Getting NO Campaigners onto Boards.ie today - Joe Higgins confirmed

Darragh

Hello

It's been pointed out in some threads that I've not had any official campaigners from the NO side giving their view or answering questions.

We have sent lots of emails but unfortunately with no replies, particularly to Cóir and other high profile parties.

However, that doesn't mean I won't try some more.

So, who would you like me to talk to on the No side, from what parties/organisations and what would you like me to ask them.

Absolutely 100% no promises (I'm actually on a day off tomorrow) but in the interest of fairness, if I can, I will.

Let me know.

Thanks

Darragh

squod

Workers party? Haven't heard much mention of them here.
More particularly their views on how voting will change under the Lisbon treaty, it's effect on democracy etc.
Many thanks.

prinz

Joe Higgins. Don't have a question, but he's usually entertaining to listen to. One of the best orators to grace Irish politics in a long time. Pity I don't agree with him very often

Edit: As an elected MEP would he not favour the Parliament having more power? Or does that not figure in his views on Lisbon?

ei.sdraob

http://www.communistpartyofireland.ie/

contact emails down bottom of page

Darragh

prinz wrote: »

Joe Higgins. Don't have a question, but he's usually entertaining to listen to. One of the best orators to grace Irish politics in a long time. Pity I don't agree with him very often

Email has been sent to Joe and the Socialist party

Euro_Kraut

I'm sure it will be possible to get ahold of someone willing to speak to camera in Sinn Fein.

My question: Why have they opposed every European treaty since 1973?

Rb

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

I'm sure it will be possible to get ahold of someone willing to speak to camera in Sinn Fein.

My question: Why have they opposed every European treaty since 1973?

Indeed, why are these people trying to stop EU progress at every hurdle while at the same time claiming to be "Pro-EU".

Red Sleeping Beauty

Vincent Browne.

hatrickpatrick

Richard Boyd Barrett is with the People Before Profit Alliance and he's certainly not someone who would lie in an interview or make up false facts as some no campaigners have been accused of doing. He's currently a councillor for Dun Laoghaire.

Euro_Kraut

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Richard Boyd Barrett is with the People Before Profit Alliance and he's certainly not someone who would lie in an interview or make up false facts as some no campaigners have been accused of doing. He's currently a councillor for Dun Laoghaire.

I second RBB as speaker.

My question for him: What exactly would have to change in this treaty to convince you to vote Yes?

moondogspot

I'd be interested to hear Vincent Browne

pog it

Patricia McKenna and Joe Higgins. There are less No voices this year and they have a lot of ground to cover in fairness to them so I will forgive them if they can't come on here tomorrow. But fingers crossed.

The Yes campaign are all over this place like political fleas.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Joe Higgins has said that the Lisbon Treaty is a relic of neo-liberal policies. Last year Sarkozy said that "Laissez faire is finished". Darragh, can you ask Mr Higgins does Sarkozy's comments last year not weigh upon the EU and its future with regards to the economic policies. If someone like Sarkozy is that critical of the neo-liberal policies then is the EU not heading in a different direction rather than more of the same ?

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2008/09/25/Sarkozy-Self-regulation-is-finished/UPI-97641222389150/

The Volt

Joe Higgins is pretty much anti-everything. Never hard to guess his agenda.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Voltwad wrote: »

Joe Higgins is pretty much anti-everything. Never hard to guess his agenda.

Have you a point here ? Have you a question or a suggestion for the thread ?
Fianna Fail will pretty much say yes to anything and everything without such as the bank guarantee last year. Blah blah blah, Higgins represents welfare mothers, Cowen represents wbankers and Jim Corr represents whatever.

Why can't people just look at the arguments and deal with the points rather than resort to the character assassinations ?

The Volt

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Have you a point here ? Have you a question or a suggestion for the thread ?
Fianna Fail will pretty much say yes to anything and everything without such as the bank guarantee last year. Blah blah blah, Higgins represents welfare mothers, Cowen represents wbankers and Jim Corr represents whatever.

Why can't people just look at the arguments and deal with the points rather than resort to the character assassinations ?

If Higgins comes on I'd like to know seeing as how the socialists opposed pretty much everything EU fron the off would he be of the opinion that we've flourished to an extent in the EU?

Also, relating to his posters 'No to privitisation of health and education'. How would a ratifies treaty make this possible?

