The 1.84 clarified.......again

sensibleken

this morning on newstalk 106 a representative of coir were again arguing that their stance that the minimum wage could be dropped to 1.84 if lisbon was adopted. they claimed on the broadcast that the labour court agreed with this position.

this prompted the chairman of the labour court, kevin duffy, to ring in to the station and state again that this claim is not true. that the labour court is not in agreement with coir on this matter and in fact their statement in the wake of the laval case was contrary to what coir are saying.

its clear from this national minimum wage remains a national competency and is not affected at all by the lisbon treaty. hopefully the court will issue a press statement in the coming days so that this absurd position will be put to bed and we can actually debate the pros and cons of the actual text of the treaty honestly

please see this link for a report on the labour courts findings in a case involving the teeu in the wake of laval
http://www.voltimum.ie/news/8223/infopro.tradeassoc.brand/Labour-Court-Receives-Final-Submissions---Decisions-Expected-Later-This-Month-.html

Sam Vimes

sensibleken wrote: »

this prompted the chairman of the labour court, kevin duffy, to ring in to the station and state again that this claim is not true

One lie down, 157 to go. Well not really because that assumes that they will now stop making that claim and they of course won't

meglome

Sam Vimes wrote: »

One lie down, 157 to go. Well not really because that assumes that they will now stop making that claim and they of course won't

Unfortunately the words Cóir and truth are not words you'd use in the same sentence (ah **** I just did). Some set on the guy to go on national radio and blatantly lie.

conchubhar1

we need more hard evidence like this on boards


but more coverage of this is a must for the govt to spread and tv stations also.

sceptre

sensibleken wrote: »

this morning on newstalk 106 a representative of coir were again arguing that their stance that the minimum wage could be dropped to 1.84 if lisbon was adopted. they claimed on the broadcast that the labour court agreed with this position.

this prompted the chairman of the labour court, kevin duffy, to ring in to the station and state again that this claim is not true. that the labour court is not in agreement with coir on this matter and in fact their statement in the wake of the laval case was contrary to what coir are saying.

It's unfortunately not the first lie we've heard from a national Lisbon interest group and doubly unfortunately it won't be the last.

These lies have legs though - people see the posters and some of them go away and assume because they're up there on a pole that they must be true (because they're not used to Irish media having any more than a slant on things, many people unfortunately take them at face value).

Coir are, put bluntly, a bunch of crazies. A bunch of idiots. A group of people that will blatantly bend the truth and lie just to get their position pushed (mostly because they're paranoid about abortion being introduced, which is completely covered under a previous treaty and doesn't lie within the competency of the EU and failing to understand that makes them double idiots as a first year EU law student could tell what the legal situation is). They'd be the biggest liability to their own side if it wasn't for them mopping up a section of the electorate that relies on ten-word posters to inform them of what the entire treaty is about.

You think you care they've been pretty much officially exposed as liars? Hell no, they'll still be here for the next few weeks continuing the same lie anyway and they'll be back for the next treaty, amendment or issue, probably under a different assumed name. 170 years of primary education and one of the best educated populaces in the world and these lying crazies still get to tip a few percentage points one way or the other when it comes to an EU treaty. That's actually scary.

Having said that, like all liars, the best thing that can be done with their lies is to continue to refute them. Over and over again. But I still say that their continued small successes and airtime are a damning indictment on our education system.

sensibleken

sceptre wrote: »

These lies have legs though

no doubt. i remember one of the vox pops from referendum day on the last one where a man was saying he was voting no because of the smoking ban (though coir never said that). unless people take an active responsibility in researching the truth lies will prevail

i had a heated arguement on saturday with coir members on the street in dublin who also stated that the move to qualified majority voting in the council was 'a dictatorship'. this shows the quality of their arguements

Acacia

If any of you are unfortunate to have read the Catholic rag "Alive!" you'll see it's full of Cóir anti-EU propaganda.

StealthRolex

As I understand it the case that should be reviewed is Rüffert, and not Laval.

It appears that this will allow a non-Irish firm working Ireland to employ non-Irish workers and pay them the minimum wage of their home country.

In Poland the minimum wage is 189Euro per month. This works out at 1.18 per hour.

To clarify - 1.84 is wrong it should be 1.18 or less. If the workers are Romanian they are only entitled to 0.40 per hour.

While Coir have their facts wrong the sentiment is correct. However, the damage has already been done by the Rüffert ruling and not by Lisbon.

Dublin_Gunner

As far as I'm concerned, anyone found to be placing political posters up with blatant lies and untruths in order to try sway a vote should be punishable under law.

