EU plays hardball. complaints lodged

thehighground

is_that_so wrote: »

Much appreciated however there are parts of the Economist that are not universally respected, its Op-Ed pieces. Some of them have often been less than well-thought out and take positions that make Rupert Murdoch organs look left-wing.?

Well, considering its a big business magazine, one would expect it to lean very much to the right, surely?

is_that_so

thehighground wrote: »

Well, considering its a big business magazine, one would expect it to lean very much to the right, surely?

Agreed. They do write some extremely good analysis and a wide range of informative articles, but the Op-eds should be taken with a pinch of salt.

thehighground

marco_polo wrote: »

So where in the treaty are workers rights and public services sneered at? Or the creation of a federal state for that matter?

Not too sure what point you are trying to make here. You do realise that us peasants are too thick to read the Treaty and if we could we wouldn't because we would just vote No because we are stupid anyway ... thats the kind of rhetoric that has been coming out of the 'Yes' campaigners in the last year.

Even though all ratification didn't actually stop, that makes McKenna not a liar how exactly?

Very classy of a Gov. Minister on our national airwaves to call anyone a liar ?:(

Edit: I'm not going to answer your other post because I think it is pointless point scoring - but I get castigated here for not 'debating' and you don't even notice that the best a Gov. Minister can come up on a radio debate on Radio is to call someone a liar ... you lot are a panic!.

marco_polo

thehighground wrote: »

Not too sure what point you are trying to make here. You do realise that us peasants are too thick to read the Treaty and if we could we wouldn't because we would just vote No because we are stupid anyway ... thats the kind of rhetoric that has been coming out of the 'Yes' campaigners in the last year.

It was a question not a point. To repeat the question how are workers rights or public services in any way undermined by the treaty?

Cheap shot by the way I have not mentioned or questioned the intelligence of any group of voters in the last few posts or indeed at any point on this forum so far.

I can only presume that you are trying to sidestep answering my question by insinuating this.

Very classy of a Gov. Minister on our national airwaves to call anyone a liar ?:(

He has a duty to point out when someone is lying to the electorate.

dresden8

marco_polo wrote: »

He has a duty to point out when someone is lying to the electorate.

Non-Lisbon related, but the irony here is overwhelming.

marco_polo

dresden8 wrote: »

Non-Lisbon related, but the irony here is overwhelming.

Another throw away comment. Could you clarify what you mean by that statement?

** EDIT ** Get you now, not going to be defending the Governments record any time soon.

dresden8

marco_polo wrote: »

Another throw away comment. Could you clarify what you mean by that statement?

Fianna Fail politician has problem with lying to the electorate. Come to that any of them.

thehighground

marco_polo wrote: »

It was a question not a point. To repeat the question how are workers rights or public services in any way undermined by the treaty?

Cheap shot by the way I have not mentioned or questioned the intelligence of any group of voters in the last few posts or indeed at any point on this forum so far.

I can only presume that you are trying to sidestep answering my question by insinuating this.

TBH, you jumped in here - I was responding to Oscar. Can I just make it clear to you that I didn't write that article*;) But my understanding from the comments is that the way the EU is heading (federalisation) it favours big business and the worker is going to get sqeezed. (Sarkozy and Merkel gave us a preview last week of their sneering ability).

Sorry, for the cheap shot - I didn't realise you had no sense of humour. I won't do it again. :rolleyes:


*Gene Kerrigan at the Sunday Independent

marco_polo

thehighground wrote: »

TBH, you jumped in here - I was responding to Oscar. Can I just make it clear to you that I didn't write that article*;) But my understanding from the comments is that the way the EU is heading (federalisation) it favours big business and the worker is going to get sqeezed. (Sarkozy and Merkel gave us a preview last week of their sneering ability).

Sorry, for the cheap shot - I didn't realise you had no sense of humour. I won't do it again. :rolleyes:

*Gene Kerrigan at the Sunday Independent

I presumed since you quoted it in its entirety that you agreed with the entire article. In any case since it has been posted it is legitimate to then challenge the contents of said article.