Lastly, if 'EU policies don't work' is his slogan then is he implying that he would rather scrap EU membership altogether?

Red Sleeping Beauty

Lets see what Darragh can come up with then.

Bit of contact info for him - http://www.europarl.ie/irish_con_dub.html#joe

Kalashnikov_Kid

That tosspot UKIP leader.

hatrickpatrick

Oh yeah sorry, contact list:
http://www.dlrcoco.ie/cllrs/alphalist.htm

Richard's about half way down (PBP)

K-9

Kalashnikov_Kid wrote: »

That tosspot UKIP leader.

He seems to have cut back on the public appearances!

nesf

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Joe Higgins has said that the Lisbon Treaty is a relic of neo-liberal policies. Last year Sarkozy said that "Laissez faire is finished". Darragh, can you ask Mr Higgins does Sarkozy's comments last year not weigh upon the EU and its future with regards to the economic policies. If someone like Sarkozy is that critical of the neo-liberal policies then is the EU not heading in a different direction rather than more of the same ?

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2008/09/25/Sarkozy-Self-regulation-is-finished/UPI-97641222389150/

What's bizarre is that neo-liberal policies were very much an Anglo-American phenomenon and the average EU country was much more centrist in it's economics. If anything the last two years have consisted of "we told you so!" messages of triumph coming out of the anti-neo-liberal bastions of Germany and France etc. The one thing that you can't accuse the EU of is being dominated completely by the UK which makes his comments a tad puzzling really.

OldJay

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Richard Boyd Barrett is with the People Before Profit Alliance and he's certainly not someone who would lie in an interview or make up false facts

???
Isn't he doing just that by dismissing the guarantees and delivering the bilge about neutrality and conscription?

MrMatisse

Day before the vote,

Oh hang on maybe we should get a spokesperson for the no side too.

Euro_Kraut

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Day before the vote,

Oh hang on maybe we should get a spokesperson for the no side too.

Darragh is clearly part of the New World Order hell bent on forcing Lisbon through.

MrMatisse

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Darragh is clearly part of the New World Order hell bent on forcing Lisbon through.

You said it.:D

RandomName2

Rb wrote: »

Indeed, why are these people trying to stop EU progress at every hurdle while at the same time claiming to be "Pro-EU".

Because the EU is no longer the EU after Lisbon.

And Sinn Fein (and possibly Socialists, who cares?) are anti-EU anyway.

PopeBuckfastXVI

RandomName2 wrote: »

Because the EU is no longer the EU after Lisbon.

I definitely missed that article...

Neamhshuntasach

http://www.eirigi.org/contact_us/index.htm

RandomName2

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I definitely missed that article...

Did you miss the article whereby the EC was not the EC after Maastricht?

Sorry, I forgot, unless there is a name change there is no difference. Unlike Constitution Treaty and Lisbon Treaty.

PopeBuckfastXVI

RandomName2 wrote: »

Did you miss the article whereby the EC was not the EC after Maastricht?

Sorry, I forgot, unless there is a name change there is no difference. Unlike Constitution Treaty and Lisbon Treaty.

So what is the EU? The exact current set of treaties, forever, if one word changes it ceases to be the EU? What does it become, pray tell?

RandomName2

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

So what is the EU? The exact current set of treaties, forever, if one word changes it ceases to be the EU? What does it become, pray tell?

Well the European constitution is amended by Lisbon as it was by Maastricht - and it is pretty much a complete overhaul.


Ever closer union, my friends! Onwards!

Darragh

Folks

It's been confirmed that I have a few minutes with Joe Higgins today at 2pm. Thanks for all the questions - if you have any more, please do let me know.

Darragh

sceptre

Darragh wrote: »

Folks

It's been confirmed that I have a few minutes with Joe Higgins today at 2pm. Thanks for all the questions - if you have any more, please do let me know.

Darragh

I'm sure it's been asked up the page but I'd particularly like to see/hear Joe outline his views on how Lisbon is going to negatively affect worker's rights.

I doubt you'll have the time to be technical (and as you say you're going in as a layman) but if he mentions the Laval court case (the 1.84 minimum wage thing), it doesn't apply here as we have a minimum wage in law. I'd love to hear his views beyond that because no-one appears to have asked him. To save time (if you want to throw 30 seconds at it), the trigger phrase from the interviewer after his outline would be "But we have a minimum wage defined in law here, don't we?" He should rise well to that, it'll be something very important and perky that pretty much no-one else has bothered to ask him (it's a relevant question, trust me, I wouldn't lead you up the garden path).

