YES/NO Lisbon Treaty - In simple terms

leninbenjamin · 21-05-2008 12:36PM

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I'll be voting no, due to the European court Justice decision on the Laval Vaxholm case.

http://www.etuc.org/IMG/pdf/Facts_memorandum_detailed1.pdf

Essentially the lisbon treaty views freedom of competition as more important than a workers right to strike.

I am unable to support anything that does that.

I strongly disagree. Workers rights are more encompassing than right to strike and unions. Europe increases rights laterally by making it easier to move from country and industry to industry and so forth. this is very important to me as the industry i seek to work in offers little to no opportunities in this country. without Europe i'd be f*cked. so if one takes the view that 'freedom of competition' is a tradeoff, then i'll happily take this. it's better than closed shop industries where prospects are limited and productivity slides.

Lockstep · 21-05-2008 12:39PM

I'm not advocating a closed shop. I'm a firm believer in the necessity of free movement within the EU.

You need to understand, this isn't a case of workers complaining about foreigners moving in taking their jobs and wimmin. Laval was not paying the Swedish minimum wage.

This case is nothing to do with that. It concerned the Lavel company bringing in foreign workers and paying them the minimum wage from their country (In this case Latvia)

The ECJ then supported this as freedom of competition over a workers right to strike.

This both exploits foreign workers and undercuts local workers.

Winters · 21-05-2008 12:41PM

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I've been an ardent Labour supporter since I was 15 but it baffles me as to why Labour are doing this given their history on the necessity of unions and striking.

If the EU hadn't shown such an attitude to unions and striking, then I'd possibly be voting yes.

As I said, maybe they are not so short sighted and can see the benefits and foundation it builds. Rejecting it is not going to change anything and can cause the problems you talk about to just happen again.

By EU you mean the 27 Judges? Maybe some new European wide agreements and laws for this sort of thing might help, and this is the sort of groundwork the treaty is putting place.

Art.79 TFEU ?

Article 79 TFEU

1. The Union shall develop a common immigration policy aimed at ensuring, at all stages, the efficient management of migration flows, fair treatment of third-country nationals residing legally in Member States, and the prevention of, and enhanced measures to combat, illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings.

There are many parts of it I see being of absolute and total benefit to both Ireland and Europe. I will admit, other parts I may not be so happy about but with such a large treaty the Pro's utterly do outweigh the Con's, imo.

Sanjuro · 21-05-2008 12:44PM

Winters wrote: »

Either have I..

Yet I would regard "They died for your freedom. Vote No" with a picture of the Irish proclamation to be a clear scaremongering tactic somehow implying that you are not Irish or stabbing the founders of the state in the back by voting Yes. Also the 'Libertas' (I see them on the Dart) "Europe's been good to Ireland. Lets keep it that way" is even funnier as by voting No we would probably no doubt loose out in Europe, particularly in the long run.

I dunno, all the (real) Political Parties and IBEC supporting a Yes vote would lay more weight with me then some disillusioned republications and pictures of funny monkeys..

Ya see, it really all comes down to who has the most money and highest production values and that's why democracy is fast becoming a joke. Instead of basing your decision on 'who has the nicest poster,' people should be actually investigating what voting yes or no (or for whichever person in an election) will mean for the country. Basing your decision on a poster is a ridiculous way of making a decision.

Lockstep · 21-05-2008 12:44PM

I'm not supporting the treaty given the EU position on the Laval Vaxholm case, as evident by it's ECJ.

I fail to see how voting sets a groundwork, given the referernces to no distortion of competition. The EU wants me to vote on this treaty, if I vote for it, I'm giving them what they want there. I hope they will offer me something in return. Such as a clause preventing the exploitation of foreign workers while undercutting Irish ones.

As I'm unhappy with the treaty, I will vote no. As you would if you were unhappy with the treaty. Hopefully this will allow changes to be implemented in a new addition to the Lisbon. Then I'd be supportive of it.

gizmo · 21-05-2008 01:03PM

Correct me if I'm wrong but from what I've read (albeit quickly) is that it's not that you're dissatisfied with the Treaty itself, more that you're angered by the recent judgment by the ECJ and what you feel is the direction it is going in.

