Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

1…3233353738…127

Comments

  • #1022
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    FutureTaoiseach wrote: »
    Whose we?

    That execrable entity, Ireland Inc.
    It seems to me that they were brought in in order to pump up the property-market.

    No. They were brought in to do a wide range of things that people then wanted done, including working in factories and in catering, and on the building sites to meet a property demand that was already being managed in such a way that it was running out of control. The fact that they also needed places to live when they got here was effect more than it was cause.
    The govt finances are already back to 2004 levels. It's quite likely that by the time the recession is over, the economy will be back to 2004 levels aswell, meaning that all the growth since they started coming will have been reversed, calling into question the whole point of it from an economic perspective.

    Of course our most recent economic growth was largely a bubble, but it was not caused by immigration: it caused the immigration.
    And it was generosity, when you take account of the social-welfare system, which is equivalent to middle-class Polish salaries.

    Polish and other people came here to work, not to draw social welfare. Irish employers did not hire them in a spirit of generosity. They hired them in order to make money from their work.


  • #1023
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    FutureTaoiseach wrote: »
    It's not an anti-immigration position. It's a position that seeks a middle way between a completely open door and a completely closed one. I am not opposed to immigration provided it's regulated. And I didn't mention the Dublin Convention/Regulation. Let's not get all PC. :rolleyes:

    The Dublin Convention governs asylum procedures. If you wish to make claims about asylum procedures, you are required to read the charter in respect of it. There's nothing "PC" about it.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • #1024
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    FutureTaoiseach wrote: »
    I want an immigration policy that reconciles the economic needs of the country with the absorption capacity of the State with respect to demographic changes. That has to include an analysis of the capacity of our public-services to cope with population-pressures. In that context, my answer to that question would change according to the circumstances of the time.

    What, in your opinion, is the absorption capacity of the state for 2009?

    The fact that you would countenance a 'yes' to such a referendum under any circumstances shows that you are actually against one of the fundamental tenets of the EU, the free movement of EU Citizens within the EU, by the way.

    I can no longer believe you when you claim to be 'pro-EU'.


  • #1025
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    It wasn't generosity. We wanted workers.

    let me correct that

    It wasn't generosity. We wanted cheap "slave" workers who "stfu" and get the work done unlike the local who grown accustomed to "entitlements" a shocking example here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61551209&postcount=101.


  • #1026
    Spiritoftheseventies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,082 ✭✭✭✭Spiritoftheseventies


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    let me correct that

    It wasn't generosity. We wanted cheap "slave" workers who "stfu" and get the work done unlike the local who grown accustomed to "entitlements" a shocking example here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61551209&postcount=101.
    Lets get back to core issues here. What is EU stance on mulinational companys who outsource their operations to other EU countries where labour costs are cheaper. And how would the ratification of Lisbon affect the safety of borders in respect of those who claim to use it for alterior motives (drug smuggling etc).
    I think thats what that judge was referring to in that case that is posted on another page from the Corkman newspaper.


  • Advertisement
  • #1027
    worldrepublic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 227 ✭✭worldrepublic


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    let me correct that

    It wasn't generosity. We wanted cheap "slave" workers who "stfu" and get the work done unlike the local who grown accustomed to "entitlements" a shocking example here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61551209&postcount=101.

    You make a key point: moving forward we need to increase the salaries and entitlements of all segments of the population so as achieve equality. European legislation and support is a basis for doing this. Also, we need to bring cultural attitudes into line with European goals. For example, technically, women are equal in the work place, but still do not earn as much as men. A truly diverse society can achieve total equality. Also, persons who travel across to Ireland from the third world are disadvantaged in terms of their socio-economic background and to address the balance we need to make special considerations/compensations. Given Ireland's small population I do not think it is necessary to have much in the way of immigration controls when what we need is a much larger, more diverse population. Voting Yes to Lisbon is the true beginning. There is so much to be achieved and transformed.


  • #1028
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    bayviewclose wrote: »
    Lets get back to core issues here. What is EU stance on mulinational companys who outsource their operations to other EU countries where labour costs are cheaper. And how would the ratification of Lisbon affect the safety of borders in respect of those who claim to use it for alterior motives (drug smuggling etc).
    I think thats what that judge was referring to in that case that is posted on another page from the Corkman newspaper.

