Lisbon Treaty

[BohsPartisan]

[I]Since when does competition lead to higher prices?

Example - Privatisation of waste services has led to increased cost for the user. FACT.
Telecommunications is another example.
Plenty of competition in property - didn't stop rising prices there.
In the case of public companies, the insistence on running them on the same basis as a private company - the emphasis being on profit - has led to higher costs for the consumer. - Examples - transport, Electricity, Gas etc.

[GavinZac]

Example - Privatisation of waste services has led to increased cost for the user. FACT.
Telecommunications is another example.
Plenty of competition in property - didn't stop rising prices there.
In the case of public companies, the insistence on running them on the same basis as a private company - the emphasis being on profit - has led to higher costs for the consumer. - Examples - transport, Electricity, Gas etc.

You need to understand the difference between correlation and causality. Waste disposal prices didn't increase because of increased competition or privitisation; waste disposal prices increased because landfills are filling and closing, and regulations are becoming stricter and stricter. In fact, one could argue that such regulation is making the industry less competitive! Which isnt necessarily a bad thing but certainly different from naively implying competition by itself can raise prices. Competition is defined as greater supply to help satisfy demand: demand for telecommunications and housing has never been so high, and the increase in demand outstrips/ed the increase in supply. Prices rise because of this, not because of a correlation with increased privatisation.

[GavinZac]

One of the people involved is Dave Cochran, from politics.ie.

At this stage I'll be voting no. My policy with EU treaties is that it's up to the yes side to convince me to make a change. Being a good european, thinking what the EU has done for us etc are not enough arguements to convince me I'm afraid. As with Nice 1, the No side are coming up with far better arguements to support of a "No" vote.

Also, Dermot Ahern's indications last week in the Dail that they're going to try and get around the McKenna judgement to try and buy a yes vote makes me even more suspicious of what's really in it that they want to hide from us.

The reality is that opponents of the treaty do not want to amend the current situation where we as citizens of Ireland have more power with our vote than citizens of Poland or any of the recently admitted nations. Pure selfish begrudgery which would spit in the face of the idea of a peaceful, unified and self-sacrificing EU we signed up to, benefited from, then turned against when we weren't the biggest benefiters in town. The idea that a little sacrifice in the short term on our behalf will lead to a brighter, peaceful future for everyone is lost on war-mad proto-fascists like Sinn Fein.

[A face]

Still voting no on this one. The government are doing absolutely nothing to convince me to do otherwise. None of what i'm hearing has me saying "yup, this could actually be good for us" and everything else has a resounding "this is definitely going to be really bad for us".

After the present government scaring the nation into voting them back in this time round i'd be very slow to whole hearted believe anything they say now. Its the way they are going about this one as well that has me spooked. Why are they not coming straight out with it and letting us know what its all about.

We are only left with the option of researching it for ourselves and disseminating the info we find, and that is all bad from what i can see so far.

Definitely a NO right now.

[Macy]

demand for telecommunications and housing has never been so high, and the increase in demand outstrips/ed the increase in supply. Prices rise because of this, not because of a correlation with increased privatisation.

And quality of our telecommunications infrastructure has never been as relatively low. It's clear that the privatisation of the telecoms was a major major mistake, that has only benefitted a few already rich individuals who have cashed in on the subsequent sales. I don't think even the most hardened capitalist could argue it has been a success for the consumer?

Electricity and Gas prices have been artificially increased over the last few years to try and make it attractive to private companies and allow them to make abnormal profits. The regulators even admit it. How is that to the benefit of the consumer?

Health Insurance is another market that is being manipulated to suit the private companies - making VHI increase it's reserves has effectively meant price increases for their customers. VIVAS and Quinn simply move with the VHI prices, just slightly undercut them. And the Government really tied down BUPA to stop them cutting and running once their super profits had come to an end.

The reality is that opponents of the treaty do not want to amend the current situation where we as citizens of Ireland have more power with our vote than citizens of Poland or any of the recently admitted nations. Pure selfish begrudgery which would spit in the face of the idea of a peaceful, unified and self-sacrificing EU we signed up to, benefited from, then turned against when we weren't the biggest benefiters in town. The idea that a little sacrifice in the short term on our behalf will lead to a brighter, peaceful future for everyone is lost on war-mad proto-fascists like Sinn Fein.

This is the classic "be a good european" and "remember what they did for us" argument I talked about in my post. People need more than this nonsense.

If that is the best argument there is from the Yes side, then it's going to be a no vote. An admission that we will be worse off than we are now isn't going to convince the electorate. That's even totally ignoring the possibilities of a different methods/structures which could give all countries equal status, rather than Lisbon that will give more power to Germany, France and the UK. It's not Ireland v Poland. It's Ireland & Poland v Germany, France, UK.

Also I am not convinced that this isn't a self amending treaty which will allow it's contents to be changed without referendum. When the Government publish the advice of the attorney general and everyone goes on the record with their names attached I won't believe any utterance from Dick Roche's mouth on this issue (not like you can ever take him at face value anyway). Political career's should live or die based on whether they'll put their name to it.

