Why are YOU voting no ?

I'd like to hear reasoned arguments for voting no to the upcoming lisbon referendum.
I'd like no voters who have their minds made up to tell me why.

So far I've seen them mention corporate tax rates-that ones been debunked by the referendum commission.
So what else is there to frighten me towards voting no.

I'm a reasonable person so don't try to hoodwink me with anything as obviously wrong as the tax issues.
What you present here I'd like to see hold water.

So pretend you are on my door step and convince me and others here.
I'm floating and won't decide untill probably referendum day itself.
I will examine replies as openly and as honestly as anyone on the doorstep thats genuinely curious.

The level of your convincing will depend entirely on the veracity of your argument.

johnnyq

My top five:

1) I don't think that the EU having a common defence policy/agency is actually a good thing. I think that defence/foreign policy is best handled by every individual country. Otherwise we have the UN - and for the other 21 EU countries they have NATO.
Now if the EU was to become a state, then fair enough, but that is not the aim of this treaty. Hence I don't want a European High Commissioner for Foreign Policy

2) I don't want Ireland to be obliged to increase military capabilities as stated under Article 28.

3) I am unhappy that NATO is mentioned and that an alignment to NATO is implied by Article 28 and that cooperation under this defence policy "shall be consistent with commitments under NATO"

4) That Ireland did not get the opt out that Denmark did regarding Justice, Defence and Security provisions

5) The Role of the President of the European Union has not been properly defined or how much this person will be paid. Does this person even need to be an elected politician? The vagueness surrounding this proposal needs to be addressed.

A variety of other things annoy me too like,
-Self amending elements under Article 308 and that voting procedures under the treaty can be altered without the need for another referendum
-Vagueness surrounding the increased role of the European Public Prosecutor
-Ireland's reduced voting power and loss of a commissioner every 10 years.
-The way the campaign has been held e.g. that voting no is catastrophic for Ireland, the Irish people seen as easily bought my diplomats, Irish people are naive enough to trust whatever they're politicians say etc...
-The way that even if proposals are rejected, they are still brought back e.g. Nice Treaty, EU constitution, 95% of which is now binding on France/Holland though those people voted no to it.
-That other europeans are not allowed vote on very important issues like a common defence policy etc...

I am not voting no because of the latter but they still annoy me all the same.

dlofnep

I am voting no for a few reasons. I'm not here to convince you. You can make up your own mind. You seem already to be against the No vote, as evident by your opening statement. If your mind isn't made up, then why are there no requests for the Yes side's points? Still, I will outline my opinion on the Lisbon Treaty.

The first being a more centralised Europe. I don't believe in centralised power. I believe that the Lisbon Treaty is a precursor to a more centralised Europe. Ireland should dictate it's policies based on what suits Ireland, and not what suits Europe.

I am voting no to further military expenditure. I believe that our tax payers money is better spent in Healthcare, rather than increasing our arsenal. We are a neutral country and there is no requirement for us as a nation to increase our military expense.

I am voting no because I do not want competition in our public services. Other models worldwide have shown poor results in competition within public services. We had a teacher at a recent speak who originally taught in England, and now Ireland in the past decade or so - and she was quite frightened at this possibility, claiming it will further degrade education.

I am voting no based on the sneak-tactics used by the EU governments to negate justifiable votes across Europe on this. The people of Europe have a right to have a voice on their future. Democracy in Europe is dwindling and the power is being lobsided towards the elite. The fact that the Governments of Europe are afraid to give their own people a voice on this matter is frightening. Why not demonstrate this "democracy" that they constantly talk about? Ask yourself that.

dlofnep

dlofnep wrote: »

I am voting no for a few reasons. I'm not here to convince you. You can make up your own mind. You seem already to be against the No vote, as evident by your opening statement. If your mind isn't made up, then why are there no requests for the Yes side's points? Still, I will outline my opinion on the Lisbon Treaty.

I'd have thought that was obvious.It's because this thread is to be focused on the No campaign and examining its bona fidé's.
Thats why I've used the language I've used.When I'm done here,I'll enter a similar thread or start one on the other side.I won't be doing both in parallel.

The first being a more centralised Europe. I don't believe in centralised power. I believe that the Lisbon Treaty is a precursor to a more centralised Europe. Ireland should dictate it's policies based on what suits Ireland, and not what suits Europe.

Fair point.

I am voting no to further military expenditure. I believe that our tax payers money is better spent in Healthcare, rather than increasing our arsenal. We are a neutral country and there is no requirement for us as a nation to increase our military expense.

So you believe we shouldn't be on U.N missions in Chad then? or have been in the Lebanon?Do you think people are motivated enough on that issue to vote no?

I am voting no because I do not want competition in our public services. Other models worldwide have shown poor results in competition within public services. We had a teacher at a recent speak who originally taught in England, and now Ireland in the past decade or so - and she was quite frightened at this possibility, claiming it will further degrade education.

How would that gel with the thousands of Irish students that go to foreign universities and colleges because theres a course that they like? Thats competition for the demand for our colleges.
Are you against that?

I am voting no based on the sneak-tactics used by the EU governments to negate justifiable votes across Europe on this. The people of Europe have a right to have a voice on their future. Democracy in Europe is dwindling and the power is being lobsided towards the elite.

I'm not sure I like the use of the word elete.Civil servants in our own country might fall into the same category by extension-do you want them directly elected before they can advise a minister or often form policy as they now generally do?

