Richard Green and COIR posters

J

johnd

Registered User
Messages
149
Has anyone else heard Richard Greeen talking about the COIR posters which seem to be on every lamp post? What is the truth about the claim for the €1.85 minimum wage and how do they get away with it?
Haven't seen any posters yet about abortion or conscription but its early days yet. Who are these people?
 
At first glance they appear to me to be a Catholic, nationalist organisation seeking to 'protect' Ireland from EU laws and a special anti-abortion focus.

'Youth Defence' grown up, maybe ?

They will 'get away with it' if the Govt doesn't get their finger out (again) and explain to people why they should vote yes.
 
What is the truth about the claim for the €1.85 minimum wage and how do they get away with it?
Click to expand...
there is no truth to this statement..

I heard him on the radio this am on newstalk and he was rubbished out of it.. Rightfully so..
 
redstar said:
They will 'get away with it' if the Govt doesn't get their finger out (again) and explain to people why they should vote yes.
Click to expand...

Absolutely the Govt are very slow out of the traps on this one...
 
Have to say that at least Eamonn Gilmore was calling this for this not to be an anti Government vote. At least there is a bit of action in his camp. Fearful that the Government will not get into action quick enough again.
 
Just saw some YES posters from FF. They look almost identical to the Coir posters !!
Layout, colours, font ..... More confusion :rolleyes:
 
johnd said:
What is the truth about the claim for the €1.85 minimum wage and how do they get away with it?
Click to expand...
Their explanation for each poster is here.
boris said:
Have to say that at least Eamonn Gilmore was calling this for this not to be an anti Government vote.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Following the defeat of the Lisbon 1 our Eamonn, along with Enda, said we couldn't rerun it; then Eamonn went one further and said that Labour would campaign against it. It's hard to take Eamonn at face value.

Defeat for Lisbon II would force EU politicians to rethink the direction of their EU project and would cause a general election where the people could decide who should pilot the country out of this FF mess. True democrats, even those who voted Yes last time, should oppose this neverendum.
 
michaelm said:
Following the defeat of the Lisbon 1 our Eamonn, along with Enda, said we couldn't rerun it; then Eamonn went one further and said that Labour would campaign against it. It's hard to take Eamonn at face value.
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly, Eamonn said that we couldn't put the same proposition to the Irish people again, which is kind-of different to an absolute 'we couldn't rerun it'.

This time round, there are new protocols in place around keeping the Commissioner and keeping exclusive ownership of issues such as abortion and corporate tax rate. It is not the same question this time round.
 
Complainer said:
If I recall correctly, Eamonn said that we couldn't put the same proposition to the Irish people again, which is kind-of different to an absolute 'we couldn't rerun it'.
Click to expand...
Come on; It's exactly the same proposition. That's an accepted fact, even grudgingly by Cowan and Roche.
Complainer said:
This time round, there are new protocols in place around keeping the Commissioner and keeping exclusive ownership of issues such as abortion and corporate tax rate. It is not the same question this time round.
Click to expand...
Sorry but there are no Protocols. Under Lisbon we can no longer 'select' our own Commissioner, we merely get to 'suggest' one. Political promises are of no concern of the European Court of Justice which will adjudicate on various such matters.
 
The Lisbon Treaty has not changed since the last referendum. The extra add-on 'declarations' are there to address the concerns of those who voted no. They are a bit like explanatory notes. The last time, most voters voted no because fears were raised which were not adequately addressed by the Yes side.

Enough suspicion about the treaty existed in most peoples minds, so they voted no.
 
michaelm said:
Come on; It's exactly the same proposition. That's an accepted fact fact, even by Cowan and Roche.Sorry but there are no Protocols.
Click to expand...
It must have slipped your mind to mention your source for your comments about Gilmore - perhaps you'd like to revisit this?

michaelm said:
Under Lisbon we can no longer 'select' our own Commissioner, we merely get to 'suggest' one. Political promises are of no concern of the European Court of Justice which will adjudicate on various such matters.
Click to expand...

From http://www.europeanmovement.ie/index.php?id=8929 "[FONT=Verdana,Arial,sans-serif]Under Lisbon rules, we keep our Commissioner. Without Lisbon, we’ll lose it.[/FONT]"

From http://www.europeanmovement.ie/index.php?id=8919 "[FONT=Verdana,Arial,sans-serif] Since then we’ve got a deal on keeping our Commissioner and assurances that our national positions on neutrality, tax and abortion will not be touched by this Treaty. [/FONT]"

redstar said:
The Lisbon Treaty has not changed since the last referendum. The extra add-on 'declarations' are there to address the concerns of those who voted no. They are a bit like explanatory notes. The last time, most voters voted no because fears were raised which were not adequately addressed by the Yes side.
Click to expand...
From http://www.europeanmovement.ie/index.php?id=8920 "[FONT=Verdana,Arial,sans-serif]The declarations are legally binding. They have been agreed by 27 countries, have been lodged with the UN and are on the same automatic process that was used by the Danish in the early nineties.[/FONT]"
 
+1 complainer.

Anyway, back to the minimum wage thing (cant remember the source so excuse the copy+paste):

Chambers Ireland today called on the Referendum Commission to clarify the validity of anti-Lisbon groupr Cóir's contention that the minimum wage will fall to €1.84 should the Lisbon Treaty referendum be passed.

