The Lisbon vote

"extreme business right or the neo-liberal agenda".
Click to expand...

Because it is a fact there is evidence. i have done some research on Education policy and education in Europe and it is factual that business is becoming more and more influencial in this sector and it is my view that education is suffering and will continue to suffer because of this. I am not some looney conspiricy theorist but business interests are dominating in europe today. You may see this as acceptable. I think citizens need to balance the need for business to thrive with the needs of citizens to live in a fair society. and these two things are not mutually inclusive. Sometimes business exploits and treats people unfairly. Yes one answer to this is government regulation. But another is to keep essential public services like health and education in the hands of the public sector. And yes we need public sector reform but not privitisation.
 
television said:
By giving responciblility for health care to private industry you immidiatly put the focus on profit rather than health care. I have no problem with private indutry by the way. A governments only role is not or should not be just to act as a regulator of the free market.
Click to expand...
The government should concern it’s self with delivering the best and most efficient healthcare to the citizens of this country. They should not allow the vested interests within the health service to dictate how services are delivered nor should they take anything other than a pragmatic approach when formulating policy.

television said:
And it is not government Incompetence its goverment curruption. that is a very important distinction. Incompetence suggests goverment bundling along, curruption is where gouvernment activly sides with business at the expence or ordinary citizzens.
Click to expand...
Rubbish. Corruption is when people act outside the law by offering or accepting inducements to influence decisions. Incompetence is when the government is inefficient and wasteful and cannot effectively enforce the laws and rules it enacts or execute policies it adopts.
 
television said:
A key and central implication of this treaty is the idea there should be no distortion of the free market. that is one of the central messages of this treaty.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. They seek to prevent distortion of the open market. There is a big difference between the two.

television said:
Why?
Click to expand...
Answered in the rest of that quote.

BTW, it's enjoyable to discuss this with you but it would be easier if you could reply to one post with one post. Try copying and pasting into MS Word and just copy and paste the quote tags around the sections that you want to reply to.
 
television said:
Because it is a fact there is evidence. i have done some research on Education policy and education in Europe and it is factual that business is becoming more and more influencial in this sector and it is my view that education is suffering and will continue to suffer because of this. I am not some looney conspiricy theorist but business interests are dominating in europe today. You may see this as acceptable. I think citizens need to balance the need for business to thrive with the needs of citizens to live in a fair society. and these two things are not mutually inclusive. Sometimes business exploits and treats people unfairly. Yes one answer to this is government regulation. But another is to keep essential public services like health and education in the hands of the public sector. And yes we need public sector reform but not privitisation.
Click to expand...

Yes, but none of this explains how you can justify branding others with labels like "the extreme business right" or "the neo-liberal agenda", while at the same time you accuse others of being McCarthyite.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't necessarily mean that they are "extreme" or "neo-con".
 
Rubbish. Corruption is when people act outside the law by offering or accepting inducements to influence decisions.
there are levels of curruption. You can not just say that because
Click to expand...

Yes of cource you are right on this definition of curruption but it is not the only definition or explaination of curruprion.it is also where the government sides with the needs of business over the needs of people. Curruption takes on many forms and is a fluid concept. Sometimes business inlfuence laws/sets the agenda for laws to suits their own agenda the expence of peoples social need. for me this is no less curruption.
 
ubiquitous said:
Yes, but none of this explains how you can justify branding others with labels like "the extreme business right" or "the neo-liberal agenda", while at the same time you accuse others of being McCarthyite.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't necessarily mean that they are "extreme" or "neo-con".
Click to expand...

I am arguign that big business has a huge influence on europen social policy today. And broadly speaking these groups like the European Round table of Indulstrialists have a neo liberal economic outlook.
 
television said:
Yes of cource you are right on this definition of curruption but it is not the only definition or explaination of curruprion.it is also where the government sides with the needs of business over the needs of people. Curruption takes on many forms and is a fluid concept. Sometimes business inlfuence laws/sets the agenda for laws to suits their own agenda the expence of peoples social need. for me this is no less curruption.
Click to expand...
I disagree that it is necessara;ly corruption but I agree that it is undesirable. Abe Lincoln said it best when he said that government should be “By the people, of the people and for the people”.
The great thing about representative democracy is that if our government does act in the way you have outlined we can elect a different one.
 
The government should concern it’s self with delivering the best and most efficient healthcare to the citizens of this country.
Click to expand...

Absolutly aggreed but the private sector will not achieve this because of a very siomple ecomomic priciple.

Minimise costs/Maximise profit.

Nothing against that at all. But it Will not work in health.
 
Interesting to see that the Bush administration hope for a NO vote. One of their 'advisors' in Dublin this week sees a more united Europe as a threat to NATO. They fear if the EU can co-operate closer militarily, they won't need NATO.
Surely Libertas/SF etc ... would welcome any reduction in NATO power in Europe ?
 
michaelm said:
I think you'll find that many people will use their brain when deciding and many will vote NO based on what's in the treaty, and despite eclectic mix on the NO side, rather than vote Yes simply because of who's for a NO.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct and I will be using my brain and voting yes, as opposed to believing the garbage and hypocrcy peddled by former terrorists and child killers about "neutrality", garbage peddled by purveyors of failed political "isms" such as marxism and garbage peddled by people like Patrica McKenna who is anti everything without having a creative idea in her brain
 
Dunphy says NO, so that should concentrate the minds of the waverers. I wonder if that was before or after powdering his nose?:D
 
Caveat said:
Yes, I received the 'booklet'. I'm not going to read it...etc
Click to expand...

I take this back. Silly comment, posted in anger. An empty protest really directed at the government and their handling of all this. Of course everyone should read this and I have now done so.

Not much wiser though, but for various reasons ( I'm generally pro-Europe, relative 'trust' of those I voted for, mistrust of the naysayers etc)I will say that I've decided to vote yes.
 
You are absolutely correct and I will be using my brain and voting yes, as opposed to believing the garbage and hypocrcy peddled by former terrorists and child killers about "neutrality", garbage peddled by purveyors of failed political "isms" such as marxism and garbage peddled by people like Patrica McKenna who is anti everything without having a creative idea in her brain
Click to expand...

. Absolutly aggree wth you that a lot on the no side (with the exception of patrica mccenna who i find to be articulate passionate and on the side of ordinary people) of the debate are complete loonies but if thats your only reason for voting yes then its not a great one.
 
purveyors of failed political "isms" such as marxism.
Click to expand...

Im reminded of the scene from the life of brian where the zelot terrorists are criticising the romans and saying "what have the romans ever done for us". What has the left wing ever done for us? Let me see now. The left wing may have had its problems and f\aults but I trust the ideas of workers uniting for a common purpose over leaving the business elete to decide on matters for us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaE3EaQte78
 
For all the posters that use not siding with the loonies as a reason to vote Yes, can I take it that you are/were for example in favour of the Iraq liberation, use of Shannon as a stop over by US military etc?

These are the same groups vehemently opposed to both.
 
rmelly said:
For all the posters that use not siding with the loonies as a reason to vote Yes, can I take it that you are/were for example in favour of the Iraq liberation, use of Shannon as a stop over by US military etc?

These are the same groups vehemently opposed to both.
Click to expand...
As were many in the main steam of Irish politics.
I was in favour of the invasion but not the balls-up they made of it.
I am in favour of allowing US planes refuel in Shannon.
 
Sorry about the confusion ........ I concluded that since he knows so little about European football ....... I could use that as a yardstick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top