The fact that the Governments of Europe are afraid to give their own people a voice on this matter is frightening. Why not demonstrate this "democracy" that they constantly talk about? Ask yourself that.

Most of those governments face a general election every once and a while.If their electorate feel as you do that it's all a giant anti democratic conspiracy,why don't they vote them out?

johnnyq wrote: »

My top five:

1) I don't think that the EU having a common defence policy/agency is actually a good thing. I think that defence/foreign policy is best handled by every individual country. Otherwise we have the UN - and for the other 21 EU countries they have NATO.
Now if the EU was to become a state, then fair enough, but that is not the aim of this treaty. Hence I don't want a European High Commissioner for Foreign Policy

I can understand your latter point.But doesn't Ireland already require that there is a U.N mandate before it allows her troops onto foreign soil? So how is this treaty changing that?

2) I don't want Ireland to be obliged to increase military capabilities as stated under Article 28.

Has Ireland opted out of this? If so why is it of relevance to you in terms of Ireland?

3) I am unhappy that NATO is mentioned and that an alignment to NATO is implied by Article 28 and that cooperation under this defence policy "shall be consistent with commitments under NATO"

Again has Ireland any opt out of all things NATO? Like it or lump it,the EU as it currently exists contains active NATO member countries.None of these countries to my knowledge have voted in governments that have wanted a withdrawal from that organisation.
It's nothing to do with us.

4) That Ireland did not get the opt out that Denmark did regarding Justice, Defence and Security provisions

Are you telling me that we MUST partcipate in military ventures on behalf of the EU without a U.N mandate?

5) The Role of the President of the European Union has not been properly defined or how much this person will be paid. Does this person even need to be an elected politician? The vagueness surrounding this proposal needs to be addressed.

Fair point.

A variety of other things annoy me too like,
-Self amending elements under Article 308 and that voting procedures under the treaty can be altered without the need for another referendum

Thats actually a misinterpretation -The treaty prescribes that no article can be changed without complying with the constitution of individual countries.Hence we'd need a referendum here.

I said at the start of the thread that I didn't want to hear things that are patently false.So would you accept that as one less reason for you to rely upon as a No voter?

-Vagueness surrounding the increased role of the European Public Prosecutor

Fair point.So are you against all EU involvement in our legal process?Because if you are,you do realise that it's the back door through which many things came that might have had a tough time being introduced here on their own thanks to conservatism.

-Ireland's reduced voting power and loss of a commissioner every 10 years.

We don't lose our veto on certain items though and of course we always retain the nuclear option of withdrawing from the EU don't we?

-The way the campaign has been held e.g. that voting no is catastrophic for Ireland, the Irish people seen as easily bought my diplomats, Irish people are naive enough to trust whatever they're politicians say etc...

Thats a dangerous assumption to make either by a politician or by one of us I think.

-The way that even if proposals are rejected, they are still brought back e.g. Nice Treaty,

Thats an old chessnut answered many times and not relevant to the question I asked in this thread.
Are you saying people are not entitled to change their mind?
They are and always will be.

EU constitution, 95% of which is now binding on France/Holland though those people voted no to it.
-That other europeans are not allowed vote on very important issues like a common defence policy etc...

I am not voting no because of the latter but they still annoy me all the same.

To be honest with you,I rarely concern myself with what goes on in other democracies once the people there get the chance ultimately to decide whether their politicians are right or wrong.
They can boot them out and thats what matters to me.

dlofnep

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd have thought that was obvious.It's because this thread is to be focused on the No campaign and examining its bona fidé's.
Thats why I've used the language I've used.When I'm done here,I'll enter a similar thread or start one on the other side.I won't be doing both in parallel.

That's fair enough. I figured you were on here to debate the No campaign without weighing up the Yes campaign. In that case, I'm glad that you've created a thread to weigh up both sides. I wish you the best of luck in whatever you decide.

Deleted User wrote: »

So you believe we shouldn't be on U.N missions in Chad then? or have been in the Lebanon?Do you think people are motivated enough on that issue to vote no?

No, I don't believe we should be in Chad. There are much more powerful countries with much larger military forces than us, with much larger military expenditures who could cater to such scenarios. Our tax should be used to address domestic issues first and foremost. I'll be the first to donate to charity for causes abroad, but I think we should set our priorities straight - especially within our health service. As a person who's visited hospital 6 times over the past 3 years, I can say with upmost confidence and experience that our health service is absolutely awful.

I'm not sure what would motivate other people. If you asked people would they rather their tax was spent on improving our health service, or sending troops to chad - which could be catered by another EU military, I don't think it would be a hard decision for them to make. Would you agree?

Deleted User wrote: »

How would that gel with the thousands of Irish students that go to foreign universities and colleges because theres a course that they like? Thats competition for the demand for our colleges.
Are you against that?

I'm not quite sure what you are saying. Could you rephrase it for me please? I was demonstrating the effect it would have on the quality of our public services. Surely this is an important matter to take onboard? But please, do rephrase - as you've surely left out something there unintentionally.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not sure I like the use of the word elete.Civil servants in our own country might fall into the same category by extension-do you want them directly elected before they can advise a minister or often form policy as they now generally do? Most of those governments face a general election every once and a while.If their electorate feel as you do that it's all a giant anti democratic conspiracy,why don't they vote them out?

