinz · 28-09-2009 9:35pm

PaulieD wrote: »

http://www.google.ie/#hl=en&ei=JBvBStjpKY_W-QbzycS6AQ&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=brian+cowen%27s+letter+to+tom+kitt+accession&spell=1&fp=e51dcc0862117ee1

Third from bottom.

The Annual Report 2002/3 of the Joint Committee on European Affairs?

What page is the letter on?

K-9 · 28-09-2009 9:40pm

If it is this, www.oireachtas.ie/documents/.../Annual_Report_02_03.doc I couldn't find it.

28-09-2009 9:47pm

PaulieD wrote: »

Employers have to prove that no German citizens are either qualified or available for the job before emplying a citizen from the accession states.

Ive never heard that. Im not saying its not true but I havent come across it. Article 39 of the EC Treaty guarantees the free movement of workers. Any restrictions on this freedom are narrowly construed.

Specifically:

For workers, this freedom has existed since the foundation of the European Community in 1957. It is laid down in Article 39 of the EC Treaty and it entails:

* the right to look for a job in another Member State;
* the right to work in another Member State;
* the right to reside there for that purpose;
* the right to remain there;
* the right to equal treatment in respect of access to employment, working conditions and all other advantages which could help to facilitate the worker's integration in the host Member State.

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/industrialrelations/dictionary/definitions/FREEMOVEMENTOFWORKERS.htm

prinz · 28-09-2009 9:57pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Ive never heard that. Im not saying its not true but I havent come across it.

Actually the case in Germany is pretty much identical to our own work visa programme. The employers don't have "to prove" anything, other than that the job was advertised for a period of time. In Ireland AFAIK it's three days, I'm not 100% but I think it's the same in Germany.

It becomes a load of hysterical nonsense, that makes it look like Germany is somehow 'protecting' their own, when it comes to jobs, whereas Ireland is not. Typical foolishness. Poor Paulie, perhaps he should go to Germany and see for himself the number of non nationals working happily away.

PaulieD · 28-09-2009 10:15pm

prinz wrote: »

Actually the case in Germany is pretty much identical to our own work visa programme. The employers don't have "to prove" anything, other than that the job was advertised for a period of time. In Ireland AFAIK it's three days, I'm not 100% but I think it's the same in Germany.

It becomes a load of hysterical nonsense, that makes it look like Germany is somehow 'protecting' their own, when it comes to jobs, whereas Ireland is not. Typical foolishness. Poor Paulie, perhaps he should go to Germany and see for himself the number of non nationals working happily away.

Of course there are foreigners working away, Germany cannot fulfill its labour needs be itself. But, Germany has not had the same numbers of eastern europeans flocking to their shores, per capita, as Ireland. The German employer has to prove that he could not find a German citizen suitable for the job before hiring a citizen of the accession states.

Ireland should have adopted a similar scheme.

Boskowski · 28-09-2009 10:15pm

caseyann wrote: »

Where did i say anyone shouldnt be allowed to travel and work? I am merely stating the amount and the cost to which Irish people will loose.

I wouldn't say it's English or Literature or any of the social sciences anyway

PaulieD · 28-09-2009 10:16pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Ive never heard that. Im not saying its not true but I havent come across it. Article 39 of the EC Treaty guarantees the free movement of workers. Any restrictions on this freedom are narrowly construed.

Specifically:

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/industrialrelations/dictionary/definitions/FREEMOVEMENTOFWORKERS.htm

Which Germany opted out of, thus implementing a work permit scheme.

Boskowski · 28-09-2009 10:18pm

PaulieD wrote: »

Simple. The influx of cheap labour from the accession states.

So she has a bunch of degrees and yet the influx of cheap unqualified workers from the new EU states has cost her a job?
Something doesn't add up.

PaulieD · 28-09-2009 10:19pm

prinz wrote: »

Actually the case in Germany is pretty much identical to our own work visa programme. The employers don't have "to prove" anything, other than that the job was advertised for a period of time. In Ireland AFAIK it's three days, I'm not 100% but I think it's the same in Germany.

It is not identical to our own work permit scheme.