Well, that's my dream with the JH interview. Kudos on getting him regardless Darragh, he's a good and entertaining interviewee.

Dinner

Any chance you could ask him has he ever been in favour of an EU treaty?

turgon

+1 to Sceptres question. Needs to be asked.

Sam Vimes

sceptre wrote: »

I'm sure it's been asked up the page but I'd particularly like to see/hear Joe outline his views on how Lisbon is going to negatively affect worker's rights.

I doubt you'll have the time to be technical (and as you say you're going in as a layman) but if he mentions the Laval court case (the 1.84 minimum wage thing), it doesn't apply here as we have a minimum wage in law. I'd love to hear his views beyond that because no-one appears to have asked him. To save time (if you want to throw 30 seconds at it), the trigger phrase from the interviewer after his outline would be "But we have a minimum wage defined in law here, don't we?" He should rise well to that, it'll be something very important and perky that pretty much no-one else has bothered to ask him (it's a relevant question, trust me, I wouldn't lead you up the garden path).

Well, that's my dream with the JH interview. Kudos on getting him regardless Darragh, he's a good and entertaining interviewee.

Someone did mention that on the today FM debate and whoever it was (wasn't Joe, can't remember who) started waffling about some workers getting about €20 an hour as part of union agreements etc and foreign workers being able to undercut that. What that has to do with the Lisbon treaty is anyone's guess

ArmaniJeanss

Does he have any second thoughts on his opposition to previous treaties, does he acknowledge that he was mistaken at the time on what he foretold would happen after Nice, Maastricht etc?

The Volt

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62338456&postcount=16

Just a link to a previous post that I made, would love to know hid thoughts.

Thanks Darragh

Sam Vimes

Voltwad wrote: »

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62338456&postcount=16

Just a link to a previous post that I made, would love to know hid thoughts.

Thanks Darragh

I've heard his answer to this one: "Also, relating to his posters 'No to privitisation of health and education'. How would a ratifies treaty make this possible?"

He says that we're losing our veto over health and education matters and that that could lead to it. Blitzkrieg seems to have dealt with it nicely though so if you're going to ask him the question ask him about the whole article please:

http://ww.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62246848&postcount=28

The Council shall also act unanimously for the negotiation and conclusion of agreements:
(a) in the field of trade in cultural and audiovisual services, where these agreements risk prejudicing
the Union's cultural and linguistic diversity;
(b) in the field of trade in social, education and health services, where these agreements risk seriously
disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member
States to deliver them.

Soldie

From what I can understand Joe objects to the treaty for two main reasons, and I'd like for him to clarify his positions on them.

1. That the treaty doesn't do enough for workers.

If this assumption is correct then it follows that his objection is not based what the treaty does, but based on what it does not do. If my assumption is incorrect then it follows that he feels as though there is something in the treaty that negatively affects workers. Can he clarify this?

2. That passing the Lisbon treaty will lead to the privatisation of healthcare and education (and increase neo-liberalism).

What specific part of the treaty increases the likelihood of healthcare and education being privatised? What is neo-liberal about the ECB meddling with interest rates in an attempt to stimulate EU economies?

Darragh

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Day before the vote,

Oh hang on maybe we should get a spokesperson for the no side too.

Or maybe the spokesperson for the No side finally got back to me. Well, one of the over 15 I contacted.


Thanks all for the questions. Off to do the interview now. Will try get it live as soon as I can.

free-man

I love the way we have the Yes side making suggestions for a No campaigner.

Communist party of Ireland - come on!

If that was the case I nominate Bridget Laffan, except she gets to be cross examined by a No campaigner

Red Sleeping Beauty

sceptre wrote: »

I'm sure it's been asked up the page but I'd particularly like to see/hear Joe outline his views on how Lisbon is going to negatively affect worker's rights.

