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

Minimum wage €1.84?

12346

Comments

  • #152
    skelliser
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,985 ✭✭✭skelliser


    hahahahaha
    your name is curry-muff!!


  • #153
    riskyOz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38 ✭riskyOz


    curry-muff wrote: »
    Thank FCUK for college ;)


    Here here ...Just a pity im doing construction in college tho :D


  • #154
    Red Sleeping Beauty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,443 ✭✭✭Red Sleeping Beauty


    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

    .

    Both FF and FG's posters to seem imply that the Lisbon Treaty referendum is more than just a vote on a treaty but a vote on EU membership.

    There were similar bully tactics used in 1992 in the run up to the Maastricht Treaty referendum.
    PrivateEye wrote: »
    http://liberals.ie/

    Who are these guys on the Yes Side?
    They're the PDs under a different guise.

    Chinafoot wrote: »
    Tell me why. Honestly.

    I'm assuming the "vote to end all votes" is a reference to the article that says the treaty is self-ammending.

    Moriarty wrote: »

    Absolute bollocks.
    tl;dr version: no, you won't be getting paid less than minimum wage by an Elbonian multinational to slave away in the sugar mines next year.

    Yes it is absolute bollocks because Ryanair (and similar corporations of its size) couldn't give a toss about its staff (even if they tried).
    Dankoozy wrote: »
    Boards is an annoying overzealous left-wing authoritarian pro-european 'everything by the letter of the law' facebook using militant atheist city dweller with an iPhone

    Left wing ? Sorry... LEFT wing ? What ?
    You can't make generalisations like that about the whole forum.

    mike65 wrote: »
    Its a self explaining idiotic claim anyway - who is going to work for €1.84 when you get a fiver per hour on the dole?

    And a FREE Mercedes! And FREE Sky Digital AND a FREE 42" flat screen telly with blueray. Not least forgetting the 5 weeks free holidays to Spain (or was it the USA ?) and also that year's golf club membership.


  • #155
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    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 see this post wasn't heeded so. The Irish people shouted out with one loud voice and said that they didn't want abortion, conscription, higher taxation, loss of neutrality and loss of a commissioner and that they don't like to sign up to things they don't understand

    The government said "great, now that we know your feelings on those issues could you tell us what you think of the Lisbon treaty please?". The first result was unsatisfactory because the vast majority of reasons for rejecting the treaty had absolutely nothing to do with the treaty. In a democrary you're supposed to be able to renegotiate to reach a compromise but you can't renegotiate "I didn't understand it", all you can do is help them to try to understand it. What is so wrong with asking people to know what it is they're throwing in the bin before they throw it in the bin?

    And on a slightly separate issue, would you support an early general election or do you think that the democratic will of the people should be listened to and they shouldn't be allowed change their minds, meaning FF will be in power until 2012?


  • #156
    DamoDLK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 716 ✭✭✭DamoDLK


    JONJO THE MISER wrote: »
    :mad::mad:Im sorry but im really angry about this Lisbon vote again, we voted no last time and now they rerun it until they get what they want, if we had voted yes would we have it again, not a chance in hell. I voted NO last time and ill vote NO this time, i wont be told my vote was no good last time and told to vote again:mad:.

    Thought that you were going to be down under?
    JONJO THE MISER wrote: »
    Why is boards pro Lisbon? i would of thought they would be netural. It seems all big buissness want the people to vote yes, they can screw themselves, want to drive down wages and do what they want and screw the workers, well Lisbon will be defeated again this time because us Irish people wont be taken for fools. I know of a few people who voted yes last time and now they are going to vote no because of the 2nd vote on this.

    No big business = no business at all. Economics is economics.. if big business pulls out altogether dear old Ireland is dead and gone.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    angel01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,030 ✭✭✭angel01


    I find it hard to believe it would ever be that low but it seems these people have an agenda and it gets peoples attention :eek:


  • #158
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Alan Rouge wrote: »
    I'm assuming the "vote to end all votes" is a reference to the article that says the treaty is self-ammending.

