SF, Europe and Temporary Agency Workers

[woodie]

Last November, SF MEP Mary Lou MacDonald wrote that 'We believe in a constructive intergovernmental relationship between European states...' The implication of this is that SF favour a type of European Union in which EU law is not superior to 'domestic' law (where the EU has competence) and in which each Member State has a veto in all areas.

During the past week, SF signed up to a Labour Party motion which noted...'that the Irish Government, along with two other states, have been responsible for blocking a proposed EU Directive on Temporary Agency Workers since 2002' and which closed by calling on the Government 'to support the introduction of an EU Directive on Temporary Agency Workers.

It seems to me there is a fundamental contradiction between these positions.

If Europe is to be entirely intergovernmental, what is the point of an EU 'directive' that doesn't bind Ireland. What protection would such a voluntarist 'law' offer? Would it be little more than an aspiration?

And if Ireland is to have a veto in all areas, what would have stopped the Government from killing the temporary agency workers proposal at any point since 2002?

Questions for SF supporters

Why did SF sign a motion calling for a directive on temporary agency work if you don't want that directive to be binding?

Why do you want to give FF the power to veto such a proposal?

[mmclo]

They've called for the maintenance of the veto several times and opposed the extention of QMV in every treaty

Here was what they said about the charter in the draft constitution

While many progressive groups would welcome a charter of fundamental rights for the EU, should it be more than an appendix to the new constitution?

Indeed

[MacCoise]

Ye can be so lazy


Sinn Féin has a policy of critical but constructive engagement with the EU. This means we decide to support or oppose the many and complex developments in the EU each on its own merits. We have supported EU and other Europe-wide measures that promote and enhance human rights, equality and the all-Ireland agenda - measures which are an example of the EU at its best, promoting a guarantee of a basic level of rights protection in all member states. But Sinn Féin has also never been afraid to stand up against EU measures damaging to Irish interests.

[MacCoise]

Questions for SF supporters

Why did SF sign a motion calling for a directive on temporary agency work if you don't want that directive to be binding?

Why do you want to give FF the power to veto such a proposal?

1. Of course we want it to be binding, duh!

2. We don't want to "give FF" the power to veto. We want Irish governments to be able to act in Ireland's interst. The people gave FF the veto by electing them; not us.

[mmclo]

So Sinn Fein support QMV on important issues, and they support the Charter now that it has been given the same legal force as the text.

[ON THE ONE ROAD]

Last November, SF MEP Mary Lou MacDonald wrote that 'We believe in a constructive intergovernmental relationship between European states...' The implication of this is that SF favour a type of European Union in which EU law is not superior to 'domestic' law (where the EU has competence) and in which each Member State has a veto in all areas.

During the past week, SF signed up to a Labour Party motion which noted...'that the Irish Government, along with two other states, have been responsible for blocking a proposed EU Directive on Temporary Agency Workers since 2002' and which closed by calling on the Government 'to support the introduction of an EU Directive on Temporary Agency Workers.

It seems to me there is a fundamental contradiction between these positions.

If Europe is to be entirely intergovernmental, what is the point of an EU 'directive' that doesn't bind Ireland. What protection would such a voluntarist 'law' offer? Would it be little more than an aspiration?

And if Ireland is to have a veto in all areas, what would have stopped the Government from killing the temporary agency workers proposal at any point since 2002?

Questions for SF supporters

Why did SF sign a motion calling for a directive on temporary agency work if you don't want that directive to be binding?

Why do you want to give FF the power to veto such a proposal?

and long may be be able to debate and choose the laws we as citizens are to live by

your falling into the same mental trap of europe good, we bad.

there are great pieces of legislation coming out of europe, have done and probabley will do

but

the centre ground in politics is prone to shifts. If the centre ground in europe for example were to shift to one side of the spectrum and the centre ground in ireland shifted to the other side.

if the power resided in europe and the debate here was an irreleivence, personaly i would view that as a tyraney maybe a benine civilized tyranny but non the less. you may feel thats over the top and thats your right but you asked for answer, there you go.

[Pax]

Ye can be so lazy

{groans}, Yet, another mischaracterisation of a No side argument.
I really can't understand why the yes side think they'll get away with this black and white analysis. Or how its off benefit....

[woodie]

Questions for SF supporters

Why did SF sign a motion calling for a directive on temporary agency work if you don't want that directive to be binding?

Why do you want to give FF the power to veto such a proposal?

1. Of course we want it to be binding, duh!

2. We don't want to "give FF" the power to veto. We want Irish governments to be able to act in Ireland's interst. The people gave FF the veto by electing them; not us.

1 Well if you want it to be binding that means SF support the 'federal' system with the superiority of EU law over domestic law and the right of the Commission to bring Ireland before the ECJ for failing to respect that law. However, that's not the 'intergovernmental' Europe that SF supposedly favour, as outlined by MacDonald above and elsewhere - 'Sinn Féin believes in an inter-governmental approach to the EU, not a federal one.' Eoin O'Broin, An Phoblacht, 17 November 2007.

2. Sorry McCoise, SF policy is to retain the veto in all areas. That's why you oppose the Lisbon extension of QMV. What if FF says it's in our 'national' interest to veto the proposal on temporary agency worker put forward by the European Commission and supported by the governments of 26 other Member States and by the European Parliament? Because QMV applies (thanks to previous treaties), they can't.

[MacCoise]

Questions for SF supporters

Why did SF sign a motion calling for a directive on temporary agency work if you don't want that directive to be binding?

Why do you want to give FF the power to veto such a proposal?

1. Of course we want it to be binding, duh!

2. We don't want to "give FF" the power to veto. We want Irish governments to be able to act in Ireland's interst. The people gave FF the veto by electing them; not us.

1 Well if you want it to be binding that means SF support the 'federal' system with the superiority of EU law over domestic law and the right of the Commission to bring Ireland before the ECJ for failing to respect that law. However, that's not the 'intergovernmental' Europe that SF supposedly favour, as outlined by MacDonald above and elsewhere - 'Sinn Féin believes in an inter-governmental approach to the EU, not a federal one.' Eoin O'Broin, An Phoblacht, 17 November 2007.

2. Sorry McCoise, SF policy is to retain the veto in all areas. That's why you oppose the Lisbon extension of QMV. What if FF says it's in our 'national' interest to veto the proposal on temporary agency worker put forward by the European Commission and supported by the governments of 26 other Member States and by the European Parliament? Because QMV applies (thanks to previous treaties), they can't.

1. Wodxsdret, and I think Thats why I will call you as long as you misrepresent my name and the name of Mary Lou McDonald,did you actually bother reading what I posted ...it sort of explains things. But you did raise an interesting point. If hypotethically we have 26 conservative governments- should the one progressive government then be forced to follow the right wing position? Yes according to you.

2. The Irish people , well the 26 counties, elected a Fianna Fail government, - i dont like that but I would never be so subversive as to undermine that right through unaccountable EU actions.


But hey, sticks will be sticks........

[MacCoise]

During the past week, SF signed up to a Labour Party motion which noted...'that the Irish Government, along with two other states, have been responsible for blocking a proposed EU Directive on Temporary Agency Workers since 2002' and which closed by calling on the Government 'to support the introduction of an EU Directive on Temporary Agency Workers.

It

Again Wodxretrss, is that a lie?
Was it not a joint motion?