Joe Higgins answers Boards.ie members questions about the Lisbon Treaty

Darragh

I met Joe Higgins of the Socialist Party earlier today to ask him the questions put to him and other campaigners in this thread.

Though up the walls busy, Joe was polite, courteous, answered every question put to him and gave me a full 35 minutes for all the questions I could ask.

I'm converting and uploading at the moment - because the interview is so long, I've had to cut it into 4 parts for You Tube. I hope it all makes sense.

Part 1:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-NIsqqqHcg

part 2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6ou_WqzuA8

part 3:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6F21nog4E8

part 4:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4KMy39JcXo

prinz

Thanks Darragh, good job again. These interviews should be a regular feature if you ask me.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Joe says he was elected to the EP on the back of his opposition to the Lisbon treaty.

Does that mean that everyone else was elected on the back of their support for it!?

Darragh

prinz wrote: »

Thanks Darragh, good job again. These interviews should be a regular feature if you ask me.

If only it was part of the day job

Seriously though, I'm only a guy with a camera. Anyone can do these. I'd back you all the way from the "official Boards.ie Ltd" viewpoint if you let me know.

I'd love to see one of these a week or a fortnight.

My name is URL

The man does a good interview, he comes across as alot more level-headed and honest compared to other politicians.

PopeBuckfastXVI

He doesn't believe giving countries a voting weight according to their population is 'in the interests of democracy'...

:rolleyes:

PopeBuckfastXVI

EP has no legitimacy because we elect a majority of 'right wing' politicians to it...

amacachi

Finished the first video and he has yet to mention a single thing in the Treaty. Thanks for these.

spadder

Good interview Daragh, I'd say we'll hear you on the airwaves soon enough?

bnev

My name is URL wrote: »

The man does a good interview, he comes across as alot more level-headed and honest compared to other politicians.

Yeah he seems a lot more level-headed. I am prepared to take his overall points on board a lot faster than a lot of the other No campaigners.

Doesn't mean we can't disagree with his fundamental beliefs :-)

My name is URL

amacachi wrote: »

Finished the first video and he has yet to mention a single thing in the Treaty. Thanks for these.

Does every single matter that people have concerns about need to be something that's "in the Treaty"?

You have to understand that alot of people believe that handing power to the people is more important than handing it to a central union. There is no denying that big business is a driving force in politics, and big business does not usually have the interests of the people at heart.

Whatever is contained in the Treaty is not going to blatantly mention a shift in power that disenfranchises Joe Soap. The idea of taking a stance against a bigger long term agenda is not one that should be dismissed as moot, at least not for those that believe they'll have limited opportunity to air their views again any time soon.

/ opinion

Darragh

spadder wrote: »

Good interview Daragh, I'd say we'll hear you on the airwaves soon enough?

--off topic--

Erm. I dunno. In fairness, I do get asked from time to time but I don't feel I have that much to contribute. It's great being able to talk about Boards.ie and that sort of stuff.

There are those who'd consider me a media whore (was on Morning Ireland this morning talking Google Wave) but I never chase, only accept invites.

Have to get rid of me culchie accent before you hear me more

--off topic--

The Volt

What a load of nonsense about the privitising health and education

Soldie

He has said little to nothing about the treaty itself - he just keeps droning on and on and on about multi-national corporations, workers, neo-liberalism and right-wing politics. His cheap rhetoric is bemusing, given the fact that actual neo-liberal economists were fiercely critical of pre-financial crisis macroeconomics (and remain fiercely critical of governments' subsequent handling of said crisis). His answers just smack of political oppurtunism. He doesn't oppose the treaty, he's just disgruntled that nobody takes his absurd views seriously - but why would they? I'm inclined to suggest that this thread would be better suited to the 'Conspiracy Theories' forum.

prinz

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

EP has no legitimacy because we elect a majority of 'right wing' politicians to it...

Yeah, that was a bit of a laugh out loud moment alright....

bnev wrote: »

Yeah he seems a lot more level-headed.

My name is URL wrote: »

The man does a good interview, he comes across as alot more level-headed and honest compared to other politicians.

