Minimum wage €1.84?

kumate_champ07 · 04-09-2009 12:59AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm going to try to explain this one more time in the hopes that it will be heeded. 26 other nations have ratified or will soon ratify this treaty. The Irish people voted no. Naturally a survey was done to find out why

The survey results showed that the biggest issue by far was lack of understanding, and among the other issues were abortion, taxation, neutrality, conscription and loss of a commissioner

The government went to Europe and negotiated and now it has been decided that all countries will keep their commissioners. Abortion, taxation, neutrality and conscription are not issues related to the treaty and they never were. We now have legal guarantees stating this. People who voted on those issues were deliberately misled by groups with anti-EU agendas.

So in reality the Irish people did not say that they had any problem with the treaty, they had several issues with things that they thought were in the treaty but which actually aren't and their biggest problem was that they didn't understand it.

Well now they've had two years to understand it so the "if you don't know vote no" slogan won't fly anymore. You have no excuse not to know at this stage. If we had given valid reasons for rejection the treaty could have been renegotiated to remove those parts but all we said was we didn't understand it so all anyone can do is give us time and help to understand it so when they ask us to reconsider we can make an informed decision instead of rejecting it because we're afraid to accept something we don't understand, which in reality is what happened the last time

When something is considered important by 26 other nations it's simply not acceptable to say tl;dr and throw it in the bin

If we vote yes and another survey is done after which shows that, still nobody has a clue what Lisbon is all about, do we get to vote a 3rd time??

skelliser · 04-09-2009 01:00AM

chatterpillar wrote: »

If Europe can't move forward with us (and they have given us ample opportunity), they will move forward without us.

this is incorrect, there has been rumblings from certain politicans in brussels that they will do this but nothing concrete has been laid down. Its all hearsay.

Remember the treaty most be passed by all 27 countries for it to be ratified, if not it fails.

also on a related topic Our membership in europe is in no way in question if there is a no victory.

kumate_champ07 · 04-09-2009 01:03AM

there is a solution. we could tell Shell to fuqk off and Europe to fuqk off and take back our billions worth of natural resources, instead we give it away and then try and get rid of medical cards from our senior citizens to save a few bob. Whos country is this?

Sam Vimes · 04-09-2009 01:08AM

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

If we vote yes and another survey is done after which shows that, still nobody has a clue what Lisbon is all about, do we get to vote a 3rd time??

You can't unratify a treaty but if we vote yes and it turns out to be a disaster, we can use the new simplified revision procedure that Lisbon will bring in to change the parts that have turned out to be disastrous. Luckily the treaty is almost entirely dull procedural changes and none of the hyperbolic scaremongering is actually going to happen so we'll most likely never have to do this

Edit: also if after the second referendum it turns out we still have no idea what's in the treaty we should hang our heads in shame tbh

marco_polo · 04-09-2009 01:13AM

skelliser wrote: »

doesnt sweden not have a minimum rate for certain types of work under collective bargining

Ah so I was half right, in that case as the ECJ found a problem with the legally binding status of collective agreements there, so that would mean an effective minimum wage of zero for Sweden. I am not familiar to say what the exact reason was and apparently the Nordic countries labour law systems are quite different to ours. Here we have a seperate statutory minimum wage.

There was a similar case in Germany (Ruffel)which arose because of a technical error the Germans made in transposing the Directive into law that left a loophole.

In essence the Posting of Workers states that if the miminum legal standards of the country in which a person is working temporarly is lower than their normal wage in their own country then they may be paid their normal wage while working there.

In countries where collective agreements are legally binding the miminum legal standards is the rate specified in that agreement, in countries where a a minimum wage exists but agreements are not legally binding that is the miminum legal standard. In countries with neither of the above it is the employees regular wage in their own country.

The current situation is an unforseen consequence of the diversity of Labour laws across the EU not a conspiracy against workers.

skelliser · 04-09-2009 01:17AM

its sore on the head!
even the explaination here is kinda confusing.

In Sweden, which unlike a number of other EU Member States has no legislation on a national minimum wage, term used in the sense of the minimum rate which by collective agreement must be paid in all circumstances for certain work or to employees of a certain category. (The expression lägstalön, i.e. pay minima, is used in a similar sense.) Personal contracts which are concluded between individual employees and employers bound by a collective agreement specifying such minimum rates and which provide for rates lower than those specified minima are invalid, and an employer who pays rates below the minima incurs liability for breach of the collective agreement concerned. There is, on the other hand, a special type of agreement called minimilöneavtal under which the employer is free to pay rates above the specified minima. Furthermore, the rules on pay minima laid down in the collective agreement which is normally applicable to manual workers in the engineering industry (see Engineering Agreement) signify that the employer is obliged to a certain extent to pay competent and experienced manual workers rates higher than the agreed minima. See also entry pay.)