Oh wait...

marco_polo

StealthRolex wrote: »

As I understand it the case that should be reviewed is Rüffert, and not Laval.

It appears that this will allow a non-Irish firm working Ireland to employ non-Irish workers and pay them the minimum wage of their home country.

In Poland the minimum wage is 189Euro per month. This works out at 1.18 per hour.

To clarify - 1.84 is wrong it should be 1.18 or less. If the workers are Romanian they are only entitled to 0.40 per hour.

While Coir have their facts wrong the sentiment is correct. However, the damage has already been done by the Rüffert ruling and not by Lisbon.

It appears you have fundamentally misunderstood the implications of the Laval and Rüffert rulings. There are no circumstances where anyone can be employed on less than the Irish minimum wage in this country . And in the cases of industries where a collective agreement has been registered with the Labour court the terms as set out in that agreement as the legal minimum standards in those industries.

The problem has only arisen thus far in countries where there is no statutory minimum wage and that countries collective bargaining structures which outline the minimum legal rates are not legally binding or contained legal loopholes that were exploited.

meglome

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned, anyone found to be placing political posters up with blatant lies and untruths in order to try sway a vote should be punishable under law.

Oh wait...

he he exactly. Unfortunately all you need to do is stick a question mark at the end and you're good to go.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Coir are actually crab people from under the earth, bent on world domination and the enslavement of humanity?

ixtlan

I have read the details of these cases, though I am not 100% clear. It seems the crucial issue is whether the pay rates at issue are legally binding. In the case of the minimum wage in Ireland it absolutely is. My understanding is that this cannot, repeat cannot, be breached by any person working in Ireland no matter what state they are from and no matter where their employer is based.

As regards rates over the minimum but subject to collective argreements, it seems somewhat unclear. Under what circumstances are those higher rates legally binding? I know Sweden has looked at this issue after Lavel and found that the resolution is not simple, and they believe it may require changes in EU law (not a treaty change) to get the outcome that they want.

However... MOST CRUCIALLY... this should not affect your vote on Lisbon.

It must be pointed out that most union groups are in favour of Lisbon, in particular the European Trade Union Confederation, ETUC.

Generally their position is as follows:

They see problems with existing EU law, resulting in the Laval and Ruffert cases. They want new laws protecting workers.

Lisbon, although it does not have the protections they wanted, is better than the existing situation, as the Charter of Fundamental Rights may be used to suport their claims for new law.

If Lisbon fails the EU will again be absorbed with institutional reform for several more years, making it less likely the the unions will get the attention they want on the matter of workers rights.

Ix.

StealthRolex

Thanks marco-polo, I stand corrected and will endeavor to complete the homework in future.

Still voting No though - for other reasons

enda1

StealthRolex wrote: »

Thanks marco-polo, I stand corrected and will endeavor to complete the homework in future.

Still voting No though - for other reasons

Why not let us know what they are? Perhaps you are misinformed on them too.

ixtlan

StealthRolex wrote: »

As I understand it the case that should be reviewed is Rüffert, and not Laval.

It appears that this will allow a non-Irish firm working Ireland to employ non-Irish workers and pay them the minimum wage of their home country.

Absolutely not.

It would be harsh of me to call it a lie, because I suspect you don't know any better, but it is UNTRUE.

Reviewing this case further the problem was even more complicated than it being a local collective agreement minimum wage... not a legal minimum wage.

It seems the relevant collective agreement referred only to public contracts and not private contracts, which meant that it was not universal and this seems to have caused the ECJ to rule that it was not correct to impose this requirement.

Now, again I say that there are problems here. It is unclear how a state can make a collective agreement sufficiently legally applicable to ensure that the ECJ would not have an issue, but it's certainly the case that in Ruffert there were a lot of things wrong with the local implemention of the "posting of worker" directive, in particular the fact that the collective agreement was not universal, and did not apply to private contracts.

So again I will say, these rulings do not, REPEAT DO NOT, say that the minimum wage can be breached. That is an absolute legal minimum that cannot be touched, and if you want more definitive protections, vote yes to Lisbon and let the European unions work on those changes.

Ix.

StealthRolex

enda1 wrote: »

Why not let us know what they are? Perhaps you are misinformed on them too.

The militarisation and associated costs, changes in voting regulations, establishment of a legal EU state are among them however this thread is about 1.84.