+1, I don't agree with his politics but I give him a lot of respect as a politician and speaker. He says his bit and that's it, none of the hysterics of most politicians ( of all sides and political beliefs ) plus he really used to enliven the Dáil from time to time with his wit. Sorely lacking now.:mad:

Off topic bit now, but I think interviews like these are what's really needed. It is so refreshing to have a question asked and time for the interviewee to respond in full, without being cut across, having another question asked while they are answering the previous one, being rushed because the ad break is coming, or having three or four people just talking over each other. RTÉ's political coverage for the last couple of years has gone rapidly downhill IMO. Even Prime Time is done on a stopwatch basis it seems to me, everything is "in one sentence sum up..." or "in 30 seconds tell us.." it really seems to me that mainstream media, tv and radio, really fear losing the attention of viewers and listeners when it comes to politics these days, perhaps they have a point. But I for one would much rather watch these interviews. Major coup for boards.ie in my book. Heard more about Joe's thoughts on the EU etc., there than I think I ever have before.


"The next phase.." sounds a bit ominous though

Edit:- I like how he completely avoided the figure of €1.84, he wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.

p.s. Funny that the very posters hopping up and down yesterday about the lack of a 'no' side interview seem largely to be ignoring this thread... hmmmm. Interesting. :rolleyes:

PrivateEye

Voltwad wrote: »

What a load of nonsense about the privitising health and education

Part of IBECs submission to the Forum On Europe:

A yes vote for the Lisbon Treaty creates the potential for increased opportunities for Irish business particularly in areas subject to increasing liberalisation such as Health, Education, Transport, Energy and the Environment.

dlofnep

Good interview, thanks.

dlofnep

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Joe says he was elected to the EP on the back of his opposition to the Lisbon treaty.

And, the problem with that statement is?

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Does that mean that everyone else was elected on the back of their support for it!?

Yes. If someone was pushing a yes campaign for Europe, and you wanted to vote no and didn't believe in their campaign - they would not receive your vote.

When Joe says he was elected partially due to his campaign against Lisbon, he is telling the truth. I don't see any logical counter to this claim.

PopeBuckfastXVI

dlofnep wrote: »

And, the problem with that statement is?



Yes. If someone was pushing a yes campaign for Europe, and you wanted to vote no and didn't believe in their campaign - they would not receive your vote.

When Joe says he was elected partially due to his campaign against Lisbon, he is telling the truth. I don't see any logical counter to this claim.

I'm agreeing with his claim, and it's logical conclusion.

marco_polo

PrivateEye wrote: »

Part of IBECs submission to the Forum On Europe:

A yes vote for the Lisbon Treaty creates the potential for increased opportunities for Irish business particularly in areas subject to increasing liberalisation such as Health, Education, Transport, Energy and the Environment.

A google for that phrase reveals some dubious sources

PrivateEye

Joes election literature stated that opposing the second Lisbon referendum would be one of his top priorities, anyone who did basic research would know this. He can therefore claim that his opposition to Lisbon was a key factor in his election.

prinz

PrivateEye wrote: »

He can therefore claim that his opposition to Lisbon was a key factor in his election.

No one is disputing that. However he therefore should acknowledge that all the other Irish MEP's were supportive of the Lisbon Treaty and they all got elected, putting Joe in the minority = using Joe's logic the vast majority of people are pro-Lisbon :cool:

cooperguy

I was slightly disappointed he wasnt challenged on his point on the Minimum wage judgements because that formed alot of his argument. As far as I know it has been proved wrong here. Both Laval and the other one he talked about.

Also is argument that they should have come down on the side of unions who wanted equal pay is a bit crazy. Courts have to base there decisions on law (or the lack of a law) not what they would like to happen surely!

imeddyhobbs

Thanks for getting somone from the no side Darragh...Your work is appreciated

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

hatrickpatrick

Well done once again, very interesting interview! He touched on two huge issues which the yes side have completely ignored:

"Well I think that there will be a serious reduction in the democratic leverage of ordinary citizens through the type of changes voting patterns etc."

That is my absolute #1 issue with Lisbon and an issue which yes campaigners have actually managed to make much worse, by telling us that this is something to be welcomed / that direct democracy is bad / by their attitudes towards how much power representatives should have / etc

"The yes side have tried to suggest that it is a referendum about being in or out of the EU"

The other major point I agree with here. And again I believe Joe Higgins is the first person involved in politics to actually address this issue publicly.

Also, no one from the yes side can claim as usual that Mr. Higgins is not a "mainstream campaigners" (which basically means that he's not a member of the political elite, which for some reason yes campaigners seem to see as a good thing) - he's an elected representative for us in the European Parliament, so you can't claim that he's a "fringe" campaigner.

Again, cheers for the incredible amount of time and effort you've put into this Darragh!

