The 1.84 clarified.......again

skelliser

coir a guilty of this but the yes side arent angels either.
"yes for europe"
"yes for jobs"
what do these mean, does it mean that if you vote no your anti-europe and anti-jobs.
imo it sums up the attitude of the yes campaign, the strategy is to gloss over the detail and fool/scare people
into voting yes.

StealthRolex

What about the Common Security and Defense policy?

skelliser

StealthRolex wrote: »

What about the Common Security and Defense policy?

according to fine gael deputy spokeswomen Ms Lucinda Creighton
on vincent brown a few months ago its,
"more bang for your buck" i **** u not!!

PopeBuckfastXVI

StealthRolex wrote: »

So what does paragraph 7 mean ?

It means that decision making mechanisms can be moved, by unanimous consent, from Unanimity to QMV, in existing EU competencies, excluding military or defence competencies.

PopeBuckfastXVI

skelliser wrote: »

coir a guilty of this but the yes side arent angels either.
"yes for europe"
"yes for jobs"
what do these mean, does it mean that if you vote no your anti-europe and anti-jobs.
imo it sums up the attitude of the yes campaign, the strategy is to gloss over the detail and fool/scare people
into voting yes.

I would sum up both campaigns by saying the strategy is to gloss over the detail and fool/scare people into voting.

StealthRolex

skelliser wrote: »

coir a guilty of this but the yes side arent angels either.
"yes for europe"
"yes for jobs"
what do these mean, does it mean that if you vote no your anti-europe and anti-jobs.
imo it sums up the attitude of the yes campaign, the strategy is to gloss over the detail and fool/scare people
into voting yes.

This is a salient point. The treaty will not provide jobs for the likes of us though it might just create a few more positions for the elected and appointed few. The President of Europe being one.
Voting on the treaty, Yes or No, is nothing to do with remaining in Europe or leaving it which is the implication of " Yes for Europe".

StealthRolex

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

It means that decision making mechanisms can be moved, by unanimous consent, from Unanimity to QMV, in existing EU competencies, excluding military or defence competencies.

And what's that in English?

This is my point here. I'm not knocking what you're saying and I'm not taking the piss but reading this Treaty, consolidated or otherwise, is a minefield of legalese.

What does it really mean? The No camp may misinterpret, inadvertently or by design while the Yes camp politicians tell us not to worry we have a "guarantee" or some other mumbo jumbo.

This treaty has an effect on the existing treaties that will affect our future. Does anyone really know what those effects will be?

marco_polo

StealthRolex wrote: »

So what does paragraph 7 mean ?

This means that a area of decision making may be moved from unaniminity to QMV following a unamious decision from the European Council (Heads of State). All member states retain a veto on this proceedure thus enabling them to prevent any area moving to QMV if they so wish. It specifically does not apply to military or defence.

Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or Title V of this Treaty provides for the Council to act by unanimity in a given area or case, the European Council may adopt a decision authorising the Council to act by a qualified majority in that area or in that case. This subparagraph shall not apply to decisions with military implications or those in the area of defence.

PopeBuckfastXVI

StealthRolex wrote: »

And what's that in English?

This is my point here. I'm not knocking what you're saying and I'm not taking the piss but reading this Treaty, consolidated or otherwise, is a minefield of legalese.

What does it really mean? The No camp may misinterpret, inadvertently or by design while the Yes camp politicians tell us not to worry we have a "guarantee" or some other mumbo jumbo.

This treaty has an effect on the existing treaties that will affect our future. Does anyone really know what those effects will be?

In plain English it means that the EU has certain powers called competences, here's how it has them.

Some are exclusive, only the EU has these powers, think about things like the regulation of the common market, competition law for instance.

Some are shared, think about areas where both the EU and we legislate, for example food safety. The EU set's a minimum standard, we are free to go further.

Some are supporting. So the EU can help us out with an area, Tourism is set to be a supporting competence of the EU after Lisbon, so they could use their institutions to let us present a united tourist front with e.g. the UK or France, they would help out, but not overrule us.

Then there are areas, like healthcare or national citizenship, where the EU has absolutely no competence at all.

The way the European Council takes decisions is by Qualified Majority Voting (Everyone get's a weighted vote, and majority rules), or Unanimity (everyone has an equal say, and anyone can block legislation, even if it's 1 against 26).

What paragraph 7 says, is that if the European Council decides by Unanimity (absolutely everyone, including Ireland agrees), then you can move the decision making process of an existing competence from Unanimity to QMV. It doesn't let you make any new area an EU competence, and it doesn't let you increase the competence in any existing area. Only change the way the Council voting happens. This paragraph specifically excludes any competence which may have a military relation, or a defence competence.

