Minimum wage €1.84?

marco_polo · 04-09-2009 02:13AM

skelliser wrote: »

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

anonymous_joe wrote: »

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.

Indeed.

Experience of the Irish market shows that, for every 50 wells drilled, one turned out to be commercially viable, Cahill said. In Norway, one commercially-viable well is found for every three drilled.

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2005/08/21/story7252.asp

ballsymchugh · 04-09-2009 02:14AM

anonymous_joe wrote: »

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.

i'm not advocating a no vote because norway has oil, but we haven't been able to use our own resources properly at all. our politicians have been retarded since lemass, apart from reynolds and that's only cos of norn iron. but none of them have tried to save or use what we have naturally.

slipss · 04-09-2009 02:15AM

1. The Lisbon treaty was originally just, and still is, a set of ideas put forward to improve the efficiency of the decision making of the company, as it has expanded a lot since the last time the structure of organisation was reviewed. (All states, nations, national unions are basically companies no different to Nike or Dunnes or Lieshout). Regardless of wether it is passed or not (it will be passed this time round, I'm willing to give 5-1 odds on betfair if anyone is interested) it will have absolutely no noticible effect on your day to day life.

2. Please, please think of the children, we have to keep/stop the lizard people from gaining influence over our lives, that is why you must vote yes/no, our very way of life depends on it.

In All Fairness · 04-09-2009 02:16AM

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

When Albert Einstein and twenty five other maths professors sit in a room and try to convince a five year-old child that 4+4 = 7 because,it is in their self-interest and they will be believed. That is far more unacceptable.

anonymous_joe · 04-09-2009 02:17AM

ballsymchugh wrote: »

i'm not advocating a no vote because norway has oil, but we haven't been able to use our own resources properly at all. our politicians have been retarded since lemass, apart from reynolds and that's only cos of norn iron. but none of them have tried to save or use what we have naturally.

Because it's not worth it!

It's like those people who think we should leave the EU so we could have all teh fish to ourselves.

One industry is not enough to fuel an economy. Huge numbers of Irish people are employed by multinational companies operating in the EU. Not in Ireland. Without the EU those people would all be unemployed.

If our natural resources were sufficient to make us the richest country in Europe, we'd have exploited them, or someone would have. It's not FF keeping us oil free, it's a lack of fcuking oil.

marco_polo · 04-09-2009 02:19AM

slipss wrote: »

1. The Lisbon treaty was originally just, and still is, a set of ideas put forward to improve the efficiency of the decision making of the company, as it has expanded a lot since the last time the structure of organisation was reviewed. (All states, nations, national unions are basically companies no different to Nike or Dunnes or Lieshout). Regardless of wether it is passed or not (it will be passed this time round, I'm willing to give 5-1 odds on betfair if anyone is interested) it will have absolutely no noticible effect on your day to day life.

2. Please, please think of the children, we have to keep/stop the lizard people from gaining influence over our lives, that is why you must vote yes/no, our very way of life depends on it.

Why are you dissing the lizards man?

slipss · 04-09-2009 02:20AM

Sorry, that was very cynical and smarmy (although accurate), I'm actually glad to see that people have such a vivid interest in the way global politics is run, this bodes well for when genuinely important political decisions come to pass.

c-note · 04-09-2009 02:21AM

minimum wage at €1.84

thats nothing
i heard if we vote yes that the EU will make us be part of the uk again and make us use sterling. lets hear the minister deny it!!

marco_polo · 04-09-2009 02:21AM

slipss wrote: »

Sorry, that was very cynical and smarmy (although accurate), I'm actually glad to see that people have such a vivid interest in the way global politics is run, this bodes well for when genuinely important political decisions come to pass.

I had a feeling you we joking, although I did check your recent post history to see if you were crazy or not

ballsymchugh · 04-09-2009 02:23AM

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Because it's not worth it!

It's like those people who think we should leave the EU so we could have all teh fish to ourselves.

i would personally love to live in a donegal catch heaven...

marco_polo · 04-09-2009 02:24AM

In All Fairness wrote: »

When Albert Einstein and twenty five other maths professors sit in a room and try to convince a five year-old child that 4+4 = 7 because,it is in their self-interest and they will be believed. That is far more unacceptable.