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well done once again, very interesting interview! He touched on two huge issues which the yes side have completely ignored:



That is my absolute #1 issue with Lisbon and an issue which yes campaigners have actually managed to make much worse, by telling us that this is something to be welcomed / that direct democracy is bad / by their attitudes towards how much power representatives should have / etc

I'm extremely sorry to hear that, because it means that you'll be voting against your own best interests tomorrow. Lisbon contains a very large upgrade in the power of the citizens with respect to the EU - and by extension, with respect to their governments.

regretfully,
Scofflaw

dmfod

cooperguy wrote: »

I was slightly disappointed he wasnt challenged on his point on the Minimum wage judgements because that formed alot of his argument. As far as I know it has been proved wrong here. Both Laval and the other one he talked about.

Also is argument that they should have come down on the side of unions who wanted equal pay is a bit crazy. Courts have to base there decisions on law (or the lack of a law) not what they would like to happen surely!

the issue is not about the national minimum wage per se, it's about the more general issue of contractors being able to bring in foreign workers on lower wages and worse conditions than indigenous workers. In Sweden they were able to pay foreign workers less than the Swedish agreed wage, because it wasn't enshrined in law there but was a traditional 'gentlemans' agreement' which no one had violated before. The Laval judgment undermined that traditionl of social solidarity.

Here in Ireland the national minimum wage is enshrined in law and in some sectors there are industry-agreed legal minimums also, so contractors could not go below those, BUT they could bring in workers willing to work for far less than traditional decent wages in sectors without sectoral legal minimums. it should also be borne in mind that the government and FG are currently in the process of undermining sectoral minimum wages - and some in FF even want to reduce the national minimum wage.

also as to the courts basing their decisions on law - the law is often open to interpretation - that's why you need judges to decide and no two judges will completely agree on everything. without judicial activism, there wouldn't be abortion rights in America for example. also who makes the law the judges interpret? the EU - so if EU law is anti-worker, this it's the EU's fault.

Long Onion

I don't buy the argument that voting yes to Lisbon will increase the democratic deficit at all I'm afraid. The fact is that at present, the commission make the decisions, they are not directly elected.

Lisbon will increase the areas in which the decisions will be made by the directly elected parliament, this, to me at least will decrease the democratic deficit.

Looking at Ireland and the way that the Dail works, the government will form any alliance that they feel will give them a majority so only their chosen bills make it through and never the oppositions. On a theoretical level, this is not true democracy. But at least the members of the Dail are directly elected, unlike the commission.

My point is that, true democracy does not really exist either at home or in Europe, I believe that Lisbon will bring us a little closer to achieving it. The real question seems to be whether or not you trust the EU to act for the good of the people of Europe or whether you think the institution is just lying in wait to stick it to us.

If you were a fisherman, you may have a valid reason to feel the latter, were you a farmer or human rights campaigner you may feel the latter, but this is life and politics in general and is no different to what happens in Ireland on a daily basis - the taxi drivers feel the regulator is out to screw them, many members of the public think that regulation protects the consumer.

Why the kerfuffle about Lisbon, why the misnomers and half-truths? The only cogent argument that I have heard to date from the No side is that the treaty could be construed as being ambiguous enough to make it extremely difficult to state what exactly is inside or outside the it's scope, this could mean that we may have fewer referenda in the future as it would be hard to say whether or not a given proposal is capable of expanding the remit of the union beyond what was envisaged in the treaty itself.

This is why we have an EU judiciary, now the question becomes whether or not you believe that the ECJ & Irish courts will be purposfully looking for ways to construe the law in the way which grants the least posssible power to the member states and the most to the Union itself - I believe that this level of conspiracy amongst the judiciary of Europe is, to say the least, unlikely in the extreme - but perhaps i'm just too much of an optimist.

Handsome Bob

I voted Yes this morning, but I find this thread comical. Various people are taking side swipes at what Joe Higgins has said without actually giving a decent rebuffal. He's being treated as just another "far left nutjob" which I find very unfair.

I found some of the things he touched on genuinely disturbing, such as Coca-Cola trying to slash the wages of their staff by 50-60% or threatening them with outsourcing. And that it's all legal under current EU law and will remain so if the treaty is ratified. Also the idea that there would be little to no resistance from this government to stop the privatising of health and education is unfuriating.

I find Joe to be an incredibly honest politician, and a downright decent human being, that's why I voted for him to become an MEP. However, while he did back up some points with facts and stats, I found too much of what he said to be unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Great work Darragh.

