The Lisbon vote

bizarre?

Click to expand...

Is a word.

And i mean an argument. I find discussing the treaty and its implications interesting. What I am not interesed in doing however is playing mindless wordgames etc.

Yes, that is one of the reasons why I am voting No. Which is why I find your line of argument bizarre.

Click to expand...

You really are loosing me now? I just cannot follow what you are saying.

Otherwise, please explain why the EU elite are so insistent that the Treaty is passed, if it means that they lose power once it takes effect?

Click to expand...

Why do you think the implecation of my argument is that EU eletes will loose power?

television said:

Why do you think the implecation of my argument is that EU eletes will loose power?

Click to expand...

Because you say that the Treaty allows individual governments to introduce privatisation in the areas of social, health and educational services, if they feel like it, and that domestic ministers like Mary Harney will have the final say on this.

no because the eletes (multinational pharmacuticals and Global health coopperations) of which I speak are in favour of privitisation. They would support harney in this.

television said:

no because the eletes (multinational pharmacuticals and Global health coopperations) of which I speak are in favour of privitisation. They would support harney in this.

Click to expand...

Who or what on earth are the "multinational pharmacuticals and Global health coopperations"? What status have they in EU Law? What primacy do they have over the EU institutions like the Council of Ministers and the Commission? And what do you make of the fact that any given time the EU member states have usually at least as many left-wing governments (who would normally be expected to oppose privatisation) as right-wing ones (who would normally be expected to support privatisation)? Hence where is this big conspiracy to introduce privatisation all over the EU, if, as you say, the matter is to be decided upon by each individual government?

television said:

I am arguing that big business interests have an agenda to introduce privitised education in europe.

Click to expand...

the eletes (multinational pharmacuticals and Global health coopperations) of which I speak are in favour of privitisation.

Click to expand...

If passing the Treaty will facilitate rampant privatisation in education and health, why on earth do Labour and the major unions support the Treaty ?

If you are so nieve to believe that there is complete seperation between the commission and the council of ministers and big business then there is very little more I can say to you on this matter. Let me however give you one example of what i am talking about in education.

http://www.elig.org/

This is an industry led group that advocate and lobbies within Europe for further implimentation of technology with european education. Noble enough cause you may say. We all want our children to be technologically literate etc. But this groups real role is to stimulate demand for technology products in Europe and where better to start than among our children.

And even leaving aside what their motivations are. This is a real organisation which consists of multinationals which does lobby in Europe on these issues and is very influencial.

Again let me say i am not a marxist. But these things are happening. Big business is becoming very powerful in the european project.

redstar said:

If passing the Treaty will facilitate rampant privatisation in education and health, why on earth do Labour and the major unions support the Treaty ?

Click to expand...

Fair point.

Im not sure why?

But let explain my argument.

1. social partnership may have had its benifits to ireland but one negative is that it allowed leaders of unions to get too close to government. This has meant soem unions leaders do not want to be marginilised from future social partnership talks and are so are supporting the government for this reason.

2. as far as Labour are concerned I really dont know?

television said:

http://www.elig.org/

This is an industry led group that advocate and lobbies within Europe for further implimentation of technology with european education. Noble enough cause you may say. We all want our children to be technologically literate etc. But this groups real role is to stimulate demand for technology products in Europe and where better to start than among our children.

Click to expand...

These damn comphuters!They're all a scam! Being shoved down our throats! And now they're after our kids as well! Damn Yanks! I told you we were better off when we hadn't an This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language in our trousers! Down with this sort of thing!

These damn comphuters! Its all a scam! And now they're after our kids as well! I told you we were better off when we hadn't an This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language in our trousers! Down with this sort of thing!

Click to expand...

If you want to be facetious (and ok mildly humorous) fine. But you did ask a question to me, i.e.

Who or what on earth are the "multinational pharmacuticals and Global health coopperations"?

Click to expand...

I was giving you an example from the field of education because this is my speciality. And I guarentee there are similar groups in pharmasucticals etc. And these groups do lobby the commission and the council of ministers. their agenda is utlimatly to maximise profits and sometimes the outcome of this lobbying is at the expence of the rights of citizens.

And now they're after our kids as well!

Click to expand...

I realise you are trying to be funny but I find your attitude kind of nieve. Do you seriously think these companies do not target children as potential complient consumers? Maybe you thin k it is okay that kids are targeted at a young age and brainwashed to consume thinks they dont need. Maybe you think its okay that our very education system has the potential to be used to do this. I however am against using our education system and a marketing tool.

From my own experience technology is being foisted opon students that is completly useless for thier education but looks good. I am all for technology in education but appropriate technology that adds value to the education of a student. the trouble is that when technology companies get involved in education they simply promote thier own products. there is no critical evaluation what so ever of thier actual value. If you do question their value or even ask for open evaluation you leave yourself open to being ostracised as being anti technology and backward.