    This is the article:

    http://www.corkman.ie/news/pattwell-weve-lost-control-of-our-borders-1846262.html
    "I will tell you why I would vote against the Lisbon Treaty and indeed the EU generally, in spite of the advantages it has brought to us. My problem is that we have already lost control of our borders,"

    So it's nothing to do with drug smuggling, or what Lisbon might affect, he is saying quite clearly, that we have 'already lost' control of our borders, and just appears to be against the concept of an EU with internally open borders, as it currently exists.

    He doesn't make a valid argument against Lisbon, but instead makes an argument against EU membership.


  • #1029
    worldrepublic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 227 ✭✭worldrepublic


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    What, in your opinion, is the absorption capacity of the state for 2009?

    The fact that you would countenance a 'yes' to such a referendum under any circumstances shows that you are actually against one of the fundamental tenets of the EU, the free movement of EU Citizens within the EU, by the way.

    I can no longer believe you when you claim to be 'pro-EU'.

    Thinking in terms of an absorption capacity at all is a backwards step. Ireland clearly has a small population that could be multiplied to bring us closer to the European average. We need to open the door to other countries (not just Europe, but Eastern Europe and the Third world especially) not close it. Plus Irish people are welcome to emmigrate, so it is all mutually beneficial. At the end of the day what are borders anyway? Just artificial lines on a map. Movement across these lines will be a very healthy and dynamic way of re-constituting parts of Europe and Ireland.


  • #1030
    Spiritoftheseventies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,082 ✭✭✭✭Spiritoftheseventies


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    This is the article:

    http://www.corkman.ie/news/pattwell-weve-lost-control-of-our-borders-1846262.html



    So it's nothing to do with drug smuggling, or what Lisbon might affect, he is saying quite clearly, that we have 'already lost' control of our borders, and just appears to be against the concept of an EU with internally open borders, as it currently exists.

    He doesn't make a valid argument against Lisbon, but instead makes an argument against EU membership.
    Just to go off topic a bit here. I think people in terms of treaty are looking to find ways where it can be improved. I for one think that in terms of Leglislation and on work practices EU has plenty to contribute but if people are worried about border security shouldnt it be inserted into the treaty.
    What was the process for submitting amendments and proposals for the treaty particularly after rejection.
    We have been given Gaurentees but as many people have remarked the original text of treaty hasn't changed.


  • #1031
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    FutureTaoiseach wrote: »
    It is human nature to seek to better oneself economically, but the general good of society sometimes requires the desires of human beings to be tempered by government in the general interest. That includes the desire to immigrate imho. Nothing to do with racism. I just don't want what happened to the staff in Irish Ferries some years ago to become a general pattern in this economy. I'm sure you'd agree that it would not exactly be good for intercommunal relations were it to do so. Furthermore, recent reports in the Mail about persons resident outside the State flying in to claim social-welfare and then flying out is not desirable.
    All of which is, once again, completely irrelevant to Lisbon.
    FutureTaoiseach wrote: »
    Now what does Lisbon have to do with immigration? There is the power to enter the Schengen Agreement, which the proposed new Article 29.4.7 of the Irish Constitution - part of the Lisbon referendum though not the Treaty itself - will facilitate. It would abolish passport controls on travel between Ireland and the 25 Schengen countries.
    Again, this has nothing to do with Lisbon; Ireland and the UK may already apply for an opt-in to partial or complete application of the Schengen laws.
    FutureTaoiseach wrote: »
    As for your question on who should be entitled to claim asylum, I believe that those for whom Ireland was the first safe country should be allowed do so.
    Like everyone else who holds this position, I’m sure you are only too aware that this would result in Ireland receiving virtually no asylum applications whatsoever.
    FutureTaoiseach wrote: »
    I think after 10 years of unparalleled Irish generosity in the field of immigration...
    …we seem to have developed a tremendous superiority complex.

    Given the vast numbers of Irish people residing abroad, your attempt to paint Ireland as in some way charitable for “accepting” immigrants is more than a little absurd.
    FutureTaoiseach wrote: »
    And it was generosity, when you take account of the social-welfare system, which is equivalent to middle-class Polish salaries.
    And of course all the Poles came to Ireland purely to claim social welfare. None of them worked or paid taxes or anything like that. Nope. Bunch of scroungers the lot of them.