Now you should as yourself, why are people lying to you and trying to confuse you? And why are those people mostly asking you to vote 'No' on the back of their lies? Could it be they can't find anything real that most people would object to, so they have to make stuff up to fool you into voting their way?

A little more scepticism of the 'No' campaign, might not be a bad thing...

StealthRolex

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Now you should as yourself, why are people lying to you and trying to confuse you? And why are those people mostly asking you to vote 'No' on the back of their lies? Could it be they can't find anything real that most people would object to, so they have to make stuff up to fool you into voting their way?

A little more scepticism of the 'No' campaign, might not be a bad thing...

Accepted. Now about the Common Security and Defense Policy thing. Do we have a guarantee that this won't cost us anything to opt out?

And if we do vote Yes and we opt in when do I get my gun? I really like that right to keep and bear arms thing they have in the US. Kinda fancy getting a Springfield Armoury Professional model 1911. Not sure yet on what to carry as a backup.
Darn, maybe we'll have to buy European weapons to bolster the EU arms business. Ok, I'll go with Sig Sauer. But in 45. Can't stand those wee 9mm pop-guns.

Seriously though, the CSDP will cost us tax money, whether we provide human resources or not and I find the fact that a European "Economic" union wants to have a military set up as well somewhat repugnant.
We have the UN. We have NATO. Heck, we even have half the Warsaw Pact!
Why do we want even the option of an EU military entity with a foreign policy?

PopeBuckfastXVI

StealthRolex wrote: »

Accepted. Now about the Common Security and Defense Policy thing. Do we have a guarantee that this won't cost us anything to opt out?

And if we do vote Yes and we opt in when do I get my gun? I really like that right to keep and bear arms thing they have in the US. Kinda fancy getting a Springfield Armoury Professional model 1911. Not sure yet on what to carry as a backup.
Darn, maybe we'll have to buy European weapons to bolster the EU arms business. Ok, I'll go with Sig Sauer. But in 45. Can't stand those wee 9mm pop-guns.

Seriously though, the CSDP will cost us tax money, whether we provide human resources or not and I find the fact that a European "Economic" union wants to have a military set up as well somewhat repugnant.
We have the UN. We have NATO. Heck, we even have half the Warsaw Pact!
Why do we want even the option of an EU military entity with a foreign policy?

I'd like a shotgun with some large shot everytime I see a Coir poster!

Here's what our legally binding* guarantee says about what the CSDP will cost us:

It does not affect the right of Ireland or any other Member State to determine the nature and volume of its defence and security expenditure and the nature of its defence capabilities.

Full text is at: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055617733

There you go, it won't cost us a rusty cent...

*source: http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0617/eulisbon.html

Dublin_Gunner

jhegarty wrote: »

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

I had hoped my post wouldn't require an explanation...


My take on Lisbon, in a broad sense, sees the EU becoming more of a regulatory body than anything else. Over simplified I know, but I think it sums it up.

Scofflaw

marco_polo wrote: »

Sorry but that is completely untrue.

It's not even just that the simplified revision procedure still requires ratification in the usual way:

Simplified Revision Procedure: is new and simpler, involving the proposal of a single amendment, in the same way we amend our Constitution, but limited only to certain institutional and voting changes. This method can only be used for:
(a) amendments to certain internal EU policies, provided they do not increase EU competences;
(b) moves from unanimity to QMV (except for military and defence issues) ;
(c) moves to co-decision (ie involving the Parliament in legislation).

Unanimity in the European Council and EP consent is required in each case; national ratification is also required for (a), and any national parliament may veto a proposed decision under (b) or (c). Any proposal to increase the EU's competences would have to use the current "full Treaty" method.

So it's a very limited tool in terms of amending the treaties* - and still anything that impacted Irish sovereignty would require a referendum (and the judges in the Crotty case didn't rule out a QMV change as impacting Irish sovereignty).

*Although you wouldn't consider it limited, of course, if you're a pure sovereigntist, because then any move from intergovernmental unanimity to supranational QMV is wrong in itself, whatever the issue concerned. However, national ratification still applies,just as it would to a full treaty in which there were unanimity->QMV moves, so it's hard to see why there would be an objection to the mechanism of such a move specifically.

