The Lisbon vote

[michaelm]

Do you agree that Lisbon has no bearing on this [CT] matter one way or the other.

Yes, to the degree that our veto on CT remains however I'm not convinced that the ECJ won't rule our CT rate to be a distortion of the market as set out under Lisbon, or that some other mechanism hidden in the unreadable detail of Lisbon will be employed. Nor am I at all convinced that our veto will protect our CT rate in the medium term. IMHO, If we reject Lisbon and the EU political classes really want it passed then the opportunity arises to have tax explicitly referred to in the treaty as a sovereign matter for National governments only. Would you not agree that that is more desirable than a veto that, if unused under pressure or traded in a compromise deal, would be gone forever? If harmonisation is not an EU goal then there should be no problem agreeing that.

Following a NO our government (who work for us ) should also seek to have a, Davey Byrne promised pre-Nice, arrangement in relation to Commissioners whereby we were assured we'd have a Commissioner for the next 130 years.

I'd also like to see them opt out of the charter just like Poland and the UK (no problem securing that) so that the arbiter on rights for Irish citizens would continue to be the Irish Supreme Court rather than the European Court of Justice. As FF, FG & Lab seem to agree that the charter is such a prize, let them then implement it under Irish law.

 

[television]

Yes, to the degree that our veto on CT remains however I'm not convinced that the ECJ won't rule our CT rate to be a distortion of the market as set out under Lisbon

Excellent point that applies to other areas also.

 

[shanegl]

Yes, to the degree that our veto on CT remains however I'm not convinced that the ECJ won't rule our CT rate to be a distortion of the market as set out under Lisbon, or that some other mechanism hidden in the unreadable detail of Lisbon will be employed. Nor am I at all convinced that our veto will protect our CT rate in the medium term. IMHO, If we reject Lisbon and the EU political classes really want it passed then the opportunity arises to have tax explicitly referred to in the treaty as a sovereign matter for National governments only. Would you not agree that that is more desirable than a veto that, if unused under pressure or traded in a compromise deal, would be gone forever? If harmonisation is not an EU goal then there should be no problem agreeing that.

Following a NO our government (who work for us ) should also seek to have a, Davey Byrne promised pre-Nice, arrangement in relation to Commissioners whereby we were assured we'd have a Commissioner for the next 130 years.

I'd also like to see them opt out of the charter just like Poland and the UK (no problem securing that) so that the arbiter on rights for Irish citizens would continue to be the Irish Supreme Court rather than the European Court of Justice. As FF, FG & Lab seem to agree that the charter is such a prize, let them then implement it under Irish law.

I take it you wish to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights then?

 

[csirl]

Anyone think that if the Yes side wins the referendum, that a future Irish Government would have the balls to call another referendum to delete the Lisbon treaty from the Constitution?

 

[dazza21ie]

Following a NO our government (who work for us ) should also seek to have a, Davey Byrne promised pre-Nice, arrangement in relation to Commissioners whereby we were assured we'd have a Commissioner for the next 130 years.

The EU is going to keep expanding. At the moment there are 27 countries and this will increase to 30+ plus in the not too distant future. If we are to be assured a commissioner for the next 30 years then surely every other country would want one also. They would have to start making up mickey mouse commission jobs because there simply will be too many commissioners. It is the same as saying every constituency in ireland should have a minister. Bertie got plenty of stick for giving out jobs for the boys by having so many junior ministers. It was said that this was a waste of tax payers money. Surely having 30 or 40 Commissioners is a waste of taxpayers money.

 

[dazza21ie]

Anyone think that if the Yes side wins the referendum, that a future Irish Government would have the balls to call another referendum to delete the Lisbon treaty from the Constitution?

Highly unlikely considering that all the political parties except Sinn Fein support the treaty. In any event the Treaty has a mechanism to leave the EU in it so if the government of the day wanted to leave the EU they would use that i would presume.

 

[michaelm]

The EU is going to keep expanding. At the moment there are 27 countries and this will increase to 30+ plus in the not too distant future. If we are to be assured a commissioner for the next 30 years then surely every other country would want one also. They would have to start making up mickey mouse commission jobs because there simply will be too many commissioners. It is the same as saying every constituency in ireland should have a minister. Bertie got plenty of stick for giving out jobs for the boys by having so many junior ministers. It was said that this was a waste of tax payers money. Surely having 30 or 40 Commissioners is a waste of taxpayers money.

There are plenty of other areas in which savings could be made in relation to taxpayers money in the EU. In Ireland we have 15 Ministers and 20 Junior Ministers for a population of 4 million. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect to retain one Commissioner per country (27+) in a block of 500 million people. If it becomes unwieldy and the larger states want to show that the EU isn't just a big boys club then let them give up their commissioner altogether, given the size of their vote under the new QMV rules it shouldn't be a big deal for them. It is important for small states.