Long Onion

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I found some of the things he touched on genuinely disturbing, such as Coca-Cola trying to slash the wages of their staff by 50-60% or threatening them with outsourcing. And that it's all legal under current EU law and will remain so if the treaty is ratified. Also the idea that there would be little to no resistance from this government to stop the privatising of health and education is unfuriating.

The problem is that this will all be legal with our without Lisbon and has absolutely nothing at all to do with the treaty. One of the reasons that many do not take him seriously on this issue is that his arguments are based solely against the evils of rampant capitalism and he tries to fit everytjing else into this narrow frame, on occasions such as this, there is no corrolation between his beliefs and what he is arguing against - this makes him seem even more extreme then he actually is.

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I find Joe to be an incredibly honest politician, and a downright decent human being, that's why I voted for him to become an MEP. However, while he did back up some points with facts and stats, I found too much of what he said to be unsubstantiated rhetoric.

I do not know the man personally, he may indeed be very nice, I can't swallow his rhetoric though so could not vote for him.

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Great work Darragh.

+1

BOZG

prinz wrote: »

Edit:- I like how he completely avoided the figure of €1.84, he wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.

Joe has consistantly and publically attacked Cóir for introducing the myth that the minimum wage will be lowered to €1.84 as a wild, unrealistic claim and one that detracts from the real content of the Treaty.

Joe and the SP's arguments have largely concentrated on the minimum wage (regardless of what it is) soon becoming the maximum wage as the ECJ rulings mean that employers posting workers abroad only have to abide by the minimum legal labour standards in a country, ie that these employers are only required to pay the minimum wage and employ workers on the minimal conditions. This directly undermines workers who are on decent or even slightly better pay scales than those on the minimum wage. Why would an employer pay someone €12 an hour, if they can use cheaper labour at €8.65 an hour? It's a case of either accept a pay cut or face redundancy. In the current economic climate, it's a case of having a gun held to your head.

Now some have tried to argue that the Laval case is completely irrelevant to Ireland because we have legally registered employment agreements and so the ruling couldn't apply here but as dmfod said, it can apply where there are sectoral agreements. Legal basis or not, that is a direct threat against workers and the trade unions.

More significantly though, the Luxembourg ruling is a direct contradiction of the claims of the Yes side. The ECJ's ruling there challenged the national laws of Luxembourg. Luxembourg's employment laws were actually quite basic - a written contract, equal treatment of part-time and full-time workers, the obligation to abide by existing collective agreements. All of these were struck down by the ECJ. It's not just gentleman agreements that are under threat, but national labour laws also.

Long Onion

BOZG wrote: »

Joe and the SP's arguments have largely concentrated on the minimum wage (regardless of what it is) soon becoming the maximum wage as the ECJ rulings mean that employers posting workers abroad only have to abide by the minimum legal labour standards in a country, ie that these employers are only required to pay the minimum wage and employ workers on the minimal conditions. This directly undermines workers who are on decent or even slightly better pay scales than those on the minimum wage. Why would an employer pay someone €12 an hour, if they can use cheaper labour at €8.65 an hour? It's a case of either accept a pay cut or face redundancy. In the current economic climate, it's a case of having a gun held to your head.

This is the problem with the argument:

We have minimum wage legislation and registered employment agreements in place in Ireland yet many employers pay above this despite not being obliged to. The reason for this is simple, not all employers live to screw their employees. If they did, they would become self defeating as the workers would not have any money to buy the goods being produced nor would they have the time to shop as they would be too busy being enslaved for free.

Higgins and the SP also are opposed to Ireland low corporate tax rate, this is paradoxical as our low rate is one of the reasons that firms can set up here despite our higher wage base. If the tax rate was cranked, there would be an outflow of FDI to lower cost countries. The world cannot be reduced to black and white issues.

These issues will be there regardless of Lisbon.

prinz

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That is my absolute #1 issue with Lisbon and an issue which yes campaigners have actually managed to make much worse, by telling us that this is something to be welcomed / that direct democracy is bad / by their attitudes towards how much power representatives should have / etc

I find it hard to believe that you'd watch that video and come to the conclusion that Joe has a good grasp of what democracy means... after questioning the legitimacy of the directly elected parliament because it's mostly centre to right. Can you imagine a TD refusing to respect the Dáil simply because they didn't get a majority :rolleyes:

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I find Joe to be an incredibly honest politician, and a downright decent human being, that's why I voted for him to become an MEP.

