The Lisbon vote

Was up in Dun laoghaire today and spoke to a man from People before profit, they are voting no. So I decided to have a poll of my own. I asked 20 random people which way they were going to vote, the result was, 16 no and 4 yes. (half of the no's were don't know but are swaying the no way) It makes for an interesting week.
 
television said:
First of all the lisbon treaty gives great significant to issues like competition and liberalisation of public services.

Privitisation of health will lead to vast swathes of poor people not being able to afford health care. If you think thats morally right good luck to you. then again morality has nothing to do with the business ethic.
Click to expand...

In no way does the Lisbon Treaty seek to foist the privatisation of public services on this country. This particular red herring was put to rest ages ago. I heard Joe Higgins harping on about it in a debate with Alan Dukes two weeks ago on the Pat Kenny show and he had to concede at the end there was no mechanism in the treaty to enforce the privatisation of health care or any other public service. Nothing could be done unless our own government decided to pursue such a policy.

To drag the debate off to talk about "swathes of poor people not being able to afford health care" because of Lisbon is just ridiculous.

television said:
Interesting article from Alan Ruddick in the sindo which i want to quote one particularly good point

The great and the good know what's best for us, and we should just trust them and move on. Well I can't. I do not trust them. I cannot stand being patronised, threatened, bullied and lied to, all at the same time, especially when the people doing the bullying have not bothered to read and understand the very document that they are trying to ram down my throat. That is reason enough to vote No, and it is why so many people have turned against the Lisbon Treaty in the past few weeks. We are being browbeaten, and we do not like it.
Click to expand...

I don't see anything particularly good about it. Seems like an over the top rant to me. Bullying? browbeaten? And exactly how have people been lied to? It doesn't seem to bother him at all the raft of lies and misinformation put out there by the No camp.


Harchibald said:
The Sunday Times proudly boasts today that it alone of all the papers supports No. It, somewhat prematurely, gloats at its victory "against all odds". Sorry, but no way does Rupert Murdoch have Ireland's best interests at heart.
Click to expand...

It certainly suits his particular agenda and that of the Tory party for Ireland to reject this treaty. But it's not for the UK or any other country that we make this decision. It is for our own interests. It's not our job to limit or block the influence of the EU for other countries. It's our government that has to deal with the consequences of a No vote and our standing and influence that will be diminished.
 
Television, starlite68, you have yet to show where in the treaty it mentions anything to suggest privitisation of education or health will be promoted ... can you back up these claims? Sounds like yet more scaremongering on behalf of a No vote to me.
 
A No vote does not have to be taken purely in the interests of Ireland (although that's a valid position too.)

We can Vote No in the European interest as well.

By all means try to reduce Ireland's voting weight in the EU - but don't expect us to lie down and vote for that. What an arrogant position to take!

As for the assumption that Yes must be OK because FF, FG, Labour etc are all for it, there's an easy answer to that. Political parties like to be on the winning side, even if they're in opposition. They all went for the safe option as there was no credible No campaign on the horizon until very recently.
 
In no way does the Lisbon Treaty seek to foist the privatisation of public services on this country.
Click to expand...
groups like the round table of industrialists have had a significant input into this treaty. Their agenda is privitisation of public services.

This is the aim of the oft-repeated EU policy: “an open market economy with free competition” in Art 105 TFEU. Protocol six of the new treaty states: “The internal market as set out in Article [1-3] ... includes a system ensuring that competition is not distorted.” Article 1-3 is about the objectives of the EU. Competition is one of the EU’s organising principles and is the framework for all other policies.
Since the 1980s the EU has also moved to restructure essential public services such as water and sanitation, public transport, energy, post and telecoms as private businesses. And now, health, education and social care systems are in focus. Neo-liberalism is EU policy, and it is pushed further by this renamed constitution.

Article 188 allows for the inclusion of health, education and social services in international trade agreements, including at the World Trade Organisation. Again confirmation that the EU sees such activities as economic in nature
"These two articles will provide the European Commission with the tools to progressively open up areas of European public services such as health and education to both internal market competition and international trade.

Lisbon would copperfasten this privatisation process by placing restrictions on how public services are funded; by enshrining the right of private contractors to bid for public services into EU treaties – rather than national law which can be changed; and by removing the veto on international trade agreements in these services – which would give private-for-profit health corporations the legal backing of international agreements in the GATS. We can change this government and reverse its policy. We can't change EU treaties or GATS agreements.


Sounds like yet more scaremongering on behalf of a No vote to me.
Click to expand...

in and around the corridors of power in Europe big busnisess interests are promoting privitisation. call that sacaremongering if you like. but these guys believe in the power of the free market to cure all our ills in education and health. and they are powerful and using politicians to promote thier agenda.
 
Bullying? browbeaten?
Click to expand...

By every political party telling us "we know this is right for you vote yes and dont ask questions" If you notice the Yes side have this indignant flustrated tone e.g.words phrases like (Red herring, Ridiculous. etc) about how stupid people on the no side are for even considering voting no. And the only reasons they are giving people for voting yes are

1. An assorted bunch of left wing loonies and the religious right are voting no so you should vote yes.

2. We are telling you it is a good thing.

This idea of lisbon making europe less unweilding and more efficent is pretty spurious too. Do you seriously think that after lisbon the european parliment and commission will be more efficent or democratic?
 