That implies to me that you believe the EU was a club setup so that 26 other member states could decieve and bully Ireland?

I can see why you are voting no if that is your outlook on life.

In All Fairness · 04-09-2009 02:26AM

procure11 wrote: »

Sam,I agree with you that the Irish people voted No for a variety of reasons and it is also true that the reasons are more complex than the so called survey suggested tbh.

Your analysis about 26 other countries ratifying or will soon ratify the treaty is a bit misleading though....The Czech Rep is waiting for Ireland to ratify the treaty,so if we dont the President would not sign it.I am also aware that there are still minute disagreements about the constitutionality of the treaty in Germany.

You also have to realise that it was not only Ireland but all nations of the EU that collectively agreed that all member nations must ratify the treaty before it is endorsed.If only Ireland objects to the treaty( considering we are the only country that held a referendum)- do you think we should be crucified?...If we are ,then there would be serious questions about the motives of the EU as a body.

^^^^^^^^
This.

If there are street parties in nations that were not allowed to vote, then surely in the interests of democracy there should be referenda in all countries before a pan-European treaty is ratified.

ballsymchugh · 04-09-2009 02:29AM

marco_polo wrote: »

That implies to me that you believe the EU was a club setup so that 26 other member states could decieve and bully Ireland?

I can see why you are voting no if that is your outlook on life.

the reaction from the last time would imply that it is. the prime minister of luxembourg was straight away hinting at a two tier europe after the no vote was announced. he was one of the first people that biffo called to relay the bad news.

marco_polo · 04-09-2009 02:32AM

In All Fairness wrote: »

^^^^^^^^
This.

If there are street parties in nations that were not allowed to vote, then surely in the interests of democracy there should be referenda in all countries before a pan-European treaty is ratified.

There is nobody that has the authority to make any country have a referendum though. All that happen was that a treaty document was agreed by all 27 member states after a long period of negotiation, and then taken away to be ratified in whatever manner is appropriate to the each country.

In All Fairness · 04-09-2009 02:37AM

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.

A referendum unfortunately by it's very nature is undemocratic. It is those in power who get to phrase the question. You only get to say Yes or No.

ballsymchugh · 04-09-2009 02:39AM

marco_polo wrote: »

There is nobody that has the authority to make any country have a referendum though. All that happen was that a treaty document was agreed by all 27 member states after a long period of negotiation, and then taken away to be ratified in whatever manner is appropriate to the each country.

it was agreed by the governments of the 27 member states, but not by the people. it was still rejected in it's former glory by the french and the dutch people, even though their governments ratified it without going to the people the next time. maybe that's what they should've done here... change it slightly enough so it doesn't interfere with the ruling in 86 so there would be no need for a referendum anyway...

shovelsfc · 04-09-2009 02:40AM

1.84 is a joke!

In All Fairness · 04-09-2009 02:44AM

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Kinda like Iceland. That worked well.

Iceland still has control of its fishing waters and its stock of cod has multiplied in value sixfold, due to conservation and the price of cod on international markets. Who knows what the future holds ?

Cod might be worth more than Humans to the next Oligarchy.

marco_polo · 04-09-2009 02:51AM

In All Fairness wrote: »

A referendum unfortunately by it's very nature is undemocratic. It is those in power who get to phrase the question. You only get to say Yes or No.

Alternative options?

ballsymchugh wrote: »

it was agreed by the governments of the 27 member states, but not by the people. it was still rejected in it's former glory by the french and the dutch people, even though their governments ratified it without going to the people the next time. maybe that's what they should've done here... change it slightly enough so it doesn't interfere with the ruling in 86 so there would be no need for a referendum anyway...

And most of the parts that that were of found to be of concern to them were removed from the treaty. Sarcozy explicitly stated that he would ratify the next treaty during the election campaign.

Do you propose that all future EU treaties be rejected until the Irish people are satisfied that all other European countries alter their democracies be of a form acceptable to us regarding the staging of referendums?

Or should we withdraw from the current EU because we were the only country to hold a referendum on the Nice treaty too, and by the new defination of democratic that has arisen in Ireland recently, the current organization cannot possibly have any legitimacy either.

An Fear Aniar · 04-09-2009 02:54AM

chatterpillar wrote: »

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.