+1ish. I like Joe myself.

dmfod

BOZG wrote: »

More significantly though, the Luxembourg ruling is a direct contradiction of the claims of the Yes side. The ECJ's ruling there challenged the national laws of Luxembourg. Luxembourg's employment laws were actually quite basic - a written contract, equal treatment of part-time and full-time workers, the obligation to abide by existing collective agreements. All of these were struck down by the ECJ. It's not just gentleman agreements that are under threat, but national labour laws also.

a very good point - the legal status of agreed wage levels was the basis of the Laval judgment which allowed the ECJ to strike down the Swedish minimum wage because it was a gentlemans agreement and not a law. However the posted workers directive which sets out (very) minimum standards for posted workers in foreign countries only requires they be paid the legal minimum national/sectoral wage and not that contractors comply by all other labour laws and agreements - that's why the ECJ was able to over-rule Luxembourg laws re written contracts, equal treatment of part-time and full-time etc. as these are not guaranteed in the PWD.

so basically where national protections are better than the crappy minimum standards of the PWD, they can be struck down by the ECJ with regard to posted workers, thus opening the door to the undermining of all workers' conditions and to discriminatory treatment of migrant workers who the EU has given its approval to being treated worse than native workers.

the Charter is a load of windbaggery and window-dressing that does not nothing to resolve these issues but just reinforces the pro-business status quo.

dmfod

Long Onion wrote: »

This is the problem with the argument:

We have minimum wage legislation and registered employment agreements in place in Ireland yet many employers pay above this despite not being obliged to. The reason for this is simple, not all employers live to screw their employees. If they did, they would become self defeating as the workers would not have any money to buy the goods being produced nor would they have the time to shop as they would be too busy being enslaved for free.
.

this is incredibly naive. Employers pay workers more than the minimum because they have to - due to supply and demand and trade union strength in demanding higher wages - they don't do it out the goodness of their own hearts or out of some holistic Keynesian view of the wider economic system. If they could get away with paying doctors and IT consultants 8.65 an hour they would, but they can't because they wouldn't work for that money.

This is why the point about bringing in loads of contract workers is important because it allows employers to source cheaper labour than they can at home, thus driving down wages.

Long Onion

dmfod wrote: »

a very good point - the legal status of agreed wage levels was the basis of the Laval judgment which allowed the ECJ to strike down the Swedish minimum wage because it was a gentlemans agreement and not a law. However the posted workers directive which sets out (very) minimum standards for posted workers in foreign countries only requires they be paid the legal minimum national/sectoral wage and not that contractors comply by all other labour laws and agreements - that's why the ECJ was able to over-rule Luxembourg laws re written contracts, equal treatment of part-time and full-time etc. as these are not guaranteed in the PWD.

so basically where national protections are better than the crappy minimum standards of the PWD, they can be struck down by the ECJ with regard to posted workers, thus opening the door to the undermining of all workers' conditions and to discriminatory treatment of migrant workers who the EU has given its approval to being treated worse than native workers.

the Charter is a load of windbaggery and window-dressing that does not nothing to resolve these issues but just reinforces the pro-business status quo.

Does it not cross the mind that by deciding Laval, the ECJ may have been encouraging member states to do away with rafts of 'gentlemen's agreements' (which often end up being far from clear) and enacting clear and precise legislation. You cannot blame the inaction of individual member states on Lisbon. If I were Joe, I would be petitioning Luxembourg to enshrine decent minimum standards.

Long Onion

dmfod wrote: »

this is incredibly naive. Employers pay workers more than the minimum because they have to - due to supply and demand and trade union strength in demanding higher wages - they don't do it out the goodness of their own hearts or out of some holistic Keynesian view of the wider economic system. If they could get away with paying doctors and IT consultants 8.65 an hour they would, but they can't because they wouldn't work for that money.

This is why the point about bringing in loads of contract workers is important because it allows employers to source cheaper labour than they can at home, thus driving down wages.

Marxist drivel.