[GavinZac]

If that is the best argument there is from the Yes side, then it's going to be a no vote. An admission that we will be worse off than we are now isn't going to convince the electorate. That's even totally ignoring the possibilities of a different methods/structures which could give all countries equal status, rather than Lisbon that will give more power to Germany, France and the UK. It's not Ireland v Poland. It's Ireland & Poland v Germany, France, UK.

where did you get this idea? We already have less power than Germany, France and the UK; mostly because they are multitudes the size of us. I think the Shinners website says it best:

9 The Lisbon Treaty alters the way decisions are taken at the European Council. The already complex qualified majority voting procedure will be changed. The result is that Ireland’s weighted voting strength will be reduced by more than 50 per cent.
At the same time, the threshold determining a qualified majority will be significantly reduced. Taken together, these changes will reduce the power of smaller states and increasingly replace consensus decision-making at Council with majoritarianism

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, that is Ógra Shinn Féin's new term to demonise that most horrid of EU tenets, democracy.

Between 1995 and 2007, the EU's population has increased by 25%, and will continue to rise as affluence reaches the east and more states are added. The current system, designed with 45% of the current population in mind, is simply unworkable at these population levels and future population levels. Currently, there needs to be a clear majority of 80 MILLION people for ratification of most types of decisions. 20 times our own population! How insignificant are we? The idea that something could be unsuccessful in ratification because "only" 329,000,000 million people make a decision is ludicrous, and will, unchecked, be the death of the EU

Also I am not convinced that this isn't a self amending treaty which will allow it's contents to be changed without referendum. When the Government publish the advice of the attorney general and everyone goes on the record with their names attached I won't believe any utterance from Dick Roche's mouth on this issue (not like you can ever take him at face value anyway). Political career's should live or die based on whether they'll put their name to it.

You know this is a treaty that is amending several others, without referendum beyond the election of pro-treaty politicians to the positions, in all but our own country? I guess our government thought it would be a good idea to give Sinn Fein an opportunity to show just how bitter they can be.

[Macy]

Not sure why the obsession with the Shinners? I certainly don't have anything to do with them, and wouldn't have known the position they're taking in such detail until you posted it.

As for the self amending treaty, I know very well that other countries are not putting it to a referendum. In this form anyway, after it was defeated before. When I talk of self amendment I refer only to this country and clause 48 in this specific treaty which makes this treaty able to be amended by the European Council without having to go back before the people of this country if it is adopted. The pro side dispute this, but no one will publish any legal advice that this is wrong or put their own neck on the line.

[GavinZac]

Not sure why the obsession with the Shinners? I certainly don't have anything to do with them, and wouldn't have known the position they're taking in such detail until you posted it.

They seem to be the only public opposition, bar a few disenfranchised anyone-but-bertie heads.

As for the self amending treaty, I know very well that other countries are not putting it to a referendum. In this form anyway, after it was defeated before. When I talk of self amendment I refer only to this country and clause 48 in this specific treaty which makes this treaty able to be amended by the European Council without having to go back before the people of this country if it is adopted. The pro side dispute this, but no one will publish any legal advice that this is wrong or put their own neck on the line.

My point was, that this mechanism already exists and is being exercised by this series of amendments in the majority of countries. It is nothing new and this appears to be just a shock reaction by certain people that if they dont get representatives elected to represent them in europe, they don't have any say in it.

[Macy]

Previous treaty's haven't been so wide ranging as this one. If the pro Lisbon politicians say this one won't be any different and will still need a referendum for what could be significant amendments, then let them put the head on the blocks. None have so far, and until they do I won't be believing them.

[Block G Raptor]

Not very up on the subject TBH. I did however hear on the radio that in ratifying the treaty Ireland would be giving up 63 separate veto's. if this is true I'll be voting no, as veto's are not all about having the power to block stuff but more a bargaining chip to get the best for your side in order not to block stuff. Losing so many veto's will leave us at a significantly compromised position than we are now!

[mypost]

I havent flicked through the entire text of the treaty. Have you read it?

This joke of a document is the EU Constitution in another guise. In reality, it's about centralising power to France, Germany, England, Spain and Italy. It has a proviso for a 30-month "permanent" EU President, and abandons the current 6-month rotation.

France and the Dutch have already rejected this nonsense in free and fair referendums. It's up to us to uphold their voice. It's a big responsibility for our electorate to be entrusted with.

[NeilMcD]

You need to understand the difference between correlation and causality. Waste disposal prices didn't increase because of increased competition or privitisation; waste disposal prices increased because landfills are filling and closing, and regulations are becoming stricter and stricter. In fact, one could argue that such regulation is making the industry less competitive! Which isnt necessarily a bad thing but certainly different from naively implying competition by itself can raise prices. Competition is defined as greater supply to help satisfy demand: demand for telecommunications and housing has never been so high, and the increase in demand outstrips/ed the increase in supply. Prices rise because of this, not because of a correlation with increased privatisation.