Unfortunately your reference to Art.79 TFEU does not really do anything to back this claim up hence I'd wonder are there any other factors influencing your decision?

Winters · 21-05-2008 01:06PM

Sanjuro wrote: »

Ya see, it really all comes down to who has the most money and highest production values and that's why democracy is fast becoming a joke. Instead of basing your decision on 'who has the nicest poster,' people should be actually investigating what voting yes or no (or for whichever person in an election) will mean for the country. Basing your decision on a poster is a ridiculous way of making a decision.

Making posters which attempt to portray a Yes voter as not being Irish has nothing to do with production values, it is cheap underhanded scaremongering tactic, Id expect it from a 12 year old CIRA spray painting supporter. Not a campaigning group trying to get a serious message across. Same goes for the monkey poster.

You do not have to have high production values to create a poster with "Vote No/Yes" and a legitimate reason that does not resort to childish underhandedness. Sure, a "Vote No, Get Informed" and a website address would be cheaper in

Unfortunately, people (not THAT many [One owuld hope]) will vote based on the posters they see about. I had all ready made my mind up about this Treaty before posters went up when I read about it and researched it myself.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

As I'm unhappy with the treaty, I will vote no. As you would if you were unhappy with the treaty. Hopefully this will allow changes to be implemented in a new addition to the Lisbon.

Hate to be mean, but you seem to agree there are a lot of benefits in the current Treaty, yet you are voting No due to the outcome of one case which the treaty has no direct bearing over and your view that Europe is going in a different direction due to this one outcome.

Can you not see that by using the treaty you can fix these problems better than having to wait another 4+ years for a whole new treaty to be created after more problems and possibly even further cases (similar to the one case you have outlined) come to light. I would state that by passing it we can create an easier system in Europe to prevent those from happening again, and quicker.

No one treaty is ever going to fix every single problem. Particularly a problem that one came to strong light and focus at the end of last year following the ECJ's decision. The EU are hardly goign to re-write the Treaty to include this provision, but I'm sure they are using fore-sight to see that after Lisbon they can fix this problem, and both quicker and easier thanks to the Treaty.

Lockstep · 21-05-2008 01:12PM

The ECJ is the Supreme court of the European Union.

As such, I feel unable to support the EU on this, given my dubiosness on the direction that the EU is taking.

Art.79 TFEU refers to the "efficent management of migration flows".

Let's say someone moves into the EU from a third world country. THey'd most likely be willing to work for less money, granted it allows for "fair treatment" but that could be bent to mean they could be paid what is a fair wage to them, but still explotiative and undercutting european workers.

Rob_l · 21-05-2008 01:17PM

Eurpeans booed Dustin enough said Vote NO

leninbenjamin · 21-05-2008 01:17PM

kickoutthejams wrote: »

This case is nothing to do with that. It concerned the Lavel company bringing in foreign workers and paying them the minimum wage from their country (In this case Latvia)

you mean they subcontracted a Latvian company, who paid their Latvian employees hired in Latvia at the Latvian rates? that's what i call competition.

what you should be pushing is a EU wide minimum wage (which i'd agree with, and which would ironically need the current treaty to be passed frankly, as it represents a step towards a more integrated Europe)

Lockstep · 21-05-2008 01:17PM

Winters wrote: »

Hate to be mean, but you seem to agree there are a lot of benefits in the current Treaty, yet you are voting No due to the outcome of one case which the treaty has no direct bearing over and your view that Europe is going in a different direction due to this one outcome.

You're not being mean at all. I can fully understand your position here, but it's imperative to remember one thing: the ECJ is the highest court possible in the EU. I'm extremely wary of the EU for this reason and as such, suspicious of a treaty they want us to sign.

Winters wrote: »

Can you not see that by using the treaty you can fix these problems better than having to wait another 4+ years for a whole new treaty to be created after more problems and possibly even further cases (similar to the one case you have outlined) come to light. I would state that by passing it we can create an easier system in Europe to prevent those from happening again, and quicker.