"Cóir's untrue claims are misleading and designed to confuse," said the organisation's deputy chief executive Seán Murphy.
"As noted by the Minister for Labour Affairs the Lisbon Treaty has nothing to do with the minimum wage. It is set down in the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000 and under this legislation it can only be varied by the Minister on foot of a recommendation by the Labour Court or by employers and trade unions. The EU has no role in determining the national minimum wage - in this or in any other country."

The organisation called on the Commission to clarify the issue as a matter of urgency.
 
Complainer said:
It must have slipped your mind to mention your source for your comments about Gilmore - perhaps you'd like to revisit this?
Click to expand...
Why not. On the Dáil record Gilmore said "There was much press speculation around the meeting the Taoiseach attended that there would be a second referendum. That cannot be. We had a referendum and got a decision. We cannot go back again and ask people to vote a second time on the same proposition on which they have just voted. Apart from whether that should be done, it would not succeed.".

As to campaigning against the proposition, on principle, in a rerun, I'll have to cite my hippocampus. I can't remember if he said it in the Dáil or not and I haven't time, right now, to go trawling for it. Cowan was clear, if uncomfortable, on RTE Radio 1 News-at-One today that this is exactly the same treaty.

As to the commissioner, Nice says that when the EU hits 27 members there should be less commissioners than States, details to be unanimously agreed. Concerns were raised about this before Nice but the Government and our commissioner, Davy Byrne, told the public that it would reduce to 26 and that we would only be without one for 5 years in 135 years. A few years later Lisbon says 27 down to 18 by 2014 and you can only 'suggest' not 'select' commissioners. Now that Lisbon was defeated it's a case for one for everyone in the audience. If Lisbon is rejected the number of commissioners will only change if we agree and given the EU's new found one-for-all appetite the solution is that the country which holds the post of High Representative for Foreign Affairs is the one country that forgoes a commissioner. Your quote couldn't be more misleading.

The ECJ will decide on cases which come before it based on EU Treaties, political promises notwithstanding. As Vincent Browne said, the guarantees may as well be lodged with Letrim County Council.
 
michaelm said:
Why not. On the Dáil record Gilmore said "There was much press speculation around the meeting the Taoiseach attended that there would be a second referendum. That cannot be. We had a referendum and got a decision. We cannot go back again and ask people to vote a second time on the same proposition on which they have just voted. Apart from whether that should be done, it would not succeed.".
Click to expand...
This quote from Gilmore is quite different to the viewpoint you attributed to him above. It comtains a 'on the same proposition' qualifier, which you conviently failed to mention in your initial claim. You still haven't shown any source for your claim that Eamonn said that Labour would campaign against it.

michaelm said:
As to the commissioner, Nice says that when the EU hits 27 members there should be less commissioners than States, details to be unanimously agreed. Concerns were raised about this before Nice but the Government and our commissioner, Davy Byrne, told the public that it would reduce to 26 and that we would only be without one for 5 years in 135 years. A few years later Lisbon says 27 down to 18 by 2014 and you can only 'suggest' not 'select' commissioners. Now that Lisbon was defeated it's a case for one for everyone in the audience. If Lisbon is rejected the number of commissioners will only change if we agree and given the EU's new found one-for-all appetite the solution is that the country who holds the post of High Representative for Foreign Affairs is the one country that forgoes a commissioner. Your quote couldn't be more misleading.
Click to expand...
You are contradicting yourself here. You say that "Nice says that when the EU hits 27 members there should be less commissioners than States, details to be unanimously agreed" then you say that "If Lisbon is rejected the number of commissioners will only change if we agree" - there are subtle yet very significant differences here. Does Nice say that if agreement can't be reached on the details, then we all retain our commissioners, or is this your convenient interpretation?
 
Complainer said:
From http://www.europeanmovement.ie/index.php?id=8920 "[FONT=Verdana,Arial,sans-serif]The declarations are legally binding. They have been agreed by 27 countries, have been lodged with the UN and are on the same automatic process that was used by the Danish in the early nineties.[/FONT]"
Click to expand...

Agreed, but we are voting on the Treaty, not the declarations. The declarations force a specific interpretation on certain aspects of the treaty, which when interpreted in other ways (rightly or wrongly) caused many voters to vote No.

The Commissioner bit is the only actual concession that was made.
For what its worth i voted Yes the last time, and will vote Yes again, as i had no problem with the Treaty before or after the 'declarations'.
 
I just call it the way I see it. The destination point for the EU project is a Federal Europe, they should be honest about this. The EU Constitution was rejected by the people of France and Holland so the EU re-branded it as the Lisbon treaty and managed to package it, knowing that it would be rejected it many countries if put to a vote, so as all but Ireland were denied a vote. Ireland then rejected it. The Irish Government and the EU have conspired to force another vote here. If such were happening in China, Russia or Africa it would be condemned by the EU as an affront to democracy. Who really wants to be bullied into an EU super-state that doesn't consult or listen to it's people. EU and Irish politicians are our servants not our masters as they seem to believe.
 
michaelm said:
I just call it the way I see it.
Click to expand...
In fairness now, you've done a bit more than that. You've made false claims about Eamonn Gilmore's behaviour in relation to this, which doesn't set down a great basis for reasoned argument.
 
Shouldn't the No side just put up the exact same posters that were so effective at the last referendum ? I mean, if they think the declarations are not worth anything, then the same 'threats' must still exist ?
Why are they putting up new claims on their posters, ones that we did not see the last time ?

Or do they really think that peoples fears have been addressed by the declarations, so they have to make up some new ones ?

As for the YES posters - just as bland as the last time :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top