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/emire/SWEDEN/ANCHOR-MINIMIL-Ouml-N-SE.htm

doesnt sweden not have a minimum rate for certain types of work under collective bargining

my above post is my intrepretation of the above, could be wrong tho

marco_polo · 04-09-2009 01:17AM

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

If we vote yes and another survey is done after which shows that, still nobody has a clue what Lisbon is all about, do we get to vote a 3rd time??

Why not? I personally would not call a referndum undemocratic just because people might exercise their right to change their mind about any issue at any time.

Mrmoe · 04-09-2009 01:23AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You can't unratify a treaty but if we vote yes and it turns out to be a disaster, we can use the new simplified revision procedure that Lisbon will bring in to change the parts that have turned out to be disastrous.

Can this work both ways? For example, can the new simplified revision procedure be used to remove some of the guarantees that we received second time round?

Sam Vimes · 04-09-2009 01:27AM

Mrmoe wrote: »

Can this work both ways? For example, can the new simplified revision procedure be used to remove some of the guarantees that we received second time round?

The issues of taxation, abortion and neutrality would still require a referendum. The simplified revision procedure can't be used to increase EU competences

In All Fairness · 04-09-2009 01:38AM

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

The Government posters seem to imply that if the Lisbon Constitreaty is not accepted then Ireland will no longer be "in Europe".

Then you've got this nonsense about "Ireland's poor reputation abroad" being broadcast on state-run television:

http://www.rte.ie/business/2009/0902/ibec.html

.

Ireland's poor reputation on the International financial markets, and the subsequent premium rates that we have to pay on our national debt, does not stem from any disbelief in Ireland, it stems from the (right) belief that we have a government and a rule of law incapable of dealing with gangsters because it is run by them. Every hour that Michael Fingleton and Sean Fitzpatrick are out of prison costs us as a nation, because the markets know who Brian Cowen works for.

anonymous_joe · 04-09-2009 01:41AM

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

there is a solution. we could tell Shell to fuqk off and Europe to fuqk off and take back our billions worth of natural resources, instead we give it away and then try and get rid of medical cards from our senior citizens to save a few bob. Whos country is this?

Kinda like Iceland. That worked well.

Dankoozy · 04-09-2009 01:48AM

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Kinda like Iceland. That worked well.

iceland will be grand whether or not they join the EU, right now they are looking for a 'leg up' from the EU because the people there hate their own government, but give it a few years and even without EU help they will get back on their feet.

dunno why an independent country like that would join the EU and get tons of laws and regulations mostly irrelevant to their culture, way of life and everything foisted upon them under the banner of 'being modern'. but **** it if being 'modern' means the amount of petty regulations and pedantry we see today i'd rather go live in a cave

when you join the EU you basically sell your country to the initial founding members. they give you a wad of cash for some new roads and promise to maintain them, in return they get to rule you with laws you don't want

oh and they give you some voting rights, well engineered to be far less than the minimum required to make a difference even if the small states all gang up on the big ones. any veto they give you is not something you're actually supposed to use - just something to entice you into joining. if you use the veto then they call you names behind your back and give you a hard time for not playing along

An Fear Aniar · 04-09-2009 01:50AM

marco_polo wrote: »

Why not? I personally would not call a referndum undemocratic just because people might exercise their right to change their mind about any issue at any time.

That's the thing about imposing a second referendum on the exact same issue. Calling an immediate re-run of the referendum implies that the first result was somehow wrong or unsatisfactory.

That's not a democracy. In a democracy, by definition, the people are always right. In a democracy, politicians have to deal with whatever the people decide, not bully and threaten them into coming up with the right answer.

Millions of people have died in wars so that this could be so.