    No it's not

    edit: To clarify, what you're talking about is the simplified revision procedure. One of the main complaints about Lisbon is that it's too big and complicated. The simplified revision procedure addresses this problem by allowing issues to be decided individually where currently they have to wait five years or so and try to get all the necessary changes through in one go in a single treaty.

    In areas of policy where unanimity applies it will still apply so Ireland will still have a veto and if accepting a change requires a referendum in Ireland it will still require a referendum. The simplified revision procedure cannot be used to increase the competences of the EU.

    So the treaty is not self amending, Ireland still has a say on each issue. It just means we don't have to decide on 500 issues at once and either accept the lot or reject the lot

    If you look at article 48, the supposed self-amending article, you'll see:
    The decision referred to in the second subparagraph shall not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties.
    So it can't increase EU competences
    and:
    The European Council may adopt a decision amending all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The European Council shall act by unanimity after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, and the European Central Bank in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.


  • #159
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,968 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    anonymous_joe wrote: »
    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.

    The Italians have never paid for as much as a breeze block in this state as they have been net receivers just like Ireland. The British have but I guess you'd not give them the credit.

    Your broader point holds of course.


  • #160
    TwoShedsJackson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,438 ✭✭✭TwoShedsJackson


    Your best guidance on how to vote in any election/referendum is to find out how Sinn Fein and the likes of Coir/Youth Defence want you to vote, then do the opposite.


  • #161
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Do Norway have the Shell to Sea campaigners?

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Johnnnybravo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,115 ✭✭✭Johnnnybravo


    I wouldnt be surprised!

    Not bad enough that the lads running this country all ready are complete fukn eejits but now they want us to be under the rule of any other fuk that feels like it in Europe., and the shower here then will try rush through any law them other crowds have. If other European countries are so great, why are so many people coming from them to Ireland to work eh??? No thanks to Lisbon and cuts on everything and more absolutely stupid laws.

    Annoyed enough that we already said NO and now were being asked to vote again. No means NO ffs. Democracy me hole.


  • #163
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Why have a sizable proportion of Irish population suddenly turned into Ian Paisley impersonators?


  • #164
    Euro_Kraut
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,957 ✭✭✭Euro_Kraut


    Johnnnybravo wrote: »
    Annoyed enough that we already said NO and now were being asked to vote again. No means NO ffs. Democracy me hole.

    A guy from Tipperary brought a case to the high court yesterday arguing that point. The case failed.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0903/breaking62.htm
    “In my business, a deal is a deal,” Mr Burke said. “A vote is a vote, a result of a referendum is a result, No is not Yes and that’s the Ireland I come from.” It is the people who “call the shots” in a democracy, he added.

    But the juge agreed:
    The State’s argument the people could be asked more than once to vote on an issue was “compelling” because, if the people could decide a matter only once, that would effectively disenfranchise people in the future from expressing their view

    and he went on to say:
    The people are “well capable” of deciding an issue on a second occasion and it was for the people to express their view on October 2nd next, he concluded. That was democracy working at its “most fluid


  • #165
    Johnnnybravo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,115 ✭✭✭Johnnnybravo


    Euro_Kraut wrote: »
    A guy from Tipperary brought a case to the high court yesterday arguing that point. The case failed.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0903/breaking62.htm



    But the juge agreed:



    and he went on to say:

    more room for them to rig it the second time shure.


  • #166
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Johnnnybravo wrote: »
    more room for them to rig it the second time shure.

    Rigging of elections is a quite seriously allegation. You seem to be extremely bitter that people may or may not change their mind in a free and democratic vote.

    QFT again.
    The State’s argument the people could be asked more than once to vote on an issue was “compelling” because, if the people could decide a matter only once, that would effectively disenfranchise people in the future from expressing their view


  • #167
    Johnnnybravo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,115 ✭✭✭Johnnnybravo


    marco_polo wrote: »
    Rigging of elections is a quite seriously allegation. You seem to be extremely bitter that people may or may not change their mind in a free and democratic vote.