  • Advertisement
  • #1032
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    worldrepublic wrote: »
    Also, persons who travel across to Ireland from the third world are disadvantaged in terms of their socio-economic background and to address the balance we need to make special considerations/compensations.
    I wouldn’t be so sure about that – I’d wager that the average non-EU citizen in Ireland is more qualified than the average Irish person.


  • #1033
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    bayviewclose wrote: »
    Just to go off topic a bit here. I think people in terms of treaty are looking to find ways where it can be improved. I for one think that in terms of Leglislation and on work practices EU has plenty to contribute but if people are worried about border security shouldnt it be inserted into the treaty.
    What was the process for submitting amendments and proposals for the treaty particularly after rejection.
    We have been given Gaurentees but as many people have remarked the original text of treaty hasn't changed.
    Why does the text of the treaty need to change?

    Imagine this:

    I give you a document to sign that says:
    I promise to pay you 100 euros if you paint my house.

    You say, 'but it doesn't say that you will supply the paint, you might make me supply the paint, and then I'll be less well off, I can't accept that deal, just in case'.

    So I give you another document that says:
    I promise to supply all the paint you need to paint my house.

    Is it not fair to ask you to think again about signing both documents, even if the text of the first hasn't changed?


  • #1034
    Spiritoftheseventies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,082 ✭✭✭✭Spiritoftheseventies


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I wouldn’t be so sure about that – I’d wager that the average non-EU citizen in Ireland is more qualified than the average Irish person.
    Its not the point. The EU is an open market so Irish citizens are just as free to work in other countries. The best person should get the job regardless.
    But again to ask the question. If one multinational moves its operations to another country where labour costs are cheaper, what is EU policy on that?


  • #1035
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    bayviewclose wrote: »
    If one multinational moves its operations to another country where labour costs are cheaper, what is EU policy on that?

    I'd imagine it's totally cool with that, why wouldn't it be?


  • #1036
    Spiritoftheseventies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,082 ✭✭✭✭Spiritoftheseventies


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    I'd imagine it's totally cool with that, why wouldn't it be?
    Is that not undermining the labour force and whole communities. Its undercutting from what i can see.


  • #1037
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,853 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    I'd imagine it's totally cool with that, why wouldn't it be?
    Indeed, does anyone think the EU should prevent companies from moving operations between member states?


  • #1038
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    bayviewclose wrote: »
    Is that not undermining the labour force and whole communities. Its undercutting from what i can see.

    I don't understand what kind of world you want to live in.

    Multinationals should set up shop outside their home countries, in cheaper locations like Ireland, but shouldn't be legally allowed to move from Ireland to other cheaper locations, and it should be the EU's job to police that? Why not get the UN involved too, while we're at it?


  • #1039
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    bayviewclose wrote: »
    Is that not undermining the labour force and whole communities. Its undercutting from what i can see.

    Why does that somehow become the fault of the EU, though? Without the EU, the company would move country to avail of cheaper labour costs. With the EU, the company would.....move country to avail of cheaper labour costs.

    What's the difference exactly?

    perplexed,
    Scofflaw


  • #1040
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    I don't understand what kind of world you want to live in.

    Multinationals should set up shop outside their home countries, in cheaper locations like Ireland, but shouldn't be legally allowed to move from Ireland to other cheaper locations, and it should be the EU's job to police that? Why not get the UN involved too, while we're at it?

    Which would at least allow us to deploy our defence forces...

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #1041
    worldrepublic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 227 ✭✭worldrepublic


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Indeed, does anyone think the EU should prevent companies from moving operations between member states?

    It depends on the profile of the company and its real motivations. Large companies are very conscious of the cost of "human resources" and as such they will relocate to countries that provide inexpensive labour. One strategy is to locate in a country that is economically weak -this means low wages but also contributes to the economy of the location in question. However, once the economy is built up, relocation occurs. It's a vicious cycle. Labourers ultimately lose out, while corporations turn huge profits. There are other factors, like whether or not a countries laws promote the rights of Trade Unions. To fully enter into this cycle of competition, Ireland needs to achieve low wages and also address the prevalence of Trade Unions. In Ireland, the middle-classes will utilise there Trade Unions. So really the lower and middle-classes will have to make compromises. Up until now the middle-classes have been very strong in Ireland, but that can change rapidly. Large Corporations are a powerful and wealthy lobby with Europe and they are seeking changes which will boost and not curtail their profits. If they have to they can go to India or China for example, and international law allows this. Hence, transnationalism might have a downside? And not just for the lower-classes?