If you don't like the word elite, that's fine. It's my choice of semantics. I would certainly classify the ruling class of Europe as the political elite. Yes, they do have the choice to vote them out in a General election and from what I've read on various european forums and on some youtube videos, many people are ready to change their votes. Will it be enough? I'm not sure - but, the European leaders aren't exactly advertising the pros and cons of the Lisbon Treaty to it's people, so in theory, the general public in Europe is none the wiser anyways. Would you agree?

dlofnep

dlofnep wrote: »

Our tax should be used to address domestic issues first and foremost. I'll be the first to donate to charity for causes abroad, but I think we should set our priorities straight - especially within our health service. As a person who's visited hospital 6 times over the past 3 years, I can say with upmost confidence and experience that our health service is absolutely awful.

Oh gosh that is a whole different topic on which we could write pages.I too have had the misfortune of see'ing our awfull hospital system up close and too personal.
I use the word system because I can't fault the coal face nurses and doctors-especially the nurses.
I'd be of the opinion though that most people recognise at this stage that it's not resources that has the hospital system in the mire,it's the mis use of them and the over or mis- management.
My own experience tells me too that it's people in good jobs unwilling to be flexible in changing a system to make it work more effectively thats part of the problem there but thats a matter of opinion.

I'm not sure what would motivate other people. If you asked people would they rather their tax was spent on improving our health service, or sending troops to chad - which could be catered by another EU military, I don't think it would be a hard decision for them to make. Would you agree?

I don't think Irish people have ever been asked directly about stuff like that.I've not seen them on the streets complaining about it.
I would agree though that €500 million to a billion is way too generous to be sending abroad for albeit worthwhile charitable works never mind the expense on peace keeping.
It's treated as a tradition though and I'll bet there would be a lot of influential voices shouting if it were to change.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying. Could you rephrase it for me please? I was demonstrating the effect it would have on the quality of our public services. Surely this is an important matter to take onboard? But please, do rephrase - as you've surely left out something there unintentionally.

Ah I thought you were referring to competition in education lowering standards and I was merely pointing out that competition sometimes or often raises standards.

If you don't like the word elite, that's fine. It's my choice of semantics. I would certainly classify the ruling class of Europe as the political elite. Yes, they do have the choice to vote them out in a General election and from what I've read on various european forums and on some youtube videos, many people are ready to change their votes. Will it be enough? I'm not sure - but, the European leaders aren't exactly advertising the pros and cons of the Lisbon Treaty to it's people, so in theory, the general public in Europe is none the wiser anyways. Would you agree?

The question of whether things are enough in that respect are a relative matter I think, in the sense that if there aren't enough votes for something,it means it's not popular enough.

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

5) The Role of the President of the European Union has not been properly defined or how much this person will be paid. Does this person even need to be an elected politician? The vagueness surrounding this proposal needs to be addressed.

Fair point.

Actually, I disagree. To suggest that the salary of a specific role should form part of a Treaty is bordering on the ridiculous.

dlofnep wrote: »

If you asked people would they rather their tax was spent on improving our health service, or sending troops to chad - which could be catered by another EU military, I don't think it would be a hard decision for them to make. Would you agree?

If you asked them would they rather their tax was spent on improving our health service or on building schools, what would people say? What if you asked whether they would rather their tax was spent on building schools, or policing the streets of Limerick?

For that matter, if you asked the people of whatever EU country's military you're volunteering to take our place whether they'd prefer their tax money spent at home or in Chad, what do you suppose they'd say?

If you don't like the word elite, that's fine. It's my choice of semantics. I would certainly classify the ruling class of Europe as the political elite.

What ruling class?

turgon

One thing id like to mention is my perceived lack of accountability for the eu. There a three main "powers" in the EU:

• EU commission, which is not elected at all. ) direct accountability. Now I know it is accountable through the national governments (see below)
• EU council of ministers. Although accountable they are not accountable on EU issues alone. Which means that If I hate what the council does at a EU level, but love what my PM does in Ireland im not going to punish him for the former.
• Parliament. Not really much power here. Also If something goes against Ireland, its not like we have much power there (only 12 seats)

nesf

Deleted User wrote: »

Thats actually a misinterpretation -The treaty prescribes that no article can be changed without complying with the constitution of individual countries.Hence we'd need a referendum here.

We wouldn't necessarily, it would depend on each amendment. Some things would require us to have referendums on them, some wouldn't. Similar to how at present there are some things that our Government can ratify for us and other things that we need to have a referendum on.

Both are similar because it is our constitution effectively that decides whether or a referendum is required on a specific change in our law books etc.

This is an example of a really good idea because it would allow us to have referendums on specific issues which the people can better understand and debate on. If for some crazy reason after this Treaty was ratified the EU decided to put on an amendment guaranteeing abortion services in all member states you can be damn sure that it could never be ratified for Ireland without a referendum. No European directive can take away the basic provisions laid out in our constitution, we are the only people who can do that. As is, the serious problem with the "Treaty model" is that it results in referendums in this country on stupidly complicated legal/political documents that are simply not very accessible to the vast majority of people. A move towards ratifying amendments individually would make things a lot clearer for the average person which surely is a good thing for everyone, euro-sceptic or euro-lover.

dlofnep

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you asked them would they rather their tax was spent on improving our health service or on building schools, what would people say? What if you asked whether they would rather their tax was spent on building schools, or policing the streets of Limerick?

