Lisbon Treaty (2 Viewers)

[maims bond]

I'd say you'd have a point if they were being exploited in the way for example Mexican emmigrants are in the US, but they get the same protections as our own workers.

Agency workers do not get the same protections. Plus, while the protections may be there in theory, the implementation and enforcement of these is a totally different matter.

So, what about that Lisbon treaty then, mad wha?

 

[Mormon Nailer]

Agency workers do not get the same protections.

Has that to do with that recent European court ruling?

 

[killy kill]

This from today's Times. Brilliant.

Here Wobbler, i haven't been living in Ireland for a while. Out of curiousity, what's been 'madams' stance on Lisbon in the editorials?

 

[maims bond]

Has that to do with that recent European court ruling?

It's all rather unclear to be honest. Are you referring to the Lavale (sp?) case?

 

[Mormon Nailer]

It's all rather unclear to be honest. Are you referring to the Lavale (sp?) case?

I think so - the swedish one wasn't ti?

 

[maims bond]

yeah.

 

[coast to coast]

yea, the energetic and hopeful eastern european youth should be grateful to work in our shitty newsagents, to serve our racist taxi drivers greasy breakfast rolls, take abuse from customers and earn relatively fuck all to do so.

is this a joke?

whats the got to do with anything?!?

 

[broken arm]

so, Libertas.

Is there any weight/depth to the claims that they were campaigning on behalf of US/US military interests or specifically commercial interests?

 

[Wobbler]

Here Wobbler, i haven't been living in Ireland for a while. Out of curiousity, what's been 'madams' stance on Lisbon in the editorials?

Lisbon has been a real hobby horse of Madam's. She very pro-treaty. She was properly pissed off when it didn't go through.

 

[Wobbler]

so, Libertas.

Is there any weight/depth to the claims that they were campaigning on behalf of US/US military interests or specifically commercial interests?

Yes, I think so. Their arguments against the treaty don't stand up to much scrutiny. How can they be idealogically opposed to a militarised Europe given their background. They have been playing the pro-life card in the midlands even though they don't seem to be especially into that themselves. They're "Lisbon: Good For Politicians - Bad For You" campaigning just strikes me as an attempt to build up some vague anti-government feeling without any substance.

Given their backgrounds I think it quite conceivable that they put so much work and money into opposing the treaty, they stand to gain from it financially. No?

 

[killy kill]

so, Libertas.

Is there any weight/depth to the claims that they were campaigning on behalf of US/US military interests or specifically commercial interests?

read this last night. bizarre, scary


http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87311

 

[Goff]

so, Libertas.

Is there any weight/depth to the claims that they were campaigning on behalf of US/US military interests or specifically commercial interests?

I'm not so sure, although I wouldn't rule it out. To be honest, I'd say it was more to do with profit. Quite possibly, a more security conscious EU would try to block any "secure communications" system that they couldn't control with an American backdoor. Kind of like the French authorities not allowing their staff use Blackberries for emails and texts.

 

[nofunchee]

here comes the revolution...