Again, I understand what your saying but I don't see how the treaty will allow us to combat such measures.

Winters wrote: »

No one treaty is ever going to fix every single problem. Particularly a problem that one came to strong light and focus at the end of last year following the ECJ's decision. The EU are hardly goign to re-write the Treaty to include this provision, but I'm sure they are using fore-sight to see that after Lisbon they can fix this problem, and both quicker and easier thanks to the Treaty.

I fail to see why they could not address this within the Lisbon treaty. It'd make a huge difference and definetly help restore faith in the EU by unions.

leninbenjamin · 21-05-2008 01:20PM

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Let's say someone moves into the EU from a third world country. THey'd most likely be willing to work for less money, granted it allows for "fair treatment" but that could be bent to mean they could be paid what is a fair wage to them, but still explotiative and undercutting european workers.

hmmm... i see you're completely ignoring the flip side of the coin. what about the workers from the third world. should they not have a right to work? are they not allowed to increase their own prospects and welfare of their families?

frankly, Kick, your stance on this is very blinkered. understandable, but blinkered. and more importantly, further integration is NECESSARY for these issues to be resolved satisfactory to all parties. and a small stepping stone to this further integration is represented by the Lisbon treaty.

Lockstep · 21-05-2008 01:23PM

leninbenjamin wrote: »

you mean they subcontracted a Latvian company, who paid their Latvian employees hired in Latvia at the Latvian rates? that's what i call competition.

The company failed to sign a collective agreement with the workers. Under Swedish law, trade union action is therefore allowed. The company withdrew from collective agreements and brought in Lativan workers and paid them at their minimum wage. Not that of Sweden.

This is too much competition. It allows companys to bus workers in and out when it suits them and pay them at prices which significently undercut those of the host country. There is healthy competition and competition which the other party literally cannot do.

The Swedes pay far different taxes, based on their social security network. Bussing Latvians in to do the job at an undercut is unfair.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

what you should be pushing is a EU wide minimum wage (which i'd agree with, and which would ironically need the current treaty to be passed frankly, as it represents a step towards a more integrated Europe)

Problem with a Europe wide minimume wage: different ecnomys and social structures. What might get you by in Greece would not get you by in Luxembourg.

Winters · 21-05-2008 01:25PM

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I fail to see why they could not address this within the Lisbon treaty. It'd make a huge difference and definetly help restore faith in the EU by unions.

Generally as you cannot make a last second addition to a Treaty that takes years to create. There are many agreements, laws, regulations that all need to be taken in. The idea to wait till every possible problem comes to light then fix them in one big Treaty would be silly. But by one Treaty which covers the majority of them, and than as new ones come to light (Such as the case you speak of) fix that using the new system which would make it both easier and quicker.

In your attempt to protect workers right/pay/unions (Im running out to lunch so excuse me for not getting it right

) by voting No due to one single outcome you are going to absolutely hinder the EU from fixing the problems you speak of through the Treaty quickly and more efficiently. (etc. .. now, to lunch!)

Lockstep · 21-05-2008 01:25PM

leninbenjamin wrote: »

hmmm... i see you're completely ignoring the flip side of the coin. what about the workers from the third world. should they not have a right to work? are they not allowed to increase their own prospects and welfare of their families?

Of course they have the right to work. At a fair wage in their host country. Not being moved around to suit a company only interested in a profit.

My old man had to move jobs every few years because of the EU and it's tough enough.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

frankly, Kick, your stance on this is very blinkered. understandable, but blinkered.

Ok.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

and more importantly,
further integration is NECESSARY for these issues to be resolved satisfactory to all parties. and a small stepping stone to this further integration is represented by the Lisbon treaty.

I still fail to see how further integration will resolve this.

Lockstep · 21-05-2008 01:28PM

Winters wrote: »

Generally as you cannot make a last second addition to a Treaty that takes years to create. There are many agreements, laws, regulations that all need to be taken in. The idea to wait till every possible problem comes to light then fix them in one big Treaty would be silly. But by one Treaty which covers the majority of them, and than as new ones come to light (Such as the case you speak of) fix that using the new system which would make it both easier and quicker.