.

marco_polo · 04-09-2009 01:53AM

Dankoozy wrote: »

iceland will be grand whether or not they join the EU, right now they are looking for a 'leg up' from the EU because the people there hate their own government, but give it a few years and even without EU help they will get back on their feet.

dunno why an independent country like that would join the EU and get tons of laws and regulations mostly irrelevant to their culture, way of life and everything foisted upon them under the banner of 'being modern'. but **** it if being 'modern' means the amount of petty regulations and pedantry we see today i'd rather go live in a cave

when you join the EU you basically sell your country to the initial founding members. they give you a wad of cash for some new roads and promise to maintain them, in return they get to rule you with laws you don't want

Of course an alternative option is to stay outside the EU, join the EEA and the Schengen Agreements and implement a whole load of EU leglislation and 'petty' regulations that you have absolutely no say over. It even has a name 'Fax Democracy'

Which laws are particularly bothering you?

tech77 · 04-09-2009 01:53AM

TheDublinMan wrote: »

Driving up the Ballymun Road yesterday, posters everywhere stating that if Lisbon is passed minimum wage will be dropped to €1.84!!!!!!

Come on do you expect me to believe this!

What do all the fine people of After Hours think of this.

Please no long-winded drivel laden replies from tinfoil hat lovers.

Isn't there a question mark at the end of it.
It's not an assertion as far as i can see.

anonymous_joe · 04-09-2009 01:54AM

Dankoozy wrote: »

iceland will be grand whether or not they join the EU, right now they are looking for a 'leg up' from the EU because the people there hate their own government, but give it a few years and even without EU help they will get back on their feet.

dunno why an independent country like that would join the EU and get tons of laws and regulations mostly irrelevant to their culture, way of life and everything foisted upon them under the banner of 'being modern'. but **** it if being 'modern' means the amount of petty regulations and pedantry we see today i'd rather go live in a cave

when you join the EU you basically sell your country to the initial founding members. they give you a wad of cash for some new roads and promise to maintain them, in return they get to rule you with laws you don't want

oh and they give you some voting rights, well engineered to be far less than the minimum required to make a difference even if the small states all gang up on the big ones. any veto they give you is not something you're actually supposed to use - just something to entice you into joining. if you use the veto then they call you names behind your back and give you a hard time for not playing along

Yeah, it's pretty selfish of the 80 million Germans, 55 million French and 50 million Italians to pay for the rebuilding of our infrastructure and not letting the 4 million Irish tell them waht to do. Selfish bástards.

God, next they'll be giving us voting rights equal to our proportion of the EU's population.

ballsymchugh · 04-09-2009 01:54AM

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

there is a solution. we could tell Shell to fuqk off and Europe to fuqk off and take back our billions worth of natural resources, instead we give it away and then try and get rid of medical cards from our senior citizens to save a few bob. Whos country is this?

and the only other country in europe that did this...... NORWAY. oh how i'd love if we did. enough money to fund everything on their own, better looking women, calling time on Graham Taylor...

this treaty as far as i'm aware will be the last one that will require a referendum, because it's self ratifying. any further changes will just be railroaded through.
to be fair, the main bulk is just to get europe working in a more streamlined way, but also, we joined an economic community, not a political one. it's been rejected by france and netherlands in a different guise, but we are the only ones who are asked to vote again. we had to put up with the french finance minister rumbling along the lines of 'vote yes or else' the last time around, and he wouldn't even stand up to his own country and say that. they wouldn't, because the french know how to have a good strike.
as for a no vote aligning us with british conservatives... it also aligned us with the most liberal country in europe... and i don't think the liberals in holland would have much time for the tories in uk.
the 26 parliaments that have ratified it knew better than to put it to popular vote. it's a shame we were bullied into voting again. we're just suckers.

skelliser · 04-09-2009 01:56AM

norway is the promised land!
there petroleum/pension fund is worth nearly 400billion!!
they actually have a bit of controversy cause they cant agree with what to do with it all!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway

The Big Red Button · 04-09-2009 01:58AM

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

That's the thing about imposing a second referendum on the exact same issue. Calling an immediate re-run of the referendum implies that the first result was somehow wrong or unsatisfactory.

That's not a democracy. In a democracy, by definition, the people are always right. In a democracy, politicians have to deal with whatever the people decide, not bully and threaten them into coming up with the right answer.

Millions of people have died in wars so that this could be so.

.

I would genuinely ask you, as mentioned beforehand, to as least read through that link in my signature.

This answers the issue of the Lisbon Treaty being voted on again by the Irish people.

If you still have questions, please do ask them then.

You are insulting your own intelligence by referring to these issues as you have done so above. The EU have acknowleged the Irish issues, and have reacted to same in a positive appropriate manner.

Dinner · 04-09-2009 01:59AM

ballsymchugh wrote: »

this treaty as far as i'm aware will be the last one that will require a referendum, because it's self ratifying. any further changes will just be railroaded through.