Work permits - main features

Work permits are available for occupations with an annual salary of €30,000 or more
They are also available for a very restricted number of occupations with salaries below €30,000. They will not be available for new applications received on or after 1 June 2009 - see below
Work permits will not be considered for occupations listed as ineligible for work permits - see below
The work permit is granted for 2 years initially, and then for a further 3 years. After 5 years you may no longer need a work permit - see 'Renewal of work permits' below.
A labour market needs test (see below) is required with all work permit applications
Either the employer or employee can apply for the employment permit, based on an offer of employment
It will be granted to the employee and will include a statement of the employee's rights and entitlements
The employer is prohibited from deducting recruitment expenses from the employee's pay or retaining the employee's personal documents

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/employment/migrant-workers/employment-permits/work_permits

Germany

As before, workers from the aforementioned countries may only take up a job in Germany under certain preconditions (e.g. within the scope of service contracts as seasonal workers, or as IT specialists or engineers). The requirements and procedures for obtaining a work permit did not change when the EU was enlarged, but in some cases it is easier for the new EU citizens to obtain an open ended work permit: In addition, workers from the accession countries are given preference over citizens of third countries when trying to access the German labour market. The Agentur für Arbeit can answer more wide-ranging questions on the possibilities for working in Germany and on work permits. Detailed information can also be found on the website of the Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft [Federal Ministry of Economics] under the heading ‘Informationen über die Anwendung des EU-Beitrittsvertrages bei der Beschäftigung von Staatsangehörigen der Beitrittsstaaten’ [Information on the application of the EU Accession Treaty when employing citizens of accession states].

http://ec.europa.eu/eures/main.jsp?catId=8105&acro=living&lang=en&parentId=7745&countryId=DE&living=

PaulieD · 28-09-2009 10:24pm

realcam wrote: »

So she has a bunch of degrees and yet the influx of cheap unqualified workers from the new EU states has cost her a job?

The answer is in your question, they are cheaper.

zenno · 28-09-2009 11:04pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

So someone who is better at a job than you doesnt deserve a promotion because of their race/nationality, even if they work harder or pay more taxes?

i cant believe what you've written, is just very wrong

im sorry to say it, but no wonder you lost your job

did you bother reading the linked material i provided?

/

well it sure looks like ei.sdraob cannot answer a simple question, thats typical anyway. answer the person properly and stop making out all no voters are sick or stupid.

Boskowski · 28-09-2009 11:05pm

PaulieD wrote: »

The answer is in your question, they are cheaper.

No it isn't. The keywords are degrees on the one side and cheap & unqualified on the other. They're not exactly a match.

PaulieD · 28-09-2009 11:16pm

realcam wrote: »

No it isn't. The keywords are degrees on the one side and cheap & unqualified on the other. They're not exactly a match.

Employers will employ those who are cheapest.

Construction industry;

Paddy Kenneally from Crusheen said that the findings of a court hearing into the scandal had never been made public.
The fact is the Turkish workers were only being paid two euro an hour and if this type of conduct is tolerated it spells a disastrous future for Irish construction workers, he said.
The company behind these appalling rates of pay was based in both Turkey and Germany and it flouted every rule and regulation of Irish construction employment.
The fact is there are hundreds of thousands of Turkish workers willing to work for low wages in the EU and this aspect of the current Lisbon Treaty is being hushed up and pushed under the carpet.

http://www.teameurope.info/node/633

Hospitality sector;

MORE THAN half of immigrants working in Irish restaurants earn less than the minimum wage, according to a new report.
Some 43 per cent also work more than the legal limit of 48 hours per week, while 85 per cent do not receive overtime rates or extra pay for Sunday work.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1217/1229035813353.html

I could go on, but I have made my point. The Nice treaty and the accession of the eastern european states, has been a disaster for the average worker. Mass immigration facilitated the lowering of wages, whilst pushing up costs of living. The only ones who profited were big businesses and slum landlords, whilst the working the middle class paid the social costs.

Euro_Kraut · 28-09-2009 11:22pm

PaulieD wrote: »

I could go on, but I have made my point. The Nice treaty and the accession of the eastern european states, has been a disaster for the average worker. Mass immigration facilitated the lowering of wages, whilst pushing up costs of living. The only ones who profited were big businesses and slum landlords, whilst the working the middle class paid the social costs.

That is nonsense. How could it lower wages while pushing up costs at the same time?

Ireland faced a severe labour shortage at the time. I am glad we had the opportunity to received migrant workers. The Irish had become too precious to work the 'hard' jobs and migrants weer happy to fill the vacancies that existed. It enhanced our nation both economically and culturally.

PaulieD · 28-09-2009 11:30pm

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

That is nonsense. How could it lower wages while pushing up costs at the same time?

Costs of living, rent etc. Look at prices in 2004 compared to now. It is most certainly not nonsense.

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Ireland faced a severe labour shortage at the time. I am glad we had the opportunity to received migrant workers. The Irish had become too precious to work the 'hard' jobs and migrants weer happy to fill the vacancies that existed. It enhanced our nation both economically and culturally.

No, no it did not. Immigrants, have taken more than they have put in. Culture in eastern europe?:pac:

Give me a few good reasons why its in my best interests and others to vote yes?

Comments