In your attempt to protect workers right/pay/unions (Im running out to lunch so excuse me for not getting it right ) by voting No due to one single outcome you are going to absolutely hinder the EU from fixing the problems you speak of and quickly using the new methods. (etc. .. now, to lunch!)

I don't see how the treaty will prevent companies from exploiting cheap labour. It might sure, but equally it might not.

Not something I'd personally take a chance on.

Given the EU's attitude on the Laval Vaxholm case, I cannot push for further integration.

Winters · 21-05-2008 01:31PM

So your going to stop the chance of the EU being able to do something by voting No and keeping it as it is?

I would assuming some change is better than no change at all. And particularly with some change creating a better model to make those future changes with....

Lockstep · 21-05-2008 01:33PM

Problem with change is that it could get worse.

I'll try and break my position down:

1)The ECJ ruled a certain way in the laval case.
2)I strongly disagree with this, and the ECJ is the supreme court of the EU.
3) The Lisbon treaty stands for greater EU integration.
4) Given my opposition to the EU's supreme court, I am wary of being further integrated in the EU.

Ciaran500 · 21-05-2008 01:40PM

kickoutthejams wrote: »

You're not being mean at all. I can fully understand your position here, but it's imperative to remember one thing: the ECJ is the highest court possible in the EU. I'm extremely wary of the EU for this reason and as such, suspicious of a treaty they want us to sign.

So, you didn't like an outcome in the ECJ with this case and now to do something about that you are going to vote against an unrelated treaty that you think is beneficial.

leninbenjamin · 21-05-2008 01:45PM

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I still fail to see how further integration will resolve this.

because the entire single market effectively requires full integration to be realised. effectively this means in the long run we need to see homogeneity in all areas of the market, not just commodities, but labour, capital etc. this means that Latvian workers working at Latvian rates need to be able to compete with Irish/Swedish workers working at higher rates, until the two markets effectively adjust to the same level, becoming one. if we stay at the level of integration we are at now, the problems you point out will effectively remain, and arguably the imbalances between the countries will actually increase as the market isn't properly harmonised. further integration are needed to facilitate the harmonisation of the market at all levels (for example an increase in the EU budget to facilitate fiscal redistribution in response to the differing performances of the economies at EU level). Lisbon is a long way off to resolving any problems you mention, or indeed introducing the levels of integration i speak of, but if you believe in the single market it's a necessary small step.

otherwise we might as well just leave the EU, if we aren't able to accept the good with the bad that will inevitably arise.

cornbb · 21-05-2008 01:48PM

As much as I'm skeptical about the health of Irish politics, the fact that all but one of the parties in the Dáil are calling for a Yes vote says something. Also note that the only non-Irish groups coming here to urge a No vote are on the fringes of politics, the far left and the far right. No major/mainstream foreign political parties feel compelled to campaign either way in Ireland. Every other govenment and society in Europe ratified the treaty without a fuss. This all gives me the impression that pretty much everyone campaigning for a No vote is just doing so as a cheap way of getting themselves heard. Except perhaps for Libertas, who have (IMO) not revealed their true motives. Every argument used by the No campaign is either false/misleading, or has been used at every previous European treaty, and none of their scare stories have come true so far.

With all that in mind I'll be voting Yes.

cornbb · 21-05-2008 01:50PM

kickoutthejams wrote: »

4) Given my opposition to the EU's supreme court, I am wary of being further integrated in the EU.

The Lisbon treaty has no implications for "further integration" with the EU. We're either members or not, and the treaty has nothing to do with it. If you don't want Ireland to be in the EU just say so, voting either way in the referendum will have absolutely no effect on our membership of the EU.

Sir Molle · 21-05-2008 02:08PM

The day they make Romania's vote worth more than our vote will be a sad day. As a result, I'll be voting a big fat no.

cornbb · 21-05-2008 02:11PM

Sir Molle wrote: »

The day they make Romania's vote worth more than our vote will be a sad day. As a result, I'll be voting a big fat no.