    QFT again.

    Vote whatever way ya please just stating my opinion


  • #168
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Johnnnybravo wrote: »

    Annoyed enough that we already said NO and now were being asked to vote again. No means NO ffs. Democracy me hole.

    No to what part? You can't legitimately object to every word of a 277 page document, there must have been some part that stood out to you that made you say no. It's not good enough to stand there stamping your feet and complain that you're not being listened to, you have to say very clearly why you voted no so the people who are proposing the treaty can know what would be needed to satisfy you. If all you're saying is "NO MEANS NO", there's nothing to listen to.

    And if you can't explain which parts of the treaty you object to so that they can be renegotiated, if you just voted no because you weren't bothered finding out about it and don't understand why that's not an acceptable reason to throw a document that took five years and millions to write in the bin, you are abusing the privilege of the vote your forefathers fought for. If you have nothing constructive to add to the debate in terms of renegotiations that you would find acceptable, I'd kindly ask you to stay home on voting day and let the people who understand the treaty make the decision on it


  • #169
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Johnnnybravo wrote: »
    Vote whatever way ya please just stating my opinion

    Just wondering how a free and democratic vote is undemocratic. It seems to me to be a logical paradox.


  • #170
    Johnnnybravo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,115 ✭✭✭Johnnnybravo


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    No to what part? You can't legitimately object to every word of a 277 page document, there must have been some part that stood out to you that made you say no. It's not good enough to stand their stamping your feet and complain that you're not being listened to, you have to say very clearly why you voted no so the people who are proposing the treaty can know what would be needed to satisfy you. If all you're saying is "NO MEANS NO", there's nothing to listen to.

    And if you can't explain which parts of the treaty you object to so that they can be renegotiated, if you just voted no because you weren't bothered finding out about it and don't understand why that's not an acceptable reason to throw a document that took five years and millions to write in the bin, you are abusing the privilege of the vote your forefathers fought for. If you have nothing constructive to add to the debate in terms of renegotiations that you would find acceptable, I'd kindly ask you to stay home on voting day and let the people who understand the treaty make the decision on it


    hahahaha I dunno what planet your off boy asking me to stay home on voting day. Jesus christ I dont have to justify my vote to anybody least of all somebody on an internet forum. I will be at the voting office first in line to vote NO once again! "let the people who do understand it vote" lol with fukn bells on, just because somebody doesnt agree with you, you assume they dont understand it. See ya on the 2nd.


  • #171
    Johnnnybravo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,115 ✭✭✭Johnnnybravo


    marco_polo wrote: »
    Just wondering how a free and democratic vote is undemocratic. It seems to me to be a logical paradox.

    This was voted on before, NO was the outcome and now is being voted on again, that is why I believe it to be undemocratic. Seems like they want to keep going til they get yes. Thats just my 2 cents.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Johnnnybravo wrote: »
    hahahaha I dunno what planet your off boy asking me to stay home on voting day. Jesus christ I dont have to justify my vote to anybody least of all somebody on an internet forum.
    Well then don't post your opinion on an internet forum. Also, I generally find that people who can justify their opinion do so and people who can't declare that they don't have to ;)
    Johnnnybravo wrote: »
    I will be at the voting office first in line to vote NO once again! "let the people who do understand it vote" lol with fukn bells on, just because somebody doesnt agree with you, you assume they dont understand it. See ya on the 2nd.

    No, just because someone disagrees with me does not mean they don't understand they treat but saying that the second vote is undemocratic shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how democracy works.

    Also I've asked you which parts of the treaty you object to and you haven't provided that information so I'm left with no alternative but to assume that you haven't a clue what's in it and you're just a naysayer


  • #173
    Johnnnybravo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,115 ✭✭✭Johnnnybravo


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Well then don't post your opinion on an internet forum. Also, I generally find that people who can justify their opinion do so and people who can't declare that they don't have to ;)



    No, just because someone disagrees with me does not mean they don't understand they treat but saying that the second vote is undemocratic shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how democracy works.


    whatever see ye on the 2nd.