You've conveniently missed my point - Which is, I am completely against increasing tax expenditure for military purposes when our health system is in such a poor state. So objectively, it's a fair point to state that given the choice over tax for wars that have nothing to do with us and tax used to improve our health services should be given priority.

oscarBravo wrote: »

For that matter, if you asked the people of whatever EU country's military you're volunteering to take our place whether they'd prefer their tax money spent at home or in Chad, what do you suppose they'd say?

That's none of my concern and absolutely nothing to do with Ireland. It would be up to the almighty EU to decide. The point was, another country with substantially more military budget would be more appropiate.

oscarBravo wrote: »

What ruling class?

The ruling class who do not give their own citizens the right to vote out of fear of a no vote. I'm not here to debate semantics with you. I was asked why I am voting NO and I have given my reasons. My job here is done. All my points are valid and accurate.

uptherebels

Deleted User wrote: »

To be honest with you,I rarely concern myself with what goes on in other democracies once the people there get the chance ultimately to decide whether their politicians are right or wrong.
They can boot them out and thats what matters to me.

Thats all well and good unless like in this country the alternative is sinn fein.

oscarBravo

dlofnep wrote: »

You've conveniently missed my point - Which is, I am completely against increasing tax expenditure for military purposes when our health system is in such a poor state. So objectively, it's a fair point to state that given the choice over tax for wars that have nothing to do with us and tax used to improve our health services should be given priority.

And you've conveniently missed mine, which is that there are thousands of things to spend tax money on, and that everyone has their priorities. Some of us are ok with the idea of spending tax money on helping to prevent genocide.

That's none of my concern and absolutely nothing to do with Ireland. It would be up to the almighty EU to decide. The point was, another country with substantially more military budget would be more appropiate.

Why not just leave everything to the US? They have the biggest military budget of all. What could possibly go wrong?

The ruling class who do not give their own citizens the right to vote out of fear of a no vote. I'm not here to debate semantics with you.

Methinks the word "semantics" is superfluous in there.

I was asked why I am voting NO and I have given my reasons. My job here is done. All my points are valid and accurate.

Most points are, subjectively.

Would I be far off the mark in describing you as a Euroskeptic?

dlofnep

oscarBravo wrote: »

Would I be far off the mark in describing you as a Euroskeptic?

Actually you would. I don't hate the EU. I think it has it's pros and cons. I just don't agree with the Lisbon Treaty.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Methinks the word "semantics" is superfluous in there.

You've proven my initial point. Thanks.

oscarBravo wrote: »

And you've conveniently missed mine, which is that there are thousands of things to spend tax money on, and that everyone has their priorities. Some of us are ok with the idea of spending tax money on helping to prevent genocide.

I agree that it's a terrible situation, but there are far more appropiate countries to deal with the issue. And that doesn't include the US.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Actually, I disagree. To suggest that the salary of a specific role should form part of a Treaty is bordering on the ridiculous.

Actually for me to be fair to myself,I meant to delete the salary bit from the quote I wanted to reply to.So in the above respect,I'd agree with your disagreement with that end of things.Having a president of the E.U is head of state territory that I'd be opposed to anyhow though regardless of the validity of someone elses objections to the lack of definition in the role or of it's vagueness.

I'm also opposed to a growing "supernational" foreign policy role being created for the EU.
I'm an Irish nationalist in that aspect of things not a European nationalist.
Europe to me is a road towards co-operation and not integration.
I'm either going to favour this treaty on the basis that most of it is alright or I'm not.
But it does have a whiff of a collapsing downhill path towards the state that dare not speak it's name,the European super state.
There will be a point in that direction beyond which my vote won't travel.

I'm not going to lose sleep over it though if it's the majority will.
I'll lament a bit maybe.

dlofnep

Deleted User wrote: »

Europe to me is a road towards co-operation and not integration.

Well said.

nesf

Deleted User wrote: »

But it does have a whiff of a collapsing downhill path towards the state that dare not speak it's name,the European super state.
There will be a point in that direction beyond which my vote won't travel.

Yours and many more like you, if not the vast majority of Irish people to be honest. It's not something I ever worry about though, our right to determine our own sovereignty is upheld yet again in this treaty. Any amendments that would change this that would be implemented at a later date would require a referendum in this country, there is no way around that bar us being invaded by the EU which isn't exactly something I'd advise anyone of losing sleep over.

The day I'll worry is the day when I'm being asked to give up this right to determine through referendum (in a referendum) this country's sovereignty which hasn't yet come and hopefully it never will. This treaty will not change this. Seriously, can anyone with a straight face tell me that all the major parties whose entire purpose it is to oversee this sovereignty on our behalf would ever want to give it away?


Anyone telling you that this treaty will result us losing this right is scaremongering about something they don't understand at best, or deliberately lying to you at worst.

johnnyq

I can understand your latter point.But doesn't Ireland already require that there is a U.N mandate before it allows her troops onto foreign soil? So how is this treaty changing that?

To my knowledge, the treaty doesn't change that.

Has Ireland opted out of this? (requirement to increase defence capabilities) If so why is it of relevance to you in terms of Ireland?

According to Scofflaw Ireland has not opted out of this.

Again has Ireland any opt out of all things NATO? Like it or lump it,the EU as it currently exists contains active NATO member countries.None of these countries to my knowledge have voted in governments that have wanted a withdrawal from that organisation.
It's nothing to do with us.

Ireland is part of the EU, correct?

Do you agree that this treaty does increase the militarisation of the EU?
I don't think that the militarisation of the EU is a good thing.