There are two main ones though.:

1. I have always subscribed to "if you don't know, vote No" and in the absence of an adequate explanation of this Treaty from either side I intend to stick with this. I am not going to vote Yes just because a politician suggested that this is a good thing. Whether they are just as mis-informed or expert propogandists doesn't make any different. I didn't trust the politicians who oversaw the negotiations of this treaty and I don't trust those, domestic or otherwise, who are now asking us to vote Yes again.

2. I have asked many Yes supporters for one reason, founded in fact, as to why I should vote Yes. All I hear are it's good for Ireland and it will bring jobs or that voting No is bad for Ireland and will cost jobs. This is just namby-pamby political hogwash and pseudo-speak. To me the reasons for voting Yes hold less water than the reasons for voting No. At least the No camp are trying to present fact based arguments and even if their facts are wrong they are making an effort which is sorely lacking in the Yes camp.

The only "fact" I am currently aware of is that this Treaty is essentially the EU constitution rebadged and as I do not want to be a citizen of a said entity as described by the existing treaties as amended by Lisbon I plan to exercise my constitutional right as an Irish Citizen to object to said amendment.

I've been reading the consolidated Treaty on European Union and Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and there are things there I don't like.

Lisbon has been presented in some quarters as a decision on the kind of Europe we want. The kind of Europe I want differs sufficiently from the kind of Europe this Treaty describes so my decision is No.

PopeBuckfastXVI

StealthRolex wrote: »

2. I have asked many Yes supporters for one reason, founded in fact, as to why I should vote Yes. All I hear are it's good for Ireland and it will bring jobs or that voting No is bad for Ireland and will cost jobs. This is just namby-pamby political hogwash and pseudo-speak. To me the reasons for voting Yes hold less water than the reasons for voting No. At least the No camp are trying to present fact based arguments and even if their facts are wrong they are making an effort which is sorely lacking in the Yes camp.

See my sig...

ixtlan

StealthRolex wrote: »

and even if their facts are wrong they are making an effort which is sorely lacking in the Yes camp.

Actually, as a yes supporter, I kind of agree with this in a kind of sad disappointed way.

I wanted to see posters saying

Cheaper energy through joint EU negotiations
Combat people trafficking through better police co-operation
Give the Dail power to review EU legislation
Give more power to your elected MEPs.

but anyhow... yes, read sink's excellent list of reasons.

Ix

jhegarty

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned, anyone found to be placing political posters up with blatant lies and untruths in order to try sway a vote should be punishable under law.

Oh wait...

If that was the case the government side of the Dial would be very empty after the summer holidays.

meglome

jhegarty wrote: »

If that was the case the government side of the Dial would be very empty after the summer holidays.

Huh?

jhegarty

meglome wrote: »

Huh?

I am implying/suggesting/stating that the governments election campaign turned out to be less than truthfull.

MG

1.84 per hour is about 3800 per annum based on a 40 hr week.

Personally I'd abolish the minimum wage anyway - the dole is effectively the minimum wage

ixtlan

StealthRolex wrote: »

There are two main ones though.:

1. I have always subscribed to "if you don't know, vote No" and in the absence of an adequate explanation of this Treaty from either side I intend to stick with this..............

2. I have asked many Yes supporters for one reason, founded in fact, as to why I should vote Yes. ......................

Is it worth pointing out to you that your two main reasons are not for voting no, but rather for spending more time studying the treaty? You are right the Yes side is doing a poor job of it, but you can work to overcome this.

Having said that I can see that you are putting much more effort and consideration into it than most people, yes or no.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I've been reading the consolidated Treaty on European Union and Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and there are things there I don't like.

Lisbon has been presented in some quarters as a decision on the kind of Europe we want. The kind of Europe I want differs sufficiently from the kind of Europe this Treaty describes so my decision is No.

That may certainly be the case for you. I'm just concerned that the first half of your post suggests you are not sure, while the second half suggests that you are. I'd suggest looking at Sink's reasons, and considering that Lisbon is a much more minor treaty than many of the previous ones.

Ix.

StealthRolex

ixtlan wrote: »

I'd suggest looking at Sink's reasons, and considering that Lisbon is a much more minor treaty than many of the previous ones.

Ix.

Ok then - took a look and I don't like 1, 3, 5, 6 or 7. It's personal but I don't think they are good reasons to vote Yes.

2 is ok but doesn't balance with what I understand of the weighted voting system

4 is brilliant but why isn't it like that already? Ah, I know - it's there because the politicians think we don't trust them. I wonder why.

8. nice idea but what's the purpose of Interpol?

9 and 10 are other reasons to vote No. They point to the development of a Federal Union with foreign aspirations.

/* initiate rant mode */
I can agree with reducing staff and costs but we should start this at home. We have 4 times as many TDs as the UK has MPs per head of population. We have overpaid civil servants and senior TDs, and the ridiculous situation where TDs and ex-Taosigh can claim their pensions while claiming TD salary and expenses.
While the expense and cost of our politicians is nothing to do with Lisbon it just get's right up my nose that those who are asking us to vote Yes can afford to retire to the Bahamas if it all goes tits up in the future or it turns out to be not as described or understood.
/* rant mode off */

Like it or not this Lisbon vote appears to be the only thing preventing the current format of the european union of communities from becoming a federal state system with military aspirations, now or in the future.
If this is the kind of Europe you want you know how to vote. This is not what was presented to us in the 70's and while political evolution happens the purpose of democracy is to allow the people to decide their destinies. Maybe the other treaties have done the damage to democracy. Maybe this is the Alamo.

As for the future of democracy in Europe - try Article 48

PopeBuckfastXVI

StealthRolex wrote: »

Ok then - took a look and I don't like 1, 3, 5, 6 or 7. It's personal but I don't think they are good reasons to vote Yes.

2 is ok but doesn't balance with what I understand of the weighted voting system

4 is brilliant but why isn't it like that already? Ah, I know - it's there because the politicians think we don't trust them. I wonder why.

8. nice idea but what's the purpose of Interpol?

9 and 10 are other reasons to vote No. They point to the development of a Federal Union with foreign aspirations.

/* initiate rant mode */
I can agree with reducing staff and costs but we should start this at home. We have 4 times as many TDs as the UK has MPs per head of population. We have overpaid civil servants and senior TDs, and the ridiculous situation where TDs and ex-Taosigh can claim their pensions while claiming TD salary and expenses.
While the expense and cost of our politicians is nothing to do with Lisbon it just get's right up my nose that those who are asking us to vote Yes can afford to retire to the Bahamas if it all goes tits up in the future or it turns out to be not as described or understood.
/* rant mode off */

Like it or not this Lisbon vote appears to be the only thing preventing the current format of the european union of communities from becoming a federal state system with military aspirations, now or in the future.
If this is the kind of Europe you want you know how to vote. This is not what was presented to us in the 70's and while political evolution happens the purpose of democracy is to allow the people to decide their destinies. Maybe the other treaties have done the damage to democracy. Maybe this is the Alamo.

As for the future of democracy in Europe - try Article 48

It's precisely because I can't retire to the bahamas if it all goes tits up that I'm voting 'yes'.

What is your interpretation of Article 48?

StealthRolex

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

It's precisely because I can't retire to the bahamas if it all goes tits up that I'm voting 'yes'.

What is your interpretation of Article 48?

Future changes to the Treaties will not require an Irish referendum

PopeBuckfastXVI

StealthRolex wrote: »

Future changes to the Treaties will not require an Irish referendum

That's not actually true.

Here's the relevant text of Article 48, I've bolded the bit that means Ireland will continue to hold referenda to ratify amendments to the treaties, same as before:

4. A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to the Treaties.
The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

In Ireland the constitutional requirement, as we all know, is that we hold a referendum.

Source:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/st06655-re01.en08.pdf

Maybe it's time to start questioning why people are telling you lies about the treaty, perhaps there's nothing real in there for them to attack?

marco_polo

StealthRolex wrote: »

Future changes to the Treaties will not require an Irish referendum

Sorry but that is completely untrue.

Article 48
......

The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

sensibleken

it should also be pointed out that coir are not the only ones at this. The peoples movement have stated in their leaflet

'its seems reasonable if not absolutely clear to the court that ...contractors from other member states could exercise could exercise their freedom to provide services in their freedom to provide services in this jurisdiction under the EC treaty at the same rates and conditions of employment as apply in their country of origin' (Labour court, Dublin 2009)

http://www.people.ie/leaflet/lisbon2.pdf

note the ... this replace the actual text of the courts findings section 32.11 that states 'In the absence of the REA contractors from other member states could exercise etc.'

http://www.teeu.ie/downloads_teeu/Labour_Court_Determination_REP091_Electrical_REA.pdf

this statement says that if it wasnt for the fact that we have the Registered Employment Agreement Laval could be applied. But we do have it so it does not and cannot as long as we have that legislation.

so the actual text of the labour courts findings is the complete opposite of what the peoples movement is stating as fact.

seriously if there is a valid argument for voting no, why lie about it

StealthRolex

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Maybe it's time to start questioning why people are telling you lies about the treaty, perhaps there's nothing real in there for them to attack?

So what does paragraph 7 mean ?