No no no, that is completely incorrect.

The article that you are referring to is Article 48, but if you look at paragraph 4, it explicitly states that any amendment must be ratified in accordance with each countries constitutional requirements. Which in the case of Ireland can mean a referendum.

If it requires a referendum before Lisbon, it will require one after.

ballsymchugh · 04-09-2009 01:59AM

skelliser wrote: »

norway is the promised land!
there petroleum/pension fund is worth nearly 400billion!!
they actually have a bit of controversy cause they cant agree with what to do with it all!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway

i knew norway was good, but FCUKING HELL!!!!!!
i'm off after leccy piccy!!

anonymous_joe · 04-09-2009 02:00AM

skelliser wrote: »

norway is the promised land!
there petroleum/pension fund is worth nearly 400billion!!
they actually have a bit of controversy cause they cant agree with what to do with it all!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway

Sadly we're not Norway, and don't have that much money.

In All Fairness · 04-09-2009 02:01AM

procure11 wrote: »

Hey Marco..excellent post but the truth is that the people would prefare to hear it from the government that is trying to hold a second referendum on a treaty that was rejected a year ago,rather they spend tax-payers funds in printing leaflets that are most likely thrown in the gabbage.

One of the major failures of the government and most Yes campaigners is the consistent /overused cliche about how Ireland would no longer be at the heart of Europe because we dare reject a treaty.I have not heard any government official come out to really explain what the real advantages would be,yet they are not short of words when it comes to how Ireland would suffer so much by rejecting the treaty.

You have to realise that you are talking to a large spectrum of people ie workers/taxi drivers/students/lecturers/housewives/farmers/unemployed etc etc...some of whom do not have the patience or understanding of a third of the valid reasons to vote in favour of the treaty for eg what is the business of an unemployed man/woman about making the EU more accountable when a lot of jobs are going to eastern europe/china/india etc.

I agree with people that suggest that if there is a second rejection of this treaty it would be largely due to how condescending a lot of the Yes campaigners have been.

That's a majestic post. But I am still going post by post so I may be against you by the end of the thread. Unite and conquer. Vive la Republique.:)

ballsymchugh · 04-09-2009 02:03AM

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Sadly we're not Norway, and don't have that much money.

but we may have the resources. if only we looked properly instead of
a. selling them to shell
and b. letting a load of mercenaries stop it from being brought ashore..

marco_polo · 04-09-2009 02:03AM

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

That's the thing about imposing a second referendum on the exact same issue. Calling an immediate re-run of the referendum implies that the first result was somehow wrong or unsatisfactory.

That's not a democracy. In a democracy, by definition, the people are always right. In a democracy, politicians have to deal with whatever the people decide, not bully and threaten them into coming up with the right answer.

Millions of people have died in wars so that this could be so.

.

Why is it that dealing with the situation cannot involve going back and getting clarifications on some points of the Treaty that were of concern to many voters people.

What is so undemocratic about a second vote, bar the fact that you were happy with the first result and want to deny other people the right to exercise their right to either change their minds or not, in light of the clarifications.

skelliser · 04-09-2009 02:04AM

our oil and gas fields are iirc a fraction of what norway has, i could be mistaken tho

marco_polo · 04-09-2009 02:06AM

tech77 wrote: »

Isn't there a question mark at the end of it.
It's not an assertion as far as i can see.

The only reason that there is a question marks is so that the can fall back on statements like that like that if the going gets tough in an interview. The implication is clear enough though.

ballsymchugh · 04-09-2009 02:07AM

skelliser wrote: »

our oil and gas fields are iirc a fraction of what norway has, i could be mistaken tho

they are a fraction, but a fraction of what norway has could go a hell of a long way here...

'NBIM forecasts that the fund will reach NOK 2.794 trillion ($463 billion) by the end of 2009 and NOK 4.769 trillion ($791 billion) by the end of 2014 '

anonymous_joe · 04-09-2009 02:08AM

ballsymchugh wrote: »

but we may have the resources. if only we looked properly instead of
a. selling them to shell
and b. letting a load of mercenaries stop it from being brought ashore..

We just don't have that. There isn't a sea of oil off the coast ready to fuel some socialist Irish elysium where Padraig Pearse and co can be a bit weird about schools and poetry.

Norway's lucky.

Advocating a No vote because Norway has oil is basically retarded. We just won't have that at all.

skelliser · 04-09-2009 02:11AM

who cares about the yes and no side, i think we should all move to norway!

Minimum wage €1.84?

Comments