EU support grows for maintaining 27-member commission

STEPHEN COLLINS, DEREK SCALLY and JAMIE SMYTH in Brussels
THERE WAS growing acceptance among EU leaders in Brussels yesterday that allowing all 27 member states to retain a commissioner would be a key component of any deal to allow the Lisbon Treaty to be put to the Irish people in a second referendum next year.
While the president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, warned that safeguarding the right of all EU member states to keep a commissioner would be "extremely difficult" to negotiate, there was mounting support for the idea.
The Polish minister for Europe told The Irish Times that his government would support retaining the current 27-member commission as a way out of the treaty impasse. "I don't think Poland would stand in the way if that was envisaged as a solution for the Irish people," said Mikolaj Dowgielewicz, Poland's minister of state for European affairs.
He said the loss of a permanent commissioner was an issue that had come up in Poland and he added that the EU gained in legitimacy by having a commissioner from every country.
Under the terms of the treaty, the number of commissioners would be reduced from the current 27 down to 18 in 2014, unless "the European Council acting unanimously decides to alter this number". Such an agreement would not require re-ratification of the treaty by any member state and it would break the impasse caused by the Irish vote.
A second referendum on Lisbon would be required to allow all 27 countries to retain their commissioner as the number is due to be cut under the terms of the Nice Treaty.
During talks yesterday, the Irish side resisted efforts by the French and the German governments to set down a timetable for the detailed response to the referendum decision.
Speaking to his colleagues at the European Council over dinner last night, Taoiseach Brian Cowen said he was grateful for the close co-operation Ireland had received from so many quarters and looked forward to this continuing.
"I strongly believe that it would be counterproductive to any potential way forward that might emerge in due course for us to attempt to predetermine a precise timeframe for that process now.
"However, if colleagues believe it would be helpful, I would have no difficulty in reporting on the progress being made when we gather again in this format in October. I will maintain close contact with the incoming presidency on this," Mr Cowen told his colleagues, just hours after Estonia became the latest EU member state to ratify the treaty.
Mr Cowen said that for his first appearance as Taoiseach at the European Council, he would clearly not have chosen as his first task to have to advise colleagues that the Irish people had rejected the treaty.
But, he said: "For all of us, the will of the people is sovereign. They have spoken at the ballot box, the ultimate democratic forum, and the Government accepts their verdict.
"The principles of democracy must be the threads that weave the fabric of the European Union. I am sure this is a view you all share. I acknowledge that our vote has obvious implications for our partners here around this table."
Mr Cowen stressed there was no strong suggestion emerging from the referendum campaign that Irish people were any less committed to membership of the Union than they were in the past.
"Against that positive background it is clear that the debate reflected anxieties about potential future developments and the potential future direction of the Union," said Mr Cowen.
He listed the specific worries of farmers and unions as well as arguments relating to the loss of a commissioner and the change in voting arrangements. Mr Cowen also pointed to common defence as a major concern and that it might, over time, involve an obligation to support a European military force.
"I know that the situation regarding the referendum, which I have just reported to the council, is a difficult one. I believe that it is our responsibility to work together, in the spirit of solidarity which has served the union so well for decades, to find a viable way forward," he said.

 

[broken arm]

just to point out - I'm not suggesting that because the main NO campaign groups are well dodgy that it reflects badly on those that voted NO for genuine personal reasons.

it does make it interesting for those that have to digest what a NO vote from Ireland actually means.

 

[pete]

so, Libertas.

Is there any weight/depth to the claims that they were campaigning on behalf of US/US military interests

Absolutely terrible choice of person to front the operation if so, which makes it highly unlikely.

or specifically commercial interests?

if you mean their own commercial interests, then quite possibly.

 

[broken arm]

Absolutely terrible choice of person to front the operation if so, which makes it highly unlikely.

I mentioned the military as a bit of a joke/conspiracy

if you mean their own commercial interests, then quite possibly.

this was more likely, considering the lobby system in Brussels. But, I can't full get to grips with what the likely impact would be.

 

[Wobbler]

It does sound a bit conspiracy-ish but since their business intersts are so tied up with the US military that it's very difficult to know what their motives are.

I seriosly smell a rat.

 

[lucky_dresden]

There are two groups in this country tied to the US Military and their CIA torture flights, and that's Fianna Fail and the Greens. And where the fuck do people think Fianna Fail get their money?

Pot, kettle, blackarse.

 

[hugh]

There are two groups in this country tied to the US Military and their CIA torture flights, and that's Fianna Fail and the Greens.

Well Ulick McEvaddy, who is an associate of Ganley, allegedly approached the US Intelligence services several years ago and offered to provide them with an in-flight re-fuelling service so that rendition flights wouldn't have to touch down at Shannon at all ..... (this all according to Indymedia). That would have been handy for all concerned ...

I dunno, where do Fianna Fail get their money from?

 

[flashback]

Allegedly the Czech Republic might drop the ball on this one too.
That would start to put damper on the EU's farts in Ireland's general direction.