 

[room305]

1. I am not asking for that. The rest of your argument does not work.

2. I actually aggree with you here. In that yes people have a right to vote for harney or anyone else that advocates privatisation. any yes if they do then she/whatever party has a mandate for privatisation. However I am of the opinion that privatising services such as health and education is a very negative step. And i would suggest that the kicking that the PDs got in the last election that the irish people do not have the apetite for privatisation. then again I'm not claiming to speak for the Irish people

So you agree that if citizens of an EU country democratically elect a government with a mandate to privatise health and education then they should be allowed to do so. Since this is currently the case for every EU country and will remain the case whether the referendum passes or not. Tell me again why you are so vehemently opposed to its passing?

What you say here about Corp Tax is true with or without the Lisbon Treaty. Voting No won't change any moves towards Enhanced Cooperation by those countries who want to do it.

Indeed it will increase the likelihood of such a move occurring as we will be portrayed across the EU as an "I'm alright Jack" type of country. Happy to be one of the pack when we've got the begging bowl out for subsidies. Or when we're about boasting how we built our "miracle economy" by siphoning other states corporation tax. Yet never missing an opportunity to get the rest of the member states over a barrel if we think we can squeeze some kind of advantage out of it.

It is the future battle ground of our low corporation tax rate that swung me from an undecided no vote to a firm yes vote. We are definitely going to be attacked on this, regardless of what way the vote goes, so why start making enemies now?

Yes, to the degree that our veto on CT remains however I'm not convinced that the ECJ won't rule our CT rate to be a distortion of the market as set out under Lisbon, or that some other mechanism hidden in the unreadable detail of Lisbon will be employed.

Doesn't the appropriate clause in the treaty refer to indirect taxes? So we can always hold out the possibility of the ECJ ruling that our VRT should be removed?

Also I think the No side have been overstressing the complexity/unreadability issue. I can't claim any great expertise in the legal field but my brother had a read of it and said it was no more complicated and certainly a lot clearer than most of the Dail legislation that he has to deal with.

 

[television]

So you agree that if citizens of an EU country democratically elect a government with a mandate to privatise health and education then they should be allowed to do so.

Yes.

Since this is currently the case for every EU country and will remain the case whether the referendum passes or not. Tell me again why you are so vehemently opposed to its passing?.

HAs every EU goverment been mandated to privitise health care????? Even the tories in england will not run on a platform of private health care [broken link removed]. (second last paragraph summerises their position) And certainly the British people are pr0ud of the NHS despite its flaws. As are the sweds fins dutch danes and the french (Broadly Public systems). So your premis that ALL EU governments have been given a mandate to introduce private health care seems a little wide of the mark. I stand to be corrected if you can provide evidence

And I am not going in to the sections of the treaty that I think may allow certain countries to implement Private HC. Read my previous posts. And of course like others you are free to disagree.

 

[room305]

HAs every EU goverment been mandated to privitise health care?????

No. That's up to their electorate. It certainly is not the case at present. I did not say that all EU governments have a mandate to privatise health care. I said that the facility is already in place (representative democracy) for citizens to elect governments with a mandate to privatise whatever the hell they damn well please.

And I am not going in to the sections of the treaty that I think may allow certain countries to implement Private HC.

To recap:

1. You support the right of citizens to democratically elect governments with a mandate to privatise health care.

2. You are against any intervention by the EU that would prevent citizens from exercising this right should they choose to do so.

Statement 1. and 2. are already the case. If after the next general election in France the citizens of that country opt to elect a government with a mandate to privatise health care and education, then that government can do so irregardless of what happens with the Lisbon Treaty.

So answer my question - why are you against the Lisbon Treaty? Do you think it will lead to the privatisation of health care against the will of the people (and by implication against the will of their democratically elected public representatives)? Bear in mind you have already stated you don't believe this to be the case.

 

[television]

To recap:

1. You support the right of citizens to democratically elect governments with a mandate to privatise health care.

Yes

2. You are against any intervention by the EU that would prevent citizens from exercising this right should they choose to do so.[/quote]

Statement 1. and 2. are already the case. If after the next general election in France the citizens of that country opt to elect a government with a mandate to privatise health care and education, then that government can do so irregardless of what happens with the Lisbon Treaty.

So answer my question - why are you against the Lisbon Treaty? Do you think it will lead to the privatisation of health care against the will of the people (and by implication against the will of their democratically elected public representatives)? Bear in mind you have already stated you don't believe this to be the case.

I see where you are coming from now. Yes if citizens of any country elect a party that stands on an platform adovating privitisation and that party is elected that subsequent goverment regardless of Lisbon will have a mandate to do just that, i.e. privatise health care. However Europe wide as I have outlined above I do not feel there is any votes to be gained from parties standing on a mandate of private health care. But Lisbon does provide a mechenism by which a country may be forced to allow for privitisation due the reasons I have outlined in previous posts.

