there is no truth to this statement..What is the truth about the claim for the €1.85 minimum wage and how do they get away with it?
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.
Absolutely the Govt are very slow out of the traps on this one...
Their explanation for each poster is here.What is the truth about the claim for the €1.85 minimum wage and how do they get away with it?
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.Have to say that at least Eamonn Gilmore was calling this for this not to be an anti Government vote.
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'.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.
Come on; It's exactly the same proposition. That's an accepted fact, even grudgingly by Cowan and Roche.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'.
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.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.
It must have slipped your mind to mention your source for your comments about Gilmore - perhaps you'd like to revisit this?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.
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.
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]"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.
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.".It must have slipped your mind to mention your source for your comments about Gilmore - perhaps you'd like to revisit this?
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.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.".
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?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.
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]"
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.I just call it the way I see it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?