What you don't seem to see is that this process of pressurising the people to do the right thing sets up a dangerous precedent for European democracy in the decades to come.

In the future, any decision made by the people in any country can be questioned by politicians and a re-run demanded. It's not far from there to the point where people see no point in elections or referendums whatsover.

Do you think the Eurocrats are really demanding another referendum out of genuine democratic concerns? Do you think they want to find out if we really meant NO?

They want a re-run because they want to get their own way and they want their Constitution passed and will not take NO for an answer.

.

In All Fairness · 04-09-2009 03:01AM

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..

Or allow ourselves to have the country sold by the least whorish little lap-dog in favour with the EU this week. Jesus, when will we get a leader who doesn't believe that the Irish interest necessarily is best served by sucking Germany/France/Britain's leaders cocks.
Let them walk all over you and they will. But I think even Jean- Claude Trichet was surprised at the subservience of the Irish people taking responsibility for the actions of AIB/ Bank of Ireland.

Two bonded commercial banks.

God we're like the horse in Animal Farm. (What was his name again?)

ballsymchugh · 04-09-2009 03:08AM

marco_polo wrote: »

Alternative options?

And most of the parts that that were of found to be of concern to them were removed from the treaty. Sarcozy explicitly stated that he would ratify the next treaty during the election campaign.

were they removed or just put in a different order, as the author suggested??
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1567804/Giscard-EU-Treaty-is-the-constitution-rewritten.html

and i would still love to see a referendum in france on this, sarkozy wasn't elected simply because he promised to ratify the treaty, he was tough on the riots in les banlieus a few years ago which elevated his position. stephanie royale was just a crappy alternative.

ballsymchugh · 04-09-2009 03:10AM

[quote=

God we're like the horse in Animal Farm. (What was his name again?)[/quote]

frank?

An Fear Aniar · 04-09-2009 03:10AM

marco_polo wrote: »

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.

Firstly, it's a really dangerous precedent.

Secondly, I would be quite content if there were referendums in all of the countries affected.

Thirdly, the French and the Dutch voted No to this thing - Lisbon is essentially the 2005 Constitution that they rejected.

Fourthly, the present government in the UK promised a referendum, this has not taken place due to Gordon Brown pretending the Lisbon fudge was no longer a matter that required a referendum.

Fifthly, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Poland and Portugal all ducked out of holding referendums using the same shabby excuse.

Sixthly: Otherwise, the proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary.

.

In All Fairness · 04-09-2009 03:15AM

ballsymchugh wrote: »

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 '

Also, Norway runs it's economy on the basis of a prudent parent. They don't have more kids than they can afford, and they realise that it is a race to the bottom so the best thing you can have is savings. China are doing the same now. But us, we're following the Americans and their economists, maxing out the credit card, stimulus packages:rolleyes:. Can't see that capital is worth more than investment in education. The Norwegians realise that a menial worker doesn't need a degree; they need a house. And society needs more menial workers than "qualified ones" and if the qualified ones don't understand that all contributors have rights then that society is doomed to failure.

Of course, I could be wrong, I'm as stupid as a Norwegian.

In All Fairness · 04-09-2009 03:36AM

marco_polo wrote: »

That implies to me that you believe the EU was a club setup so that 26 other member states could decieve and bully Ireland?

I can see why you are voting no if that is your outlook on life.

My post was a rebuttal to a previous argument. I see the EU as a group of allies who are better off together. I don't believe that popularity is an arguable reason for the merit of an argument related to the right thing to do. I also believe that Ireland is best served in Europe by a leader who goes in serving the interests of Ireland and arguing from that standpoint, rather than going in cap-in-hand and asking what we can do for them.

I will be voting No because I think it is important for every person in Europe who didn't get to vote, or had their vote flung in their face. You either believe in Democracy or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

skelliser · 04-09-2009 03:42AM

imagine 1.84 an hour

thats 73.6euro a week! lol!
i spend that on a normal nite out

Soby · 04-09-2009 03:49AM

Sure we can all just go on the dolé:D

_ZeeK_ · 04-09-2009 04:03AM

Vote for pedro!

curry-muff · 04-09-2009 04:06AM

Thank FCUK for college

Minimum wage €1.84?

Comments