  • Advertisement
  • #1042
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,853 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    worldrepublic wrote: »
    It depends on the profile of the company and its real motivations.
    No, it doesn't. You can't legislate for "real motivations."

    The EU is premised on (inter alia) the free movement of capital and labour between member states. To say that the EU should prevent a company from moving between member states is the same as saying it should prevent citizens from moving between member states.


  • #1043
    Spiritoftheseventies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,082 ✭✭✭✭Spiritoftheseventies


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Why does that somehow become the fault of the EU, though? Without the EU, the company would move country to avail of cheaper labour costs. With the EU, the company would.....move country to avail of cheaper labour costs.

    What's the difference exactly?

    perplexed,
    Scofflaw
    Well is it not pulling the rugs under peoples feet. And I know we operate a very attractive tax model which encourages the big companies to come here in that they are not taxed as higly on their profits. And that retention of that tax break is one of the guarentees enshrined in Lisbon if im correct.
    So it seems there is a bit of fair play on our part here but its give and take.
    Just quoting the example of Dell were EU workers trained by our workers (correct me if im wrong) was it then right for that company to move its operations away from a city which has had enough to contend with and move it to another base where labour and production costs.
    Is lets say paying a worker three euros an hour in Country A acceptable if original worker was on six euros an hour. Are any EU work practices being flouted here?


  • #1044
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,853 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    bayviewclose wrote: »
    Are any EU work practices being flouted here?
    No.


  • #1045
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    bayviewclose wrote: »
    Well is it not pulling the rugs under peoples feet. And I know we operate a very attractive tax model which encourages the big companies to come here in that they are not taxed as higly on their profits. And that retention of that tax break is one of the guarentees enshrined in Lisbon if im correct.
    So it seems there is a bit of fair play on our part here but its give and take.
    Just quoting the example of Dell were EU workers trained by our workers (correct me if im wrong) was it then right for that company to move its operations away from a city which has had enough to contend with and move it to another base where labour and production costs.
    Is lets say paying a worker three euros an hour in Country A acceptable if original worker was on six euros an hour. Are any EU work practices being flouted here?

    The level of governmental interference you are advocating is bordering on a communist model, even if you don't realise it.


  • #1046
    Spiritoftheseventies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,082 ✭✭✭✭Spiritoftheseventies


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    The level of governmental interference you are advocating is bordering on a communist model, even if you don't realise it.
    in what sense?


  • #1047
    worldrepublic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 227 ✭✭worldrepublic


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    The level of governmental interference you are advocating is bordering on a communist model, even if you don't realise it.

    That is quite an extreme statement. Can you explain what, exactly, you mean? I think that a short, apparently reflexive statement that uses the "communist" label indicates "conspiracy" type argument tactics? What are you saying is not realised? Do you see some hidden dimension here?


  • #1048
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    bayviewclose wrote: »
    in what sense?

    Having a government, or the EU, step in and force a company to maintain it's geographical location, for any reason (outside of environmental protection, I suppose) echo's the same policies in Soviet Russia, where the central government dictated where a factory was located.

    Do you not see how it's an extremely overbearing governmental interference in the free market?

    Incidentally, do you think that multinationals should only be prevented from moving within the EU, but should be allowed to move outside it, e.g. India?

    Editing for further clarification:
    I have no problem with Governments offering incentives to stay, but no free market nation in the world would legally prevent a multinational corporation from moving.


  • #1049
    worldrepublic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 227 ✭✭worldrepublic


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    No, it doesn't. You can't legislate for "real motivations."

    The EU is premised on (inter alia) the free movement of capital and labour between member states. To say that the EU should prevent a company from moving between member states is the same as saying it should prevent citizens from moving between member states.

    No your statement that "To say that the EU should prevent a company from moving between member states is the same as saying it should prevent citizens from moving between member states" is incorrect. A company cannot be treated as having human rights. It is an artificial entity, not a person?


  • #1050
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    worldrepublic wrote: »
    It is an artificial entity, not a person?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person


  • Advertisement
  • #1051
    FutureTaoiseach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭FutureTaoiseach


    djpbarry wrote:
    And of course all the Poles came to Ireland purely to claim social welfare. None of them worked or paid taxes or anything like that. Nope. Bunch of scroungers the lot of them.
    Your words not mine. That is not my view. In fact, it is a caricature of my views.


Advertisement