  • #174
    SV
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,533 ✭✭✭SV


    Every referendum from here on in should have to be put to the vote three times and the average wins.

    It's only fair.
    Sure that'd be Democracy at it's 'most fluid' I'd say. :rolleyes:


  • #175
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Johnnnybravo wrote: »
    whatever see ye on the 2nd.

    People say that the yes side come across as arrogant and dismissive of the no side. How can I be anything but dismissive of nonsense like this? There are some good points made on the no side but this is nonsense and I'm not going to pretend otherwise to try to sweet talk people into seeing my point of view


  • #176
    Johnnnybravo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,115 ✭✭✭Johnnnybravo


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    People say that the yes side come across as arrogant and dismissive of the no side. How can I be anything but dismissive of nonsense like this? There are some good points made on the no side but this is nonsense and I'm not going to pretend otherwise to try to sweet talk people into seeing my point of view

    and?? No need to pretend anything for me sammy.


  • #177
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Johnnnybravo wrote: »
    and?? No need to pretend anything for me sammy.

    No not for you, I don't think you'd vote yes even if there was a "give Jonnnybravo €1 million and a hand job" clause. I was referring to people who say that the yes side are dismissive of the no side. They don't take account of the fact that the only sensible action to take with many of the arguments made by the no side is dismissal. When someone says something like, for example, the EU might go back on the guarantees, responding to it only gives people the idea that the argument has even the tiniest chance of being true. In reality it's an outright lie and should be treated as such


  • #178
    pikachucheeks
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,488 ✭✭✭pikachucheeks


    Minimum wage at 1.84?

    Still beating all those little sweat shop kids by a long way!


  • #179
    Johnnnybravo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,115 ✭✭✭Johnnnybravo


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    No not for you, I don't think you'd vote yes even if there was a "give Jonnnybravo €1 million and a hand job" clause. I was referring to people who say that the yes side are dismissive of the no side. They don't take account of the fact that the only sensible action to take with many of the arguments made by the no side is dismissal. When someone says something like, for example, the EU might go back on the guarantees, responding to it only gives people the idea that the argument has even the tiniest chance of being true. In reality it's an outright lie and should be treated as such


    well sam we all have a vote each to use as we see fit, I dont want to argue with you because I dont care what your reasons are, the only vote I need worry about is my own. Ive no need to try convert others and thats that.


  • #180
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Johnnnybravo wrote: »
    well sam we all have a vote each to use as we see fit, I dont want to argue with you because I dont care what your reasons are, the only vote I need worry about is my own. Ive no need to try convert others and thats that.

    The thing is that I care about this country and I don't want to see it damaged. If significant numbers had valid objections to specific parts of the treaty we could go back to Europe and get it renegotiated and there would be no problem but masses of people sticking two fingers up at an organisation that has helped us as much as the EU has for no good reason can do nothing but damage the country. Saying "NO MEANS NO" is only valid if we had a good reason to say no in the first place but most of us just didn't understand it and that's not a good reason to reject it. It's a reason to give us more time to learn about it and ask us again once we know what it's all about, which is exactly what happened.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Johnnnybravo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,115 ✭✭✭Johnnnybravo


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    The thing is that I care about this country and I don't want to see it damaged. If significant numbers had valid objections to specific parts of the treaty we could go back to Europe and get it renegotiated and there would be no problem but masses of people sticking two fingers up at an organisation that has helped us as much as the EU has for no good reason can do nothing but damage the country. Saying "NO MEANS NO" is only valid if we had a good reason to say no in the first place but most of us just didn't understand it and that's not a good reason to reject it. It's a reason to give us more time to learn about it and ask us again once we know what it's all about, which is exactly what happened.

    yep and Im going NO again.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement