The Lisbon vote

[efm]

And again there are global health provision corporations out there who would do exactly that.

Maybe I'm being dense here but how does the fact that a private company can open a hospital in Ireland prevent the government from continuing to run the HSE and provide a public hospital service?

In fact you can replace "hospital" with any product or service ie school, bus, fire brigade, etc.

Allowing (or as you might put it, not being able to stop) private companies to operate a service in this state doesn't automatically mean that the government should or would immediately walk away from providing a similar service on a non-profit basis.

 

[television]

Allowing (or as you might put it, not being able to stop) private companies to operate a service in this state doesn't automatically mean that the government should or would immediately walk away from providing a similar service on a non-profit basis.

but it can be argued by these companies that goverment interference in the health sector amounts to unfair competition.

 

[efm]

but it can be argued by these companies that goverment interference in the health sector amounts to unfair competition.

I don't think it can and I think you are making a huge leap of conjecture by trying to tie a Yes to Lisbon with the eventual complete privatisation of Ireland's Health Service (assuming that this isn't what Ireland's elected government wants in the first place).

 

[Purple]

I don't think it can and I think you are making a huge leap of conjecture by trying to tie a Yes to Lisbon with the eventual complete privatisation of Ireland's Health Service (assuming that this isn't what Ireland's elected government wants in the first place).

I agree completely. The notion is ridiculous.
Every country in the EU already has private healthcare.
Given that so many of them are so proud of their socialised system (UK, France etc as listed above) it is nonsense to think that they would agree a treaty that would threaten said systems.

 

[television]

I agree completely. The notion is ridiculous.
Every country in the EU already has private healthcare.
Given that so many of them are so proud of their socialised system (UK, France etc as listed above) it is nonsense to think that they would agree a treaty that would threaten said systems.

This is going around in circles now. We will just have to aggree to differ. I am not sayign that over night all european health care will be privatised. What i am saying is that a combination of factors are making this likely.

1. An inability of european governments to pay for the hugh costs associated with modern health care.
2. a powerful european for profit health lobby who advocate for private health care on the one hand and on the other try to undermine public health care systems by pointing to their inefficiencies (real or imaginary)
3. A move to the right politially in european countries.
4. A increase in the middle classes in Europe who are will be convinced of the merits of privitisation because they will always be able to afford it.
5. The lisbon treaty that facilitates the conditions to make it legally possible.

 

[Purple]

5. The lisbon treaty that facilitates the conditions to make it legally possible.

It has been pointed out that these conditions are there at the moment and the Lisbon treaty changes nothing in this area. In other words governments regulate and control their own health systems and decide how services are delivered.
Points 1-4 make a strong argument against a public health system, or a least show that massive reform is required.

 

[Sunny]

Got my hair cut at luchtime. Girl who did it was telling she was voting no because she didn't want her son fighting for Europe in Iraq!! How did it come to this?

 

[redstar]

Got my hair cut at luchtime. Girl who did it was telling she was voting no because she didn't want her son fighting for Europe in Iraq!! How did it come to this?

Illustrates effective scare tactics by the NO camp compared to tame, woolly YES campaign attempts to convince people.

"Tell a lie big enough and it'll be believed"

 

[Ceist Beag]

Got my hair cut at luchtime. Girl who did it was telling she was voting no because she didn't want her son fighting for Europe in Iraq!! How did it come to this?

Just proves the point that this was a referendum that should not have been put to the people!!

 

[efm]

Illustrates effective scare tactics by the NO camp compared to tame, woolly YES campaign attempts to convince people.

I agree, and to be fair, aside from the fact that I don't agree with what they are saying, I think the NO camp ran a very clever campaign. I think whoever masterminded the campaign should be poached by the YES camp for the next time!

I think it was very effective for the NO vote to list the key negatives and say "NO" to them while the YES camp couldn't easily list the benefits for Ireland.

Also, the slogan, "Europe has been good to us, let's keep it that way, Vote No" (or something similar) was a stroke of genius in my eyes; incorrect but genius nonetheless.

 

[redstar]

Just proves the point that this was a referendum that should not have been put to the people!!

Have to agree there. Unless there is 100% turnout, the vote will be YES or NO based on a minority of the Irish electorate. The future direction of EU will depend on a minority of the Irish Electorate. Who says the Irish don't have any power in the EU, eh !!?