If certain EU countries want to be part of NATO - then yes, that has nothing to do with us.

BUT, if the EU is linked to NATO, then yes it does have something to do with Ireland. I don't want the EU linked with NATO.

My stance is more to do with the EU itself than Ireland. But you must remember that this whole treaty is to do with the EU itself not Ireland.

Are you telling me that we MUST partcipate in military ventures on behalf of the EU without a U.N mandate?

Nope. But Denmark did get extra opt outs I wish Ireland did.

Thats actually a misinterpretation -The treaty prescribes that no article can be changed without complying with the constitution of individual countries.Hence we'd need a referendum here.

Alas Dick Roche said the opposite today even. Libertas have jumped on it, it's also on the Irish Times. Also note, this is just to do with the voting matters about changing from unanimous to majority voting.

Article 308 is a separate kettle of fish.

I said at the start of the thread that I didn't want to hear things that are patently false.So would you accept that as one less reason for you to rely upon as a No voter?

sigh/ I know you're enthusiastic about the EU and all but really please look up the details before saying this. /sigh

Fair point.So are you against all EU involvement in our legal process?Because if you are,you do realise that it's the back door through which many things came that might have had a tough time being introduced here on their own thanks to conservatism.

I wish more things came from the EU through the front door tbh, but I guess we must get used to otherwise.
I would like the prosecutor notion to be better explained. For example will his role be expanded to interfere in national affairs that have nothing to do with the EU. This is a potential area of large soveriegnty lost that I would need clarification on.
Maybe I should clarify. i'm not in favour of the Euro-state so unless you are, I am a bit surprised at you seemingly advocating foreign interference in domestic affairs.

Thats an old chessnut answered many times and not relevant to the question I asked in this thread.
Are you saying people are not entitled to change their mind?

I await the day where we get to vote on repealing an existing treaty. :rolleyes:

On a side note, the French/Dutch didn't exactly get the chance to change their mind, now did they?

Time Magazine

I think it suitable that my first post on this new forum here be in response to this.

dlofnep wrote: »

I am voting no because I do not want competition in our public services. Other models worldwide have shown poor results in competition within public services. We had a teacher at a recent speak who originally taught in England, and now Ireland in the past decade or so - and she was quite frightened at this possibility, claiming it will further degrade education.

I believe the appropriate bastardised acronym I'm searching for here is "lulz".

johnnyq

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually for me to be fair to myself,I meant to delete the salary bit from the quote I wanted to reply to.So in the above respect,I'd agree with your disagreement with that end of things.Having a president of the E.U is head of state territory that I'd be opposed to anyhow though regardless of the validity of someone elses objections to the lack of definition in the role or of it's vagueness.

Vis-a-vis the salary, i was using that as an example of one of many things we know nothing about our new President of Europe. I am not saying that it needs to be stated in the treaty per se.

I personally would have no problems with a president of Europe that was directly elected, not shrouded in the secrecy of 'jobs for the boys' culture we have at present.

I'm also opposed to a growing "supernational" foreign policy role being created for the EU.
I'm an Irish nationalist in that aspect of things not a European nationalist.
Europe to me is a road towards co-operation and not integration.

Some, Euro-skeptics mostly admittedly, always saw the EU as a path to integration. I linked to a great Time article on this subject a while back but am too tired to find it now.

Having a european foreign affairs high commissioner is certainly a major step to foreign policy integration.

But it does have a whiff of a collapsing downhill path towards the state that dare not speak it's name,the European super state.

To be fair, while this is 95% of the EU Constitution, I think it is only a step in that direction not a freefall.

But don't worry we'll all be decentralised provences of the European Super State soon enough

dlofnep

Ibid wrote: »

I believe the appropriate bastardised acronym I'm searching for here is "lulz".

Thank you for your obviously important and valued input. Do you disagree that placing public services on the market could cause a degrade in the quality of the said services where the interest and priority is in profit over quality - like any other marketable area?

You're the economics mod - Why don't you outline to me me why what I said that made you laugh. You sure wouldn't talk to me with that condescending tone in person, so don't try it on a public forum.

I'm open minded and willing to listen to anything anyone has to say and take it on board. But don't come on here with your elitest attitude. If you've something to say, then give your analysis on it - instead of acting high and mighty. I'm ready to listen.

nesf

dlofnep wrote: »

Thank you for your obviously important and valued input. Do you disagree that placing public services on the market could cause a degrade in the quality of the said services where the interest and priority is in profit over quality - like any other marketable area?

His point, most likely is, that not all public services are equal in this respect. The whole point of the Treaty with regard to this is that it allows Governments if they want to privatise some or keep them as public monopolies. It tells nothing about which should be which. It just forces privatised public services to abide by EU competition law, which is fair enough. If anything look at the EU countries in general, they favour public monopoly public services to a far higher degree than we do at present. They are more threatening to the right, not the left to be blunt and you ain't on the right mate.

Also, profit and quality are not mutually exclusive in the marketplace.

dlofnep

Thank you for the mature reply nesf.

Time Magazine

dlofnep wrote: »

Thank you for your obviously important and valued input. Do you disagree that placing public services on the market could cause a degrade in the quality of the said services where the interest and priority is in profit over quality - like any other marketable area?

You're the economics mod - Why don't you outline to me me why what I said that made you laugh. You sure wouldn't talk to me with that condescending tone in person, so don't try it on a public forum.