The major trade unions seem to think the Lisbon treaty is a good thing for workers rights.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0604/breaking72.htm

Here is another article on the recently introduced workers rights directive. Doesn't seem like the kind of thing an organisation that is so biased in favour of big business would be introducing.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0610/employment.html?rss

Under current treaties member states are solely responsible for key areas like health and education and EU harmonisation ruled on numerous occasions that public services provided by or paid for by the State are not covered by EU internal market rules.

Lisbon does not change this in any way.

thehighground

marco_polo wrote: »

I presumed since you quoted it in its entirety that you agreed with the entire article. In any case since it has been posted it is legitimate to then challenge the contents of said article.

I did apologise to Oscar for not highlighting the bit I was referring to. This article seems to have got you going though!

The major trade unions seem to think the Lisbon treaty is a good thing for workers rights.

Good for them.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0604/breaking72.htm

Here is another article on the recently introduced workers rights directive. Doesn't seem like the kind of thing an organisation that is so biased in favour of big business would be introducing.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0610/employment.html?rss

Under current treaties member states are solely responsible for key areas like health and education and EU harmonisation ruled on numerous occasions that public services provided by or paid for by the State are not covered by EU internal market rules.

Lisbon does not change this in any way.

I think a lot of 'No' voters are questioning where this whole EU project is going. If Sarkozy & Merkel think they can go ahead without Ireland (a country), you hardly think trade unions are going to pose any problems, now do you if they want to change stuff around a bit in their own interests. 'No' voters don't trust them. We have no reason to. You do realise they have not sorted out their own corruption yet - accounts have not been signed off by auditor for 13 years.

A lot of EU legislation have put small business out of business - example - there is hardly a butcher left in this country because the EU make the whole health & safety thing so complex and very costly. Tescos & Dunnes benefit from that!

Edit - you do realise that the Irish Times supported the Treaty (ABC1 readership) so were always going to put a very positive spin on the story.

I've heard people joking about how upset Pat Kenny was when the No vote came out. RTE although meant to be neutral is regarded as wanted a 'Yes' answer.

limklad

Scofflaw wrote: »

There isn't any 'principle of equality' built into the EU. That's why the bigger countries used to have 2 Commissioners, have more votes on the Council, and more MEPs. The vetoes were there for the benefit of the big countries who had recently been at war with each other.

Ireland does not have a god-given and unassailable right to be in the EU.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I meant about agreements and agreeing and implementing new treaties. Either everybody move forwards together, or not at all and start again.

I do not give a damn about Commissioners as far I as I am concern, they are EU civil servants for the EU, not on behalf of their country. They even had the 27 country issue taken care of too in regards of the Commission.
It (the Commission) is intended to act solely in the interest of the EU as a whole, as opposed to the Council which consists of leaders of member states who reflect national interests. Commissioner issue for the EU in the Commission was already agreed under the NICE Treaty, I never had an issue on that.

Prime Ministers/Leaders have more impact in picking up a phone and expressing their concern in person to the President of the Commission.


As for voting Rights and Voting weight and each country is for European Council was also agreed under the NICE Treaty, I never had an issue with that either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nice

marco_polo

thehighground wrote: »

I did apologise to Oscar for not highlighting the bit I was referring to. This article seems to have got you going though!



Good for them.



I think a lot of 'No' voters are questioning where this whole EU project is going. If Sarkozy & Merkel think they can go ahead without Ireland (a country), you hardly think trade unions are going to pose any problems, now do you if they want to change stuff around a bit in their own interests. 'No' voters don't trust them. We have no reason to. You do realise they have not sorted out their own corruption yet - accounts have not been signed off by auditor for 13 years.

A lot of EU legislation have put small business out of business - example - there is hardly a butcher left in this country because the EU make the whole health & safety thing so complex and very costly. Tescos & Dunnes benefit from that!

Edit - you do realise that the Irish Times supported the Treaty (ABC1 readership) so were always going to put a very positive spin on the story.

I've heard people joking about how upset Pat Kenny was when the No vote came out. RTE although meant to be neutral is regarded as wanted a 'Yes' answer.

Will you accept a similar article from the Independant then.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/boost-for-lisbon-yes-vote--as-ictu-gives-its-backing-1382727.html


I must say I am not against food health and safety personally. Speaking from precious experience, it is not that hard to keep cooked meat seperate from uncooked meats, maintain a hygenic premesis and monitor fridge tempratures every now and then. If some butchers did go out of business I highly doubt that this was the main factor. Unless that is they were put out of business. Sure I would agree that some EU laws are too complex and difficult to implement, but the vast majority of it has been very benefical.

Left to their own devices or own politicians would be too busy with important matters like fiddling with pub opening hours every couple of months, to come up with any important legislation like that.

Pat Kenny was embarrasing on the election programme and I am sure he will get a rap from the BCi over it in the coming months. But as it occured after the election it was not the extremely serious matter that it would have been in advance of the referendum.

Fair enough if you do not like the direction in which the EU is going in, that at least is a reasonable position to hold for voting No. Unfortunately it does not come with any guarantees that things can stay the same as much as you would like that to be the case.

thehighground

marco_polo wrote: »

Will you accept a similar article from the Independant then.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/boost-for-lisbon-yes-vote--as-ictu-gives-its-backing-1382727.html

I'm just trying to come up a possible reason as to why Gene Kerrigan wrote that - its not about accepting / or not accepting. I think you need to write to him to get a full explanation.

I must say I am not against food health and safety personally. Speaking from precious experience, it is not that hard to keep cooked meat seperate from uncooked meats, maintain a hygenic premesis and monitor fridge tempratures every now and then. If some butchers did go out of business I highly doubt that this was the main factor. Unless that is they were put out of business. Sure I would agree that some EU laws are too complex and difficult to implement, but the vast majority of it has been very benefical.

Left to their own devices or own politicians would be too busy with important matters like fiddling with pub opening hours every couple of months, to come up with any important legislation like that.

Pat Kenny was embarrasing on the election programme and I am sure he will get a rap from the BCi over it in the coming months. But as it occured after the election it was not the extremely serious matter that it would have been in advance of the referendum.

Fair enough if you do not like the direction in which the EU is going in, that at least is a reasonable position to hold for voting No. Unfortunately it does not come with any guarantees that things can stay the same as much as you would like that to be the case.

Its not an issue about keeping cooked/uncooked separate. Its how you slaughter animals. Briefly -

A farmer would sell maybe 5/6 sheep a week to his local butcher who slaughtered in his own premises. With EU regulations now, a Dept. of Agric Vet would need to be there to oversee slaughtering, make sure the animals are fit to slaughter, compliance etc. That is not practical. So, the farmer has to sell his animals to a big processing factory who will screw him on price and the butcher will have to buy his meat from the same factory and he will be screwed on price. The (big) middle man and those who can buy in bulk like Dunnes & Tescos will prosper.

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

If it were up to me of course I'd outlaw blatant lies on referendum posters and literature too and have an independent body to police it with penal powers of redress.
It's badly needed.

Made that point on another board. I was laughing at the we'll lose a Commissioner posters.

If something is clearly incorrect and misleading, somebody like the Referendum Commission should have the power to get them taken down.

marco_polo

thehighground wrote: »

I'm just trying to come up a possible reason as to why Gene Kerrigan wrote that - its not about accepting / or not accepting. I think you need to write to him to get a full explanation.

I might just do that

Its not an issue about keeping cooked/uncooked separate. Its how you slaughter animals. Briefly -

A farmer would sell maybe 5/6 sheep a week to his local butcher who slaughtered in his own premises. With EU regulations now, a Dept. of Agric Vet would need to be there to oversee slaughtering, make sure the animals are fit to slaughter, compliance etc. That is not practical. So, the farmer has to sell his animals to a big processing factory who will screw him on price and the butcher will have to buy his meat from the same factory and he will be screwed on price. The (big) middle man and those who can buy in bulk like Dunnes & Tescos will prosper.

I see you have exposed my complete lack of farming knowledge in public My bad I wasn't thinking outside the box, just purely about the retail aspects.

I don't dispute that there are is a body of European Legislation that is unwieldy and difficult to implement in some cases. But I would also argue that the majority of EU law has been benifical to this country for the most part, and even the badly thought out ones generally have good intentions behind them. From a personal point of view I prefer to have food law that errs on the side of caution, but I can understand fully why those it the business find it a hinderance to their work.

Speaking from a Software perspective, I remember a directive that proposed to introduce software patents a few years ago that thankfully never saw the light of day. So I guess we got off lightly in that respect.

In any case this is all existing EU law so Lisbon does not come into the equasion. You might point to the additional areas of legislation that come under QMV. From my point of view of considering EU law as doing more good than harm in the grand scheme of things, this is not a bad thing generally.

Besides it is Commissioners that propose these laws so maybe a few less of them would be a good thing

K-9

The quoting of Kerrigan, Dunphy, Myers etc. proves nothing. I have a suspicion going on the history of those writers that they are writing these articles for publicity more than anything else!

I can post pro-Lisbon opinion pieces, what's the point?

IRLConor

marco_polo wrote: »

Speaking from a Software perspective, I remember a directive that proposed to introduce software patents a few years ago that thankfully never saw the light of day. So I guess we got off lightly in that respect.

...

Besides it is Commissioners that propose these laws so maybe a few less of them would be a good thing

AFAIK it was "our" Commissioner that was a prime mover behind the software patents moves too. Clearly acting in Ireland's interest. :rolleyes:

marco_polo

IRLConor wrote: »

AFAIK it was "our" Commissioner that was a prime mover behind the software patents moves too. Clearly acting in Ireland's interest. :rolleyes:

I forgot that bit. Thanks for nothing Charlie.

Scofflaw

IRLConor wrote: »

AFAIK it was "our" Commissioner that was a prime mover behind the software patents moves too. Clearly acting in Ireland's interest. :rolleyes:

And defeated, as far as I recall, by the evil and corrupt European Parliament - partly, I further recall, by dint of a "write to your MEP" campaign. Mirabile dictu.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2008/jun/22/embraced-by-fanatics-patronised-by-former-allies/

I thought this was a good balanced piece by the Tribune.

I've pointed out the part on another board about our Govt. using the EU as a scapegoat on policies it agreed to at EU level. On unpopular environmental and farming directives it can blame the EU and say "them bloody Europeans forcing policies on us".

Scofflaw

Seanies32 wrote: »

http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2008/jun/22/embraced-by-fanatics-patronised-by-former-allies/

I thought this was a good balanced piece by the Tribune.

I've pointed out the part on another board about our Govt. using the EU as a scapegoat on policies it agreed to at EU level. On unpopular environmental and farming directives it can blame the EU and say "them bloody Europeans forcing policies on us".

Indeed - and in a really culpable piece of stupidity, they did exactly that with the Water Framework Directive just before Lisbon.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

As Kathy Synnot to her credit, pointed out!

thehighground

Originally Posted by marco_polo View Post
It was a question not a point. To repeat the question how are workers rights or public services in any way undermined by the treaty?

Just a thought on public service example - EU strongly promotes competition - take Dublin Bus for example who provides a public service - they could be made very unprofitable if bus routes could be cherry picked - their very busy routes subsidises the ones that aren't that busy, but there are people who need that service.

Is there something lacking in the Treaty that would prevent our Government from preventing this happening? (I'm no expert on the Treaty, and am just wondering if this is possible?)

djpbarry

thehighground wrote: »

Just a thought on public service example - EU strongly promotes competition - take Dublin Bus for example who provides a public service - they could be made very unprofitable if bus routes could be cherry picked - their very busy routes subsidises the ones that aren't that busy, but there are people who need that service.

Is there something lacking in the Treaty that would prevent our Government from preventing this happening? (I'm no expert on the Treaty, and am just wondering if this is possible?)

I'm not sure I understand your question, but if you're asking whether Lisbon would somehow lead to (or, make it more likely) Dublin Bus being privatised, then the answer is no.

VoidStarNull

thehighground wrote: »

Just a thought on public service example - EU strongly promotes competition - take Dublin Bus for example who provides a public service - they could be made very unprofitable if bus routes could be cherry picked - their very busy routes subsidises the ones that aren't that busy, but there are people who need that service.

Is there something lacking in the Treaty that would prevent our Government from preventing this happening? (I'm no expert on the Treaty, and am just wondering if this is possible?)