Possibly one of the most FUD-ridden areas of Lisbon discussion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BetterLisbon

i believe the issue is the posting of workers directive. As far as i can see this would allow temporarily posted workers to be treated under the terms of their home states labour law. In the abscence of a social progress protocol lisbon will copperfasten the status quo. In fact article 16 of the charter could be used to strengthen this carry on.
Article 52 of the charter restricts the rights contained in it to the terms of the treaties so claims the charter can advance workers rights on its own is bogus.
We are campaigning for a no on other issues aswell. A 2nd no will get us a better deal just like denmark got a better deal at maastrict. It will work as follows:
1- CFSP is hived off to NATO and the WEU.
2- The hardcore stuff on justice and home affairs is adopted by enhanced cooperation.
3- We get a citizenship opt-out like denmark.
4- bits and pieces of the institutional reform are salvaged in a mini treaty.

sensibleken

BetterLisbon wrote: »

i believe the issue is the posting of workers directive. As far as i can see this would allow temporarily posted workers to be treated under the terms of their home states labour law. In the abscence of a social progress protocol lisbon will copperfasten the status quo.

no i does not. this claim is usually backed up by quoting the laval case. in that judgement the european court found in favour of the the latvian company and against the swedish trade unions because sweden did not have a legally binding minimum wage nor was their collective bargaining enshrined in law. so there were no swedish laws saying that the latvians could not use collective bargaining that was negotiated in latvia. this is the same in ruffert judgement which also was found due to shortcoming in domestic law.

the labour court clarified this. the lisbon treaty affects this is no way. it will be the same the day after it is passed or the day after it fails

marco_polo

BetterLisbon wrote: »

i believe the issue is the posting of workers directive. As far as i can see this would allow temporarily posted workers to be treated under the terms of their home states labour law. In the abscence of a social progress protocol lisbon will copperfasten the status quo. In fact article 16 of the charter could be used to strengthen this carry on.
Article 52 of the charter restricts the rights contained in it to the terms of the treaties so claims the charter can advance workers rights on its own is bogus.
We are campaigning for a no on other issues aswell. A 2nd no will get us a better deal just like denmark got a better deal at maastrict. It will work as follows:
1- CFSP is hived off to NATO and the WEU.
2- The hardcore stuff on justice and home affairs is adopted by enhanced cooperation.
3- We get a citizenship opt-out like denmark.
4- bits and pieces of the institutional reform are salvaged in a mini treaty.

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.

In addition Lisbon in no way copperfastens the Directives because that operates under the false presumption that EU law is immovable and set in stone. The ETUC even has a Social Protocol that it will Lobby the commision for in in the Event of Lisbon being passed.
http://www.etuc.org/a/5175

In addition to this the Eurpean Parliament has also applied major pressure on the commission come up with a proposal to alter European Law with regard to this matter (They cannot initiate legislation themselves). Which is why organisations such as the Labour party have no problem supporting Lisbon. Because it has nothing to do with the matter of the Services or Posting of Workers Directives, or the various judgemenrts at all.

http://www.nho.no/getfile.php/filer%20og%20vedlegg/andersson-rapporten.pdf

Also I see increased cross border cooperation on Justice and Policing and is essential where there a free movement area of citizens and I am very disappointed that we opted out in the first place, notice that we have been exporting alot of our major criminals to Spain and Holland where they operate their Irish operations with impunity. We already have a triple lock on our neutrality so the defence point is mute. Finally why on earth would we want an opt out on European citizenship?

sensibleken

marco_polo wrote: »

Which is why organisations such as the Labour party have no problem supporting Lisbon.

not to mention th ICTU and a caucious endorsement from SIPTU with an acknowledgement that the charter of fundamental human rights furthers the cause of human rights and could strengthen the case for legally binding collective bargaining, contrary to their position last year. as we are entitled to change our minds after further analysis and consideration based on actual facts

ixtlan

sensibleken wrote: »

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

Thanks for this, sensibleken. This has clarified for me the situation in Ireland. I wasn't 100% clear that the REA was fully legally enforcable.

Also, it's worth repeating your post with the links.

This is a shocking twisting of the truth on the part of the people's movement, worse that most of other lies and distortions. Here they are taking a positive statment, removing some words and turning it into a negative statement.

I feel like someone should print up a few hundred thousand leaflets and ask people to read the 2 paragraphs, then ask them to e-mail the people's movement to ask them why they did this.

Ix.

Penny Farthing

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.

Factually wrong. The case only applies in states without legally specifed pay rates. We have, as do almost all of Europe, so it doesn't apply here and couldn't. If any employer tried it they would be in the courts and convinced.

Both Ruffert and Laval were based on gaps in local laws, gaps that most states do not have and which the states which had them promptly fixed.

The minimum wage here is €8.65 and it is an offence to pay anyone less for any work done in Ireland. It is black and white.

The Cóir poster is simply their attempt to create a Lisbon urban myth.

StealthRolex

I stand corrected