LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksI've been to a few "no" campaign talks, and they keep bringing up that the treaty will force privitised health care and education down our throats. But I havent seen sorces or evidence to support this.
Anybody know whats going on?
I've been to a few "no" campaign talks, and they keep bringing up that the treaty will force privitised health care and education down our throats. But I havent seen sorces or evidence to support this.
Anybody know whats going on?
"Are you telling me that a computer, a robot and my wife would create a "natuarlly balanced" society? The consequences are too monstrous to contemplate.."
-farnaby.
Could they, by any chance, be trying to scare you into voting 'No' ?
Thats what I thought. But I havent heard any responce from the yes side. I heard Rodger Cole ironically say "the yes side are using scare tactics".
"Are you telling me that a computer, a robot and my wife would create a "natuarlly balanced" society? The consequences are too monstrous to contemplate.."
-farnaby.
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.
Does anyone have links to this alledged section of the treaty? Does anyone have information for or opposed the opinion?
"Are you telling me that a computer, a robot and my wife would create a "natuarlly balanced" society? The consequences are too monstrous to contemplate.."
-farnaby.
You probably want to read the competition protocol of the Treaty.Originally Posted by The Collective.
I suspect they're referring to the sections on "services of general economic interest". There's a couple of article relevant to those:
Article 14:
"Without prejudice to Article 4 of the Treaty on European Union and Articles 73, 86 and 87, and given the place occupied by services of general economic interest in the shared values of the Union as well as their role in promoting social and territorial cohesion, the Union and the Member States, each within their respective powers and within the scope of application of the Treaties, shall take care that such services operate on the basis of principles and conditions, particularly economic and financial conditions, which enable them to fulfil their missions. The European Parliament and the Council, acting by means of regulations in
accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall establish these principles and set these conditions without prejudice to the competence of Member States, in compliance with the Treaties, to provide, to commission and to fund such services."
and Article 86.2:
"Undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest or having the character of a revenue-producing monopoly shall be subject to the rules contained in the Treaties, in particular to the rules on competition, in so far as the application of such rules does not obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them. The development of trade must not be affected to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the Union."
Some people read 86.2 as meaning that all public services will be privatised because of the competition stuff ("subject...in particular to the rules on competition"). That, of course, ignores the important rider "in so far as the application of such rules does not obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them". If the aim of your health service is to provide universal free health coverage, then the application of the competition rules have to take account of that fact (and thus would not apply).
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.
Thanks ibis. So it is scare tactics.
"Are you telling me that a computer, a robot and my wife would create a "natuarlly balanced" society? The consequences are too monstrous to contemplate.."
-farnaby.
What's new in the Lisbon Treaty is the clause stating 'The European Parliament and the Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall establish these principles and set these conditions without prejudice to the competence of Member States, in compliance with the Treaties, to provide, to commission and to fund such services'.
This will allow the adoption of legislation clarifying the rights of entities such as the ESB, An Post, CIE, etc in relation to EC law and also their obligations to the people they serve. This new legal basis is is a long-standing demand of the Labour Party, the ICTU, and the European Anti-Poverty Network Ireland.
Some on the No campaign are taking the long-standing references to competition in the original treaties to claim that there's something new and dangerous in the Lisbon Treaty for public services. In reality these clauses are the ones that protect ordinary consumers and small businesses from being exploited by larger firms 'distorting' the internal market by creating cartels or abusing their dominant positions.
There's a little game you can play
The text is available at iiea.com
in adobe you can do a find for "privatisation"...guess how many times it's mentioned
Then wait for the No people to say "oh well of ocurse it's not mentioned it's all hatched in secret with no actual laws and democracy" etc. etc.
Part 2 of the game is to count the number of privatisations in say the last 20 years and see how many were carried out on behest of member states and how many at the behaest of the EU