Where to begin... :rolleyes:

Tigger · 21-05-2008 02:13PM

at the moment we have a disproportionatly large say in europe
why give that up?

at the moment we can veto europe at any point
why give that up?

the european constitution was rejected already it was re-packaged ala nice and force down the throat of the countries that had already voted no we are protected by our own constitution from joining a union (again) and falling under its legisliture
why give that up?

How similar is the new treaty to the draft constitution?

It contains many of the changes the constitution attempted to introduce, for example:

A politician chosen to be president of the European Council for two-and-a-half years, replacing the current system where countries take turns at being president for six months
A new post combining the jobs of the existing foreign affairs supremo, Javier Solana, and the external affairs commissioner, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, to give the EU more clout on the world stage
A smaller European Commission, with fewer commissioners than there are member states, from 2014
A redistribution of voting weights between the member states, phased in between 2014 and 2017
New powers for the European Commission, European Parliament and European Court of Justice, for example in the field of justice and home affairs
Removal of national vetoes in a number of areas
Most European leaders acknowledge that the main substance of the constitution will be preserved.

can some one please give me a reason why we should weaken our republic and its constitution and its power in europe
what do we get
name 3 direct advantages to ireland from the treaty

kryogen · 21-05-2008 02:29PM

totally agree Tigger, nice post

cornbb · 21-05-2008 02:40PM

Tigger wrote: »

at the moment we have a disproportionatly large say in europe
why give that up?

Because it represents outdated voting weights and it is neither fair for the newer states nor sustainable for the the future of the EU.

at the moment we can veto europe at any point

"Veto Europe at any point"? How so? Which institutions? You're talking cack, there is no such veto. In fact voting yes would increase our powers of veto:

Referendum Commission wrote:

At present, national parliaments are not directly involved in EU decision making. If the Treaty enters into force then national parliaments – in Ireland’s case, the Dáil and Seanad - will have 8 weeks after the publication of an EU legislative proposal to vet that proposal and offer an opinion

the european constitution was rejected already it was re-packaged ala nice and force down the throat of the countries that had already voted no we are protected by our own constitution from joining a union (again) and falling under its legisliture

It was "repackaged"/rewritten in order to satisfy the concerns of the countries that rejected it. And, guess what, every other country has been satisfied enough to ratify it after these changes were made.

can some one please give me a reason why we should weaken our republic and its constitution and its power in europe
what do we get

You're great at using flowery, patriotic language but there isn't an ounce of substance to it. Very representative of the No campaign IMO.

tbh · 21-05-2008 03:00PM

I'm voting yes simply because Mary-Lou McDonald told me to vote no.

astrofool · 21-05-2008 03:01PM

Tigger wrote: »

at the moment we have a disproportionatly large say in europe
why give that up?

at the moment we can veto europe at any point
why give that up?

the european constitution was rejected already it was re-packaged ala nice and force down the throat of the countries that had already voted no we are protected by our own constitution from joining a union (again) and falling under its legisliture
why give that up?

can some one please give me a reason why we should weaken our republic and its constitution and its power in europe
what do we get
name 3 direct advantages to ireland from the treaty

Too much wrong there, and all have been answered and debunked many times before.

On the laval case, the situation right now is that a case like that could happen in Ireland, under the "status quo" (which is a bit of a misnomer), by having the lisbon treaty in place, it is more likely that areas such as this can be tightened up so that workers are treated in a fair way. This is still a sticking point internationally, do we want to start paying more for our chinese goods? Should we force all imported goods to match our minimum wage laws? Why should the location of the factory affect how we feel about it?

I also dislike saying that "company only interested in profit" piece, after all, the strike action was due to pay, and one could say the workers were "only interested in profit" also.

astrofool · 21-05-2008 03:03PM

tbh wrote: »

I'm voting yes simply because Mary-Lou McDonald told me to vote no.

Yep, no amount of photo touch ups and make up will remove that "say something bad about me and you'll be sleeping with the fishes" look that she has on tv and interviews.

YES/NO Lisbon Treaty - In simple terms

Comments