I doubt you'll have the time to be technical (and as you say you're going in as a layman) but if he mentions the Laval court case (the 1.84 minimum wage thing), it doesn't apply here as we have a minimum wage in law. I'd love to hear his views beyond that because no-one appears to have asked him. To save time (if you want to throw 30 seconds at it), the trigger phrase from the interviewer after his outline would be "But we have a minimum wage defined in law here, don't we?" He should rise well to that, it'll be something very important and perky that pretty much no-one else has bothered to ask him (it's a relevant question, trust me, I wouldn't lead you up the garden path).

Well, that's my dream with the JH interview. Kudos on getting him regardless Darragh, he's a good and entertaining interviewee.

The 1.84 min wage thing is on a Coir poster and has nothing to do with Laval.
(At least that's what I read here before.)

Higgins doesn't speak for Coir.

prinz

Alan Rouge wrote: »

The 1.84 min wage thing is on a Coir poster and has nothing to do with Laval.
(At least that's what I read here before.)

Higgins doesn't speak for Coir.

“The poster … asks a crucially important question: how can we protect the right to earn a living wage when the EU Court is repeatedly undermining that right?” said Cóir spokesman Brian Hickey....

“€1.84 is the average of the hourly minimum wage rates set by the EU's 12 Accession countries - mostly from Eastern Europe. Their wage rates were obtained from Eurostat."

http://www.sbpost.ie/breakingnews/ireland/eycweyojqlkf/

That is where €1.84 comes from, it appears nowhere in the Laval ruling, however Cóir and Joe Higgins like to use the Laval case as somehow undermining our national legal minimum wage. It doesn't. Our minimum wage is set in Dublin. Brussels has no say on what our minimum wage must be. Laval has no bearing on the raising or lowering of the minimum wage. What the Laval ruling stated was the Court had no authority to force a company pay staff more than x amount, when in Sweden there is no legal minimum wage.

Red Sleeping Beauty

prinz wrote: »

http://www.sbpost.ie/breakingnews/ireland/eycweyojqlkf/

That is where €1.84 comes from, it appears nowhere in the Laval ruling, however Cóir and Joe Higgins like to use the Laval case as somehow undermining our national legal minimum wage. It doesn't. Our minimum wage is set in Dublin. Brussels has no say on what our minimum wage must be. Laval has no bearing on the raising or lowering of the minimum wage. What the Laval ruling stated was the Court had no authority to force a company pay staff more than x amount, when in Sweden there is no legal minimum wage.

Yes exactly prinz, you've proved my point. Joe Higgins didn't make the 1.84 claim but sceptre there has festered it upon Higgins - "if he mentions the Laval court case (the 1.84 minimum wage thing)".

OldJay

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Yes exactly prinz, you've proved my point. Joe Higgins didn't make the 1.84 claim but sceptre there has festered it upon Higgins - "if he mentions the Laval court case (the 1.84 minimum wage thing)".

You will actually find that 'No Higgins' did try to argue this case when up against Pat Cox in the Primetime debates last week on RTE.

prinz

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Yes exactly prinz, you've proved my point. Joe Higgins didn't make the 1.84 claim but sceptre there has festered it upon Higgins - "if he mentions the Laval court case (the 1.84 minimum wage thing)".

The problem with your point is that they are two sides of the same coin. Higgins argues that under Laval our minimum wage is undermined and in danger of being scrapped/significantly lowered/undercut etc.The only difference between Higgins and Cóir is that Cóir put a figure on it. Higgins argues the same basic point however.

RandomName2

prinz wrote: »

The problem with your point is that they are two sides of the same coin. Higgins argues that under Laval our minimum wage is undermined and in danger of being scrapped/significantly lowered/undercut etc.The only difference between Higgins and Cóir is that Cóir put a figure on it. Higgins argues the same basic point however.

Specifically COIR argue this in relation to migrant workers working in Ireland being potentially paid the same as their own national wage.

Of course, that is not the impression they give in their posters.

To tell you the truth, I actually don't know if this extended version of their argument is correct or not.

PopeBuckfastXVI

RandomName2 wrote: »

To tell you the truth, I actually don't know if this extended version of their argument is correct or not.

It's not.

moogester

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

It's not.

You cant just say its not without proof to back up your claim.

Sam Vimes

moogester wrote: »

You cant just say its not without proof to back up your claim.

Ireland's minimum wage is €8.65. Lisbon does not change that. Connecting the Laval case to Lisbon doesn't even make sense because it has already happened and therefore cannot be allowed to happen through voting yes to Lisbon