Generally speaking, public services are not operated "for profit". Dublin Bus happens to be a unique example, where the government has a (daft) policy of trying to operate the service for profit.

thehighground

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand your question, but if you're asking whether Lisbon would somehow lead to (or, make it more likely) Dublin Bus being privatised, then the answer is no.

The issue is not privatisation (or Dublin Bus having to be 'for profit') - it is an issue of allowing competition - Dublin Bus has to run unprofitable routes at unprofitable times (for the common good) - but at the moment they are protected from private companies just running profitable routes at busy times.

All about competition - and why Charlie McCreevy isn't too popular with some European Governments in Europe!

As I say, I don't know if there is something in Lisbon that would give Charlie a clear run with his way? (I don't know, hopefully Lisbon experts can clarify).

sink

thehighground wrote: »

The issue is not privatisation (or Dublin Bus having to be 'for profit') - it is an issue of allowing competition - Dublin Bus has to run unprofitable routes at unprofitable times (for the common good) - but at the moment they are protected from private companies just running profitable routes at busy times.

All about competition - and why Charlie McCreevy isn't too popular with some European Governments in Europe!

As I say, I don't know if there is something in Lisbon that would give Charlie a clear run with his way? (I don't know, hopefully Lisbon experts can clarify).

As public services are not governed by the same rules as private services they can be subsidised by funds from the exchequer. This includes profitable routes as well, so it would be difficult for private bus services to compete directly. What private bus services do is use different roots and they take short cuts, like going trough the port tunnel in order to differentiate themselves. A private bus service can't compete directly with a dublin bus service and still make a profit so there is no danger to dublin bus.

marco_polo

thehighground wrote: »

The issue is not privatisation (or Dublin Bus having to be 'for profit') - it is an issue of allowing competition - Dublin Bus has to run unprofitable routes at unprofitable times (for the common good) - but at the moment they are protected from private companies just running profitable routes at busy times.

All about competition - and why Charlie McCreevy isn't too popular with some European Governments in Europe!

As I say, I don't know if there is something in Lisbon that would give Charlie a clear run with his way? (I don't know, hopefully Lisbon experts can clarify).

The privatisation of bus routes has been on the agenda for years now so whether anyone thinks it is a good or bad idea it is already allowable under current EU rules. There is nothing is Lisbon that makes the process any more or any less likely to happen.

Not quite on topic I think the plan for the partial privatisation of certain bus routes propose packaging profitable routes with unprofitable ones so that this cherry picking could not occur. In any case it has been shelved for some time now.

thehighground

sink wrote: »

As public services are not governed by the same rules as private services they can be subsidised by funds from the exchequer. This includes profitable routes as well, so it would be difficult for private bus services to compete directly. What private bus services do is use different roots and they take short cuts, like going trough the port tunnel in order to differentiate themselves. A private bus service can't compete directly with a dublin bus service and still make a profit so there is no danger to dublin bus.

All this is at the moment.It is a bit daft to think private bus operators who did a couple of runs on the busy routes during rush hour wouldn't affect Dublin Bus or the general public who would be the ones to have to subsidise them.

You do realise the reason why there is no bus service in rural Ireland - it wouldn't be profitable and the State couldn't afford to subsidise it.

sink

thehighground wrote: »

All this is at the moment.

What do you mean? There are no plans to change it that I am aware of.

thehighground wrote: »

It is a bit daft to think private bus operators who did a couple of runs on the busy routes during rush hour wouldn't affect Dublin Bus or the general public who would be the ones to have to subsidise them.

They could of course but all they could afford to do would be to take up the slack if the dublin bus service is overcrowded. A lot of people use weekly/monthly/yearly tickets and they would use the dublin bus service regardless. The damage to dublin bus would be minimal and it would mean less overcrowding for the public.

thehighground wrote: »

You do realise the reason why there is no bus service in rural Ireland - it wouldn't be profitable and the State couldn't afford to subsidise it.

Yes I know this. I don't have any figures but I would be surprised if the state didn't subsidise most of it already. I doubt they earn enough money from their busy routes to even cover half the cost of their rural services.