The EU cant progress this treaty without an Irish Yes vote. We have them over a barrel. If we vote No, they'll have to come back and bribe us with serious concessions into voting Yes. Voting No could be the best thing that ever happened to Ireland in the EU.
 
DavyJones said:
Was up in Dun laoghaire today and spoke to a man from People before profit, they are voting no. So I decided to have a poll of my own. I asked 20 random people which way they were going to vote, the result was, 16 no and 4 yes. (half of the no's were don't know but are swaying the no way) It makes for an interesting week.
Click to expand...
So that was you. I said No coz I thought you were some sort of crazed Shinner.;)
 
To drag the debate off to talk about "swathes of poor people not being able to afford health care" because of Lisbon is just ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Why so? Lissbon will promote privitisation of health care. Privitisation has been shown to benifit the rich and disadvantage the poor. That is a fact. In Ireland a two tier system is developing in health care already. The american system mainly privitised leads to millions not being able to afford basic health care and this is the way Europe is going. IS that what we really want? it is a moral decision. Do you favour a europe which cares about the poor or do you believe in the power of the free market to give us social justice.
 
television said:
Why so? Lissbon will promote privitisation of health care. Privitisation has been shown to benifit the rich and disadvantage the poor. That is a fact. In Ireland a two tier system is developing in health care already. The american system mainly privitised leads to millions not being able to afford basic health care and this is the way Europe is going. IS that what we really want? it is a moral decision. Do you favour a europe which cares about the poor or do you believe in the power of the free market to give us social justice.
Click to expand...

I can't help thinking that this is scaremongering at its worst. I'm no supporter of the Labour Party but they, among others, have proposed the adoption of a "universal health insurance" system to replace our current two-tier health service (the latter being nothing new, btw). This proposal is indeed modelled along some of the aspects of the US system, but is designed specifically to avoid the affordability and other problems experienced in the US. To demonise this proposal as privatisation of health care is imho either dishonest or misguided. To demonise the Lisbon Treaty on the basis that it will force us to go down this route is laughable.

Fwiw, I say this as someone who is likely to vote No.
 
And the no side are accused of scaremongering.

Mr Kouchner said a 'No' vote from the Irish would be greeted with 'gigantic incomprehension'

I find that incredibly arrogent but typical of the yes side.
 
television said:
Why so? Lissbon will promote privitisation of health care. Privitisation has been shown to benifit the rich and disadvantage the poor. That is a fact. In Ireland a two tier system is developing in health care already.
Click to expand...

So will voting NO to Lisbon will stop privitisation in healthcare ?

You've answered this yourself - " a two tier system is developing in health care already ". So Lisbon is irrelevant on this topic.

We already have a private health system to which many people cannot access. This is a seperate problem and NOTHING to do with Lisbon, and is, as another poster said, a red herring.
 
have you read the aspects of the treaty i quoted that promotes the further liberilisation of public services. So im sorry this is not a red herring. YEs Harney is going down the privitisation route and liberalistion of health care provision will with in the treaty make it a much smoother process.
 
To demonise this proposal as privatisation of health care is imho either dishonest or misguided
Click to expand...

I am not demonising that proposal. However the labour party proposal you speak of is not privitisation. Within that proposal there is a mechenism where the fund would look after those who cannot afford to pay into the system. This is something I would support.
 
television said:
have you read the aspects of the treaty i quoted that promotes the further liberilisation of public services. So im sorry this is not a red herring. YEs Harney is going down the privitisation route and liberalistion of health care provision will with in the treaty make it a much smoother process.
Click to expand...

So will voting NO to Lisbon will stop privitisation in healthcare ?
 
television said:
Why so? Lissbon will promote privitisation of health care. Privitisation has been shown to benifit the rich and disadvantage the poor. That is a fact. In Ireland a two tier system is developing in health care already. The american system mainly privitised leads to millions not being able to afford basic health care and this is the way Europe is going. IS that what we really want? it is a moral decision..
Click to expand...
Firstly Lisbon does not promote the privatisation of health care. Secondly it is up to the government of this country to regulate how private healthcare is delivered. If they do wish they can impose a system which requires private hospitals to treat public patients. If private healthcare disadvantages the poor that is the fault of the government for setting and/or enforcing the rules badly, it is not the fault of those who operate within the system which the government has established.
The other rubbish peddled is that big bad capitalist America had no or minimal public health care. The fact is that America spends more per head on socialised healthcare that the EU. Just like they have free third level education for all citizens, but don’t let the facts get in the way of your ideology.

television said:
Do you favour a europe which cares about the poor or do you believe in the power of the free market to give us social justice
Click to expand...
Western democracies, without exception, allow the free market to operate and then use taxation to redistribute wealth and provide social services. You suggest that the free market and social justice are mutually exclusive when in fact the wealth generated by a free market is essential for social justice. BTW, the free market is an artificial construct and can only exist when government is stronger than the market. That’s why America has anti-trust legislation and the EU can force Microsoft to change the way it sells its products.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top