Seperate to this debate but in the case of Electricity in this country, our Electricity bill has gone up in as the Government have ordered the ESB to increase the bill as the likes of Denis O Brien (yeah him) will not enter the market as the electricity prices are actually too low and it is not worth his while entering the market as he would not make money from it at the moment. Despite what many people think the ESB would have the prices lower if they could but they are not allowed by the regulator. So in this case the ideology of privatisation is driving the prices up.

[GavinZac]

Not very up on the subject TBH. I did however hear on the radio that in ratifying the treaty Ireland would be giving up 63 separate veto's. if this is true I'll be voting no, as veto's are not all about having the power to block stuff but more a bargaining chip to get the best for your side in order not to block stuff. Losing so many veto's will leave us at a significantly compromised position than we are now!

Yes.

So you'd prefer your vote to have more power than other people's in the Union?

[Block G Raptor]

Yes.

So you'd prefer your vote to have more power than other people's in the Union?

If it's to the betterment of this country then Yes I do, and I don't see any reason to be ashamed of it. I'm Irish I live in Ireland so naturally I want the best deal for me, It's a dog eat dog world out there Gavin

[GavinZac]

If it's to the betterment of this country then Yes I do, and I don't see any reason to be ashamed of it. I'm Irish I live in Ireland so naturally I want the best deal for me, It's a dog eat dog world out there Gavin

I'm guessing you wont be driving on those EU funded roads or using the EU funded broadband or allowing yourself to be treated by an EU funded nurse, as a protest? Because as far as I know, they were given to us for participating in an EU where the goal is to benefit the entirety of the Union rather than just to keep pouring money into one of the richest counties in the Europe, despite having already dragged us out of the third world - That must be a disgusting idea to someone who would in all scenarios favour Irish interests.

I feel a little ill that I defended you as not being xenophobic in the "Romanians" thread.

[osarusan]

I feel a little ill......

Let's hope it's nothing serious.

[Macy]

Won't someone think of the (Polish) children....

I said it earlier, but if GavinZac is representative of the yes side, all they do have is "look at the roads" etc...

Being a good european, thinking what the EU has done for us etc are not enough arguements to convince me I'm afraid.

[Block G Raptor]

I feel a little ill that I defended you as not being xenophobic in the "Romanians" thread.

That's a bit harsh, no? I know that the EU has done a lot for this country and I know that the new member states deserve a fair slice of the Pie, I'm not disputing this. but as I said earlier in this thread I'm not exactly fluent on the topic of the treaty, but from what I heard on the radio I was under the impression that the bigger European countries would be retaining their veto's at the expense of countries like Ireland if this is not the case then I apologise.

[A face]

Without a shadow of a doubt i will be voting no ... the YES argument falls flat on its face.

But we are the government back this? Being serious here, it all seems bad for us and surely they must see this too so why are the government not fighting our corner? Why are they trying to keep people in the dark but insist on us voting yes? They are in power with the mandate of the people but they appear to be on the wrong side of the fence on this one?

Why ..... whats in it for them?

[GavinZac]

That's a bit harsh, no? I know that the EU has done a lot for this country and I know that the new member states deserve a fair slice of the Pie, I'm not disputing this. but as I said earlier in this thread I'm not exactly fluent on the topic of the treaty, but from what I heard on the radio I was under the impression that the bigger European countries would be retaining their veto's at the expense of countries like Ireland if this is not the case then I apologise.

The "vetos" and voting power are being recalculated to give a fairer balance to the system. Yes, this will mean us having relatively less power than France than we previously did. However, people saying things like "Im voting no for the poor unrepresented lads in France!" is the most transparent load of claptrap since Fine Gael's entirely unfeasable strategy before the last election. The lads in France will not be pleased at a nation scraping in with 4 million trying to have as much voting power as their 64 million people! Theres no point in hiding it, the only political opponents to this are Sinn Fein with their typical "Im very Irish, me!" tactics.

There is a certain amount of "facing up to reality" in this series of amendments for a our country. As a relatively small nation, we "got away" with a certain amount up to this point in the smaller Union and it has made us one of the richest countries on earth. The Constitution previously drawn up has been scrapped and replaced with a series of amendments to former treaties. These changes are absolutely neccessary if the European Union is to provide its constituent states with the platform to prosper in the face of the ever-quickening shift of global power and market out of Europe toward Asia and the USA. Its all very well being in favour of looking after ourselves but obstructing this because of some over-inflated sense of self-importance is to a short term benefit at best.

Won't someone think of the (Polish) children...
I said it earlier, but if GavinZac is representative of the yes side, all they do have is "look at the roads" etc...

Er, that was my response to his "I dont care about the rest of them, I care about Ireland" rubbish. If you think "thats all we have" then you havent read any of my other posts and you certainly havent read anything about the treaty itself beyond the early mudslinging to teh uneducated by opposition parties while, unfortunately as usual, the government will leave as late as possible before publicising the benefits.