Keano

After watching all these videos I can safely say that my vote will be a Yes. Joe Higgins is not in Europe for Ireland - he is in there to try take the EU down

dmfod

Long Onion wrote: »

Does it not cross the mind that by deciding Laval, the ECJ may have been encouraging member states to do away with rafts of 'gentlemen's agreements' (which often end up being far from clear) and enacting clear and precise legislation. You cannot blame the inaction of individual member states on Lisbon. If I were Joe, I would be petitioning Luxembourg to enshrine decent minimum standards.

you've completely misunderstood my post re Luxembourg - all those standards that the ECJ struck down in Luxembourg are enshrined in Luxembourg law. That's why Luxembourg is such a bad judgement for workers.

dmfod

Long Onion wrote: »

Marxist drivel.

it's just simple economics - a neoliberal economist would tell you the same. one of the basic rules of economics is that it's supply and demand that sets prices, in this case wages. if the supply of labour increases through an influx of foreign contract workers, wages fall it's not rocket science.

the trade union element is the political dimension which interacts with the economics dimension. It is not just Marxists who recognise its importance, it is obvious that employers do too as they routinely oppose union organisation as it leads to higher wages - e.g. Michael O'Leary opposes unions in RyanAir for exactly this reason and he is hardly a Marxist.

P. Breathnach

Keano A Legend wrote: »

... Joe Higgins is not in Europe for Ireland - he is in there to try take the EU down

Do you think he'll succeed?

BOZG

Long Onion wrote: »

Does it not cross the mind that by deciding Laval, the ECJ may have been encouraging member states to do away with rafts of 'gentlemen's agreements' (which often end up being far from clear) and enacting clear and precise legislation. You cannot blame the inaction of individual member states on Lisbon. If I were Joe, I would be petitioning Luxembourg to enshrine decent minimum standards.

No, it doesn't because the rulings of the ECJ clearly show that its judgements are based on the fact that workers' rights are subordinate to the functioning of the labour market. The ruling in Laval made the point that unions have the right to strike but not when it interferes with the right of a company to establish a base abroad. A similar verdict was issued in Luxembourg on the basis that Luxembourg's employment laws made it difficult for foreign companies to establish a base there. The British High Court also ruled along the same lines with the British Pilots union, BALPA, attempt to take industrial action against British Airways for setting up a new airline, with hubs in mainland Europe in order to make use of cheaper labour. All of these rulings worked on the basic premise that the market comes first, workers' rights second.

In fact, the official explanation of Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights quotes an ECJ ruling stating that "...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, provided that those restrictions in fact correspond to objectives of general interest pursued by the
Community and do not constitute, with regard to the aim pursued, disproportionate and unreasonable interference undermining the very substance of those rights". That ruling comes from a case in 2000, prior to the Laval, Ruffert, Viking and Luxembourg judgements. So the ECJ obviously doesn't regard such vicious attacks on workers' rights as undermining the general interest of the European Union.

And to add to dfmod's point on the fact that those standards were enshrined in law in Luxembourg, the state of Luxembourg actually attempted to base those standards not just on their own national law (which could be in breach of European laws) but actually based them on the "public policy provisions" allowed for under the Posting of Workers Directive. These theoretically allow for countries to overrule forced privatisation, restrictions on state subsidies etc. in the interests of defending the living standards and conditions of citizens of Member States. They're somewhat akin to the supposed veto we will have after Lisbon in healthcare, public services and education where the veto will still exist if public ownership of those areas of the economy is in the interests of the population. The ECJ ruled that Luxembourg couldn't prove that it was in the public interest and struck them down, effectively stating that Luxembourg should not be able to regulate its own labour market in the interests of its population. They'll make the exact same ruling here if we tried to use what's left of the veto.

Long Onion

BOZG wrote: »

The ruling in Laval made the point that unions have the right to strike but not when it interferes with the right of a company to establish a base abroad.

Nothing to do with the establishment of a company base, it was to do with the posting of workers, these are two different issues and would have differing principle attached.

BOZG wrote: »

And to add to dfmod's point on the fact that those standards were enshrined in law in Luxembourg, the state of Luxembourg actually attempted to base those standards not just on their own national law (which could be in breach of European laws) but actually based them on the "public policy provisions" allowed for under the Posting of Workers Directive. These theoretically allow for countries to overrule forced privatisation, restrictions on state subsidies etc. in the interests of defending the living standards and conditions of citizens of Member States. They're somewhat akin to the supposed veto we will have after Lisbon in healthcare, public services and education where the veto will still exist if public ownership of those areas of the economy is in the interests of the population. The ECJ ruled that Luxembourg couldn't prove that it was in the public interest and struck them down, effectively stating that Luxembourg should not be able to regulate its own labour market in the interests of its population. They'll make the exact same ruling here if we tried to use what's left of the veto.

The problem in Luxembourg was that the agreements in question were not universally applicable. It is quite easy for a member state to prevent erosion of workers rights and avoid social dumping by simply making such agreements universally applicable. If member states do not see such rights as being important enough to deserve this protection, then your issue should be with individual governments.