Now I know you are going to counter this by saying the governments have an ability to counter privitisation by arguing that the following clause of the treaty.

in the field of trade in social, education and health services, where these agreements risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver them.​

However I believe strongly that as is the case in ireland where there is little mandate to introduce further private health care this is exactly what is happening. Harney will not argue that multinational health providers

will seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver them

​

Politicans in other countries too will on one hand talk about the need to maintain public health care but on the other under preasure from a very powerful private health lobby (and due to the cost of public health care) will introduce various forms of private health care by stelth. And in the long term it may well be argued in european courts by multinational for profit health care providers that they are not "

disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver them

​

IN fact these companies may argue the opposite. And this in turn will open up the floodgates for privitisation. Against the will of ordinary citizens regardless of any mandate. ​

However I can see where you are coming from now and I understand and appreciate fully the logic of what you are saying.​

 

[diarmuidc]

Yes, to the degree that our veto on CT remains however I'm not convinced that the ECJ won't rule our CT rate to be a distortion of the market as set out under Lisbon, or that some other mechanism hidden in the unreadable detail of Lisbon will be employed.

So, even though the very people who pay the CT are supporting a YES vote, you believe that they are wrong and missed something in the treaty. Incredible.

 

[michaelm]

So, even though the very people who pay the CT are supporting a YES vote, you believe that they are wrong and missed something in the treaty. Incredible.

Maybe IBEC have decided that harmonisation is inevitable anyway and are attracted to Lisbon as it will do nothing to protect workers pay and conditions, which have been undermined by recent EU court judgments.

 

[michaelm]

. . the facility is already in place (representative democracy) for citizens to elect governments with a mandate to privatise whatever the hell they damn well please.

But our representative democracy will have its hands tied after Lisbon, in relation to health, as no government the citizens elect will be in a position to exclude private-for-profit health providers, should they believe that a single-tier public system would serve the people best.

 

[Caveat]

So has anyone heard - is voting "brisk" as they say?

I doubt it somehow...

 

[redstar]

So has anyone heard - is voting "brisk" as they say?

I doubt it somehow...

The last I heard on t'wireless was turnout so far (10:30am) at 3%. Half the turnout at the same time in the last referendum.

My (very speculative!!) guess is a overall NO vote if the turnout is low (30 - 40%), but a narrow YES if turnout is above 45%, and a wider margin YES if turnout is around 60%.

 

[room305]

But our representative democracy will have its hands tied after Lisbon, in relation to health, as no government the citizens elect will be in a position to exclude private-for-profit health providers, should they believe that a single-tier public system would serve the people best.

So you are saying that after Lisbon should the GlobalHyperMegaMart Healthcare Services Corporation decide they want to build a hospital in Rathfarnham, we would be powerless to stop them? Our hands would be tied - they couldn't be thwarted on any area of planning, regulation, competition or licensing? If the HSE or SDCC say "no chance", then GlobalHyperMegaMart can invoke clause x of the Lisbon Treaty and if we still refuse they'll send in the new EU Super-Army (full of kids recently conscripted from Darndale) to quell protests?

Have the No side been reading an entirely different document to everybody else? I seem to remember these same arguments being trotted out for every single other European Treaty we signed as well.

 

[room305]

The last I heard on t'wireless was turnout so far (10:30am) at 3%. Half the turnout at the same time in the last referendum.

My (very speculative!!) guess is a overall NO vote if the turnout is low (30 - 40%), but a narrow YES if turnout is above 45%, and a wider margin YES if turnout is around 60%.

My bet is if it rains we're screwed if it holds off then it'll hopefully scrape through.

 

[television]

But our representative democracy will have its hands tied after Lisbon, in relation to health, as no government the citizens elect will be in a position to exclude private-for-profit health providers, should they believe that a single-tier public system would serve the people best.

Exactly my point.

 

[television]

So you are saying that after Lisbon should the GlobalHyperMegaMart Healthcare Services Corporation decide they want to build a hospital in Rathfarnham, we would be powerless to stop them? Our hands would be tied - they couldn't be thwarted on any area of planning, regulation, competition or licensing? If the HSE or SDCC say "no chance", then GlobalHyperMegaMart can invoke clause x of the Lisbon Treaty

I realise you are being a little flippant here but essentially you have got it. And again there are global health provision corporations out there who would try to do exactly that.

and if we still refuse they'll send in the new EU Super-Army (full of kids recently conscripted from Darndale) to quell protests?

No they will use the european court of justice. for instance they may argue that goverment funding of health services amounts to unfair competition within the health market.

Have the No side been reading an entirely different document to everybody else?

Reading/analysing the ammended treaty is a matter of interpretation.

I seem to remember these same arguments being trotted out for every single other European Treaty we signed as well.

These same arguments? If you mean the potential for privatisation of health and education I dont remember that being an issue with nice or masstrict.