Its the same with most referenda which have many complex issues which are wide open to misinterpretation by all sides - and then boil it down to a a simple YES or NO, and then have to depend on whether or not anyone is interested enough to go and vote, and the weather !

 

[Staples]

the YES camp couldn't easily list the benefits for Ireland.

That's really at the heart of it. If there are benefits they should have been clearly articulated. Instead we had the "trust us, we know what's right for you" message.

In the absence of reasons to vote yes, is it any wonder that people will vote to retain the status quo?

 

[Purple]

Just proves the point that this was a referendum that should not have been put to the people!!

I agree 100%

 

[room305]

In the absence of reasons to vote yes, is it any wonder that people will vote to retain the status quo?

The problem with the Yes side campaign is that they have not highlighted clearly enough that there is no "status quo". A No vote will be a global PR disaster for the EU that they will take none to kindly too. I hope we're prepared for the repercussions.

A French No vote to the constitution meant going back to the drawing board. An Irish No vote might see some in the EU voicing the opinion that it would be easier to get rid of us than spend another 8 years drawing up a new treaty.

 

[so-crates]

I agree, and to be fair, aside from the fact that I don't agree with what they are saying, I think the NO camp ran a very clever campaign. I think whoever masterminded the campaign should be poached by the YES camp for the next time!

I think it was very effective for the NO vote to list the key negatives and say "NO" to them while the YES camp couldn't easily list the benefits for Ireland.

Also, the slogan, "Europe has been good to us, let's keep it that way, Vote No" (or something similar) was a stroke of genius in my eyes; incorrect but genius nonetheless.

Have to say, kudos to the Labour Party and I will specifically mention Prionsias De Rossa as he was in the yes advert I saw in the Irish Times yesterday. A list of specific benefits to the Lisbon Treaty, which were cross-referenced to specific text in either the Human Rights Charter or the Treaty itself. It was a treat to see such a positive and above all informative list of reasons as opposed to the more regular instructions
Vote Yes
-because it is right
-because it is good for you
-because it will be embarrassing for Ireland if you don't

or the
Vote No
-for the souls of dead Irish patriots
-for a better Europe
-or your hospitals will be privatised.

The list of facetious or idiotic arguments that have been advanced is quite ridiculous.

 

[so-crates]

I agree 100%

I disagree, where does that line of reasoning end? The constitution needed to be amended and that is the prerogative of the electorate not the government. Otherwise referenda would only ever be on safe matters that the government can be assured they would get agreement on. What was needed was a proper campaign of information as opposed to the finger-wagging we were treated to from the Government in particular. You would have thought they would have learned the lesson of the Nice Treaty referenda, if you want people to give a considered response don't start telling them what to think, tell them why you think what you do.

 

[Purple]

I don’t like referenda. I think that they are little removed from mob rule.
This referendum typifies what they are a bad idea.
A 75% majority of both houses and a signature from the President should be what is required to change the constitution.

 

[Ceist Beag]

I disagree, where does that line of reasoning end? The constitution needed to be amended and that is the prerogative of the electorate not the government. Otherwise referenda would only ever be on safe matters that the government can be assured they would get agreement on. What was needed was a proper campaign of information as opposed to the finger-wagging we were treated to from the Government in particular. You would have thought they would have learned the lesson of the Nice Treaty referenda, if you want people to give a considered response don't start telling them what to think, tell them why you think what you do.

so-crates I agree about your points on the campaign but the problem with an election such as this is that for every 1 educated voter who has spent time getting to know what they will be voting on there are another 3 (possibly more!) voters who don't listen to debates, read up on it, or bother doing anything to educate themselves on it other than read a few headlines, posters or listen to the likes of Joe Duffy and then go with whichever scenario sounds most convincing. Course you could probably say that about most elections but on one as complex as this I think it's asking for trouble putting it to the masses.

 

[ubiquitous]

I don’t like referenda. I think that they are little removed from mob rule.

There is a certain beauty (if that's the word) in "the voice of the people" being the cornerstone of our Constitution as opposed to the whims of an elected elite. That said, a referendum is a very clumsy method to enact or amend laws, look at the abortion debacles.

 

[lightswitch]

Ceist, do you consider yourself to be one of the masses or are you that bit better than the rest of us? Putting things to the masses by the way is the fundamental essence of democracy! The alternatives are not appealing!