Big business is becoming very powerful in the european project.

Click to expand...

What is "big business"? You give the impression that there is a madcap "stonecutters" conspiracy out there.

Behind what you call "big business" are people - employees earning a living and shareholders, many of whom are ordinary people or pension funds paying ordinary retired people. There isnt a small bunch of Mr. Burns style evil people who own most multinationals and meet regularly to decide how to screw ordinary people.


Though, one thing did strike me concerning the Yes side argument that multinationals are in favour of a Yes vote. The argument being made by the Yes side is that because Irish based multinationals are in favour, then the EU-wide corporation tax must not be on the horizon. This may not be correct. The multinationals could be in favour of a Yes vote and EU-wide corporation tax. The reason being that at the moment, Ireland is the only show in town for multinationals. If they want an advantage in trading in the EU, they have to be based in Ireland - if they are based elsewhere, they put themselves at a disadvantage vis a vis competitors who are based in Ireland. However, if there is an EU wide corporation tax, then this advantage/disadvantage of locating or not locating in Ireland is neutralised. They can locate where ever they want. It enables them to chose a location that is closer to the bulk of their customers than Ireland or one where the workforce or raw materials are more readily available. Ireland loses out big time in this scenario. The counter argument to this is that they will make less profits if they have to pay higher corporation tax. Not true, they can simply jack up prices to compensate for the higher taxes. With an EU wide corporation tax, they cannot be undercut by a competitor with a lower tax rate and due to the EUs closed market, they cannot be undercut by non-EU based companies. The vast majority of big companies would prefer to be judged in the market place solely by the quality and price of their goods and services with tax rates being a non issue.

Re: The Television Debate

Methinks that television has racked up a record number of post for a given thread. The Title should probably be changed to 'The Television Debate'.

TV, do you mind my asking, and I mean no offence here, but is English your first language? Your mispellings do become irritating after a while. BTW privits are hedges, privates are something quite different, hence the earlier quip from some wag about hedge schools.

BTW privits are hedges, privates are something quite different

Click to expand...

Explain please?

Re: The Television Debate

michaelm said:

Methinks that television has racked up a record number of post for a given thread. The Title should probably be changed to 'The Television Debate'.

Click to expand...

I gladly take on the title.

Although this thread is supposed to be about the lisbon treaty maybe we can get back to that.

TV, do you mind my asking, and I mean no offence here, but is English your first language?

Click to expand...

Yes English is my first languege. And no offence is taken. ALthougth I just bet you were trying to be offencive

csirl said:

Though, one thing did strike me concerning the Yes side argument that multinationals are in favour of a Yes vote. The argument being made by the Yes side is that because Irish based multinationals are in favour, then the EU-wide corporation tax must not be on the horizon. This may not be correct. The multinationals could be in favour of a Yes vote and EU-wide corporation tax. The reason being that at the moment, Ireland is the only show in town for multinationals. If they want an advantage in trading in the EU, they have to be based in Ireland - if they are based elsewhere, they put themselves at a disadvantage vis a vis competitors who are based in Ireland. However, if there is an EU wide corporation tax, then this advantage/disadvantage of locating or not locating in Ireland is neutralised. They can locate where ever they want. It enables them to chose a location that is closer to the bulk of their customers than Ireland or one where the workforce or raw materials are more readily available. Ireland loses out big time in this scenario. The counter argument to this is that they will make less profits if they have to pay higher corporation tax. Not true, they can simply jack up prices to compensate for the higher taxes. With an EU wide corporation tax, they cannot be undercut by a competitor with a lower tax rate and due to the EUs closed market, they cannot be undercut by non-EU based companies. The vast majority of big companies would prefer to be judged in the market place solely by the quality and price of their goods and services with tax rates being a non issue.

Click to expand...

A logical anaysis.

csirl said:

There isnt a small bunch of Mr. Burns style evil people who own most multinationals and meet regularly to decide how to screw ordinary people.

Click to expand...

Maybe not. But the Bilderberg group - bankers, politicians, Presidents, media moguls, etc - (ever heard of them?) meet privately on a yearly basis to discuss all manner of world issues. Such meetings set the backdrop against which policy in the EU and elsewhere is framed. Little or nothing is ever reported in the Press.

Anyway that's an aside, the matter at hand is whether we want to change our constitution allowing for the ratification of the Lisbon treaty and agreeing that our constitution can not prevent any laws, acts or measures being put into force if they are necessitated by our membership of the new EU, even if they would otherwise be deemed by our Supreme Court to be unconstitutional.