I'm open minded and willing to listen to anything anyone has to say and take it on board. But don't come on here with your elitest attitude. If you've something to say, then give your analysis on it - instead of acting high and mighty. I'm ready to listen.

Didn't intend to offend you. Apologies for that. I could have just said "lol" to get the point across, but I was feeling rather obtuse. Final exams do these things to you. And they also inhibit the ability to reply substantively. Nonetheless I shall try edit this post substantively later to respond to your claim that it has been shown internationally that public regulation is better.

No promises, mind

Time Magazine

Right, here goes.

Ultimately this post revolves around the principles of welfare maximisation and opportunity cost. Welfare maximisation is essentially a benchmark we strive for in the production, consumption and distribution of our good and services. It is essentially obtaining value for money fairly. Opportunity cost is unfortunately all too often overlooked by the public. It is essentially what you're giving up in choosing a certain path. If you choose to buy a can of Coke, you're not really giving up your €1 as that actual coin has no real value to you. It's just a bit of shiny metal. What you're giving up is the opportunity of eating a Brunch ice-cream. (In case you're wondering, no, I haven't eaten dinner yet and yes, I am hungry.)

Fortunately you've already noted the importance of opportunity cost:

dlofnep wrote: »

I am voting no to further military expenditure. I believe that our tax payers money is better spent in Healthcare, rather than increasing our arsenal.

You're dead right. Every €1 we spend on the military could go into the health system instead. Some people have a problem with military spending as it is, and that's fair enough, so let's use the more general example of every €1 we spend on public transport could go into the health system instead. Nigh on nobody complains about spending on public transport by itself. Indeed funding public transport is very important. But the true cost of spending on public transport is not spending on health care, or education, or public libraries, or whatever. No expenditure is necessarily the best source of public funds, regardless of the target. There are perennial funding shortages and inadequacies in society as a whole. This is an unfortunate reality of life. The consequence of this is that we must ensure, in the interests of welfare maximisation, that all expenditure is being spent where it's needed most. The disgrace that was P-PARS, a €150m HSE payroll system, was only a disgrace because that money could have really improved the standard of buildings our primary school kids are educated in, or bought 500 extra buses for the commuters of the Greater Dublin Area, or helped St Vincent de Paul make last Christmas very special for thousands more of unlucky families, or brought broadband to the homes of those it's not commercially viable, or hundreds of other extremely worthy causes. It wasn't a disgrace because it was wasted paper; it was the opportunity cost that was the disgrace.

The same could be said of any €150m savings that could be saved. P-PARS was a disgrace because it was a smoking gun. However it only represents about 1% of the HSE budget for 2008. If I discovered that the HSE funds cosmetic surgery for wealthy people (and let's say they spend €150m on it a year), I'd be just as outraged as I was about P-PARS. That's a saving that could be spent on primary schools, or buses, or VdP, or broadband. Needless to say, a 1% improvement in efficiency or productivity would produce the exact same benefits, too. A little change can make a huge difference when you think in terms of opportunity cost and welfare maximisation.

A logical conclusion of this is that the State must spend its money in the wisest possible way. An implication of this is that it does not get involved in sectors that it does not need to get involved in. Just as Dublin commuters suffered when the State get involved in P-PARS - or more specifically, when it was wasteful when it did so - general welfare maximisation suffers when the State intervenes inefficiently or unnecessarily.

These leads us appropriately to your claim:

I am voting no because I do not want competition in our public services. Other models worldwide have shown poor results in competition within public services.

Frankly, you're wrong. I do not contend for a moment that there haven't been market liberalisations that went wrong. There were particularly bad experiments in the UK. It is not all that surprising that Paddy Irishman looks to his nearest neighbour's experience of deregulation and concludes that it has not been a success. It is unfortunate that the instigator of such reforms (namely Margaret Thatcher) was far too trusting in the nebulous discipline of competition economics and way too inconsiderate of the importance of redistributing the gains from such equitably. Assuming you apply the logic of diminishing marginal utility to income - something so widely accepted I'm not even going to provide a reference - Thatcher's reforms were not welfare maximising. Well perhaps there were positive externalities there: as Christy Moore says some fantastic songs were written during her reign.

However this is not an argument against deregulation per se. I can't call Russia a democracy with a straight face. Does this mean former-Communist states should not proceed with democratisation? Moreover, Paddy Botswanaman might not think democracy is so hot on account of Mugabe's regime had they not been democratic prior to his arrival. The failure of democracy in Zimbabwe is persistent over time, too. Mugabe has held onto power for twenty years now. Furthermore, progression to democracy has been crappy at best in at least a couple dozen countries. Hell, look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Their peoples' quality of life was better under totalitarian regimes.

Is this an argument against democracy? No. It's an argument against bad democratisation. When assessing democratisation, you must first look at if it can work. You then look to see what you can learn from when it doesn't work. You then check for evidence if it worked having learned from mistakes. People do not apply such criteria to deregulation.

I am now going to summarise the theoretical and empirical evidence in support of deregulation.

The basic argument against monopolies stems back as far as Adam Smith's account in 1776 that they earn profits above the natural rate by reducing supply and thereby raising prices. This can be mathematically shown and is taught in every first year undergraduate microeconomics course in the world, or at least it should be. Fast forward a century and Cournot showed that when there are two competitors that face demand from "the market", it is mathematically in their best interest to collectively produce more than a monopolistic output. Crucially this is desirable because not only can more people purchase the product, but they all do so at a lower price. It is a transfer of wealth away from capitalists to consumers.

Fast foward fifty years and Pigou (1920) rightly points out that free market forces sometimes produce externalities that warrant intervention, that "taxation could create an 'artificial' situation superior to the 'natural' one." Dead right, the market does not adequately provide for families at Christmas time. There is a role for government and indeed one for statutory monopoly. But there is also a role for competition. The lines have been blurred every since.

Baumol (1982, AER) formally extrapolated an interesting compromise that had been policy for a long time beforehand. Basically, he said that firms should be allowed compete (or contest) against state monopolies and that the customer should decide who they think does a better job. Crucially, however, he felt the real benefit would come from the threat of competition. In a perfectly contestable market, monopolists would act efficiently or get booted out by the consumer.

So what about in practice? Arguing against deregulation implicitly argues that the State are doing a good job at intervening. Indeed, this is necessary for welfare maximisation. But are the State that good at intervening? I'm going argue primarily about a hobby-horse of mine: transport.

We're wasteful beyond belief. The National Development Plan's Primary Road Programme came in 193% over budget. The Dublin Port Tunnel opened late, having cost €572m more than its original budget of €220m. And it fecking leaks. The RPA's integrated ticketing project - due in 2005 - is currently 75% over budget. Already the Navan-Dublin Railway under Transport 21 will cost €200m (about 50%) more than budgeted for. That's a whole lot of P-PARS right there. But people don't get as outraged by this because "transport is a good cause." The Transport 21 website proudly states that it will cost €109 per second for the next decade. Most people go "ooh, that's very good." Welfare maximisation wonders if Monaghan General Hospital could get a bit of that. Waste is waste is waste.

Waste does not just occur in capital projects. If State services are wasteful, that's the exact same cost per euro as P-PARS. And Christ Almighty are our State services wasteful. This is not all that surprising, given our history at getting good value on infrastructure; what chance have we got against unions?

Who should be the State's main priority with regard healthcare: the patient or the consultant? Guess who welfare maximisation says. Similarly, it is the commuter who should be at the heart of public transport decisions, not the unions. I point you in the direction of Massey (2007, QEC) on the public return on investment in Dublin Bus. Dublin Bus's deficit rose 614.8% in the years 1998-2005. This was accompanied by only an 8.4% increase in passenger numbers. The Public Service Obligation (PSO) subsidy to the company increased 517.7% in the years 1998-2006. Ribault-O’Reilly (2005, QEC) points out this doesn't include €346.8m worth of capital expenditure received under the NDP.

What's the justification of not allowing competition on these routes? The standard argument is that Dublin Bus can make a profit on some routes to cross-subsidise others. But Dublin Bus claimed PSO's on every route indicating they're not making a profit on a single one! Thus they simply cannot cross-subsidise. Another argument is that the frequency of buses would fall. This goes against the basic grain of economic theory - competition raises output. I'm unaware of any case ever where the total output of any industry fell, allowing for subsidy levels, when competition was introduced.

There is another problem of "x-inefficiency". Dublin Bus will show the Minister their cost figures and argue they're operating efficiently given that budget. But they're most likely not operating from an efficient basis in the first place so they'll require greater subsidies. Furthermore you can't identify this level of inefficiency directly without competition. The independent ISOTOPE Report (1997) for the European Commission returned estimates. If a monopolistic bus route runs at a cost of 100, a "regulated" market will cost about 75 and a "free" market will cost about 48. I'll let you check the cost levels of London buses relative to ours. Let me know if you notice a superior service in quality or frequency of service in Dublin. Before you scream "But it's more dangerous!", Barrett (2004, QEC) notes the accident rate fell for London post-deregulation.

It's not as if the public finances are more transparent given that Dublin Bus are public, either. I have emailed them pointing out I'm an economist and asking them about their public funding. Their reply was short and to the point, i.e. I never heard back. I'm not the only one. Dublin Bus are not open about their finances. In fact the European Commission have sent letters to them about their finances. At least sixty-seven times. Not one has been replied to. You have to wonder why.

And what about the few stories of bus deregulation in Ireland? How'd they turn out? Fares on the monopolised Dublin-Limerick route are 93% higher per km than on the contested Dublin-Galway route. The Dublin-Galway route, by the way, is now served every twenty minutes. That's not exactly a decline in frequency. Fares on Dublin-Cork route were 60% lower a year after deregulation than before it. Perhaps most surprisingly, Bus Éireann's own fares are 58-66% lower on its contested routes than its monopolised routes (all ibid).

Do I need to tell you about the successes of a deregulation aviation market? Between 1980-1985, the London-Dublin fare increased by 72.6% and passenger numbers grew a whopping 2.8%. On its first day of operation on the route, Ryanair lowered the price by 45.6%. Between 1985-1994, passenger numbers increased 184%. People (myself included) love to complain about leg room and the like. I'll still be one of Ryanair's sixty million passengers this year.

Do I need to tell you about the successes of a deregulated taxi market? Another gain for welfare maximisation by the State stepping out. Me and my friends live in the centre of Dublin and I am usually the one who walks with our friend until she gets a taxi. The furthest we've ever had to walk was from Westmoreland Street to the GPO and that was at 4.30am. Contrast that the regular ninety minute waits at Molly Malone prior to deregulation. Your location says Waterford. Interesting that. They had the highest increase of taxi licences in 2002, going up 314% (Barrett 2003, QEC).

All of these success stories are as a result of the government simply allowing competition. Few argue that they should withdraw from operations, unless of course deregulation is so successful they're not needed anymore, as is the case in aviation. Interesting now that it's €40 to fly Dublin-Cork, with a guaranteed seat, but it's nearly €60 to get the train with a 5-10% chance of standing.

Unfortunately coupled with this fine collection of anti-competitive practices, the organs of the state are trying to increase them. Judge, jury and executioner (read "tenderer and beneficiary") of the household waste collection system Fingal County Council are bringing the company who collects my sister's bin to court. Despite them being cheaper, sending her a text the night before to remind her to put out the bin and disposing of the waste perfectly legally etc., FCC feel it is in the interests of its people to prevent competition in that market.

May the God of EC Competition Law save us. Amen.

Deregulation can be a resounding success. Just like democracy, if done badly it can fail. But rather like democracy, good deregulation lets the people decide who they want to serve them. The Lisbon Treaty does not state "We shall introduce competition to the primary school system." Education will not be face competition. What the Lisbon Treaty does is provide greater allowances for the deregulation of markets by state governments. It is a facilitation process. The historic "public interest" defences under EC86 can still be evoked.

Government intervention, very unfortunately, does not generally produce as efficient outcomes as the market. Inefficient outcomes can only be welfare maximising if their equity effects outweigh them. Fortunately, deregulation more often than not frees up opportunity costs to counter-balance equity deficiencies. Moreover, deregulation generally lowers prices which is equitable in itself.

Junior Cert Economics teaches that a nation's income equals its output which equals its expenditure. If one group takes a larger share of the income without increasing output, it is taking that expenditure from someone else. Thus the key determinant of income is productivity. Sinn Féin, I believe your party of choice, supports the emphasis on increasing productivity in the economy. Van Ark et al (2008, JEP) note that labour productivity growth in Europe fell from 2.4% p/a during 1973-1995 to 1.5% between 1995-2006. These figures are essentially reversed in the USA. Failing to rectify this decline will ultimately lead to lower incomes for the economy as a whole, which means less subsidies for welfare maximisation. Returning to Van Ark et al

Since the mid-1990s, the European Union has experienced a signficant slowdown in productivity growth, at a time when growth in the United States significantly accelerated. ... [Europe] may require a new model of innovation and technological change.

The success of Ireland's taxis, inter-city buses, pharmacies, waste management, freight haulage, motor insurance, mobile telecommunications markets (among others) point in one way. This new innovation can be effective deregulation. Given that the State even intervene in greyhound racing there's certainly scope to pull out. Every euro it does can go to broadband penetration or the homeless. Van Ark again:

[A] more flexible approach towards labour, product and capital markets in Europe would allow resources to flow to their most productive uses. Crafts (2006) discusses the increasing evidence that restrictive product market regulations, in particular those limiting new entry, hinder technology transfer and have a negative impact on productivity

This is particularly the case in manufacturing. Given the rise of China and India, can we afford not to increase productivity?

Furthermore, the Lisbon Treaty does not even require us to deregulate anything. It only gives us options to do so. This may be particularly useful for other European states though. Given the importance of inter-Community trade, how can you object to an article that could streamline Italy's sixty-two business-day wait and $3964 fees to start a company (Djankov et al 2008 QJE)? Just as "when America sneezes, Ireland catches a cold", we'd benefit from a more productive Community.

We really need to be more productive. State sectors are not more productive. How do I know this and why was I willing to type it all? I know this because I have signed a contract with a state body that pays ridiculous high wages. Your taxes have essentially funded this post, though you might see it in slightly fancier form in a few months. I will earn 71% more per week than my friend - she a better economist than me - doing the same job in the ESRI. I'm not surprised people are so desperate to work in the public sector. I only wish, be it to my immediate detriment or not, that there were some things the State knew it didn't do well.

Now that would be welfare maximisation.

brianthebard

I agree with most of the reasons why people are voting no.

My own;

-Irish neutrality; regardless of whether you think we are or not, I think we should have a referendum on this issue to have it clearly stated in our constitution whether we are or not.

-the way it has been passsed in the rest of Europe; I believe a treaty like this should only be passed by popular vote.

-centralised government;already been covered I think by others.

nesf

brianthebard wrote: »

Irish neutrality; regardless of whether you think we are or not, I think we should have a referendum on this issue to have it clearly stated in our constitution whether we are or not.

Our neutrality, as defined by out constitution won't change because of this treaty. Our troops will continue to only be involved in actions that have a UN Mandate.

The EU cannot force Ireland to commit troops to actions that lack this mandate. The Government cannot by law, send troops to partake in such an action.



Now if you disagree with how neutrality is defined within our constitution that is a different matter and a separate one and hardly a good reason to vote against this treaty. On the other hand, if you are genuinely sceptical of the goals of the EU, then that would be a good reason to vote no.

brianthebard

nesf wrote: »

Our neutrality, as defined by out constitution won't change because of this treaty. Our troops will continue to only be involved in actions that have a UN Mandate.

The EU cannot force Ireland to commit troops to actions that lack this mandate. The Government cannot by law, send troops to partake in such an action.

Can you point to the article in the constitution that defines our neutrality? I can't find it, because afaik it has never been committed to the constitution, its a policy that has been followed and can be changed by future governments. If I'm wrong then great but this is somethign that's been mentioned on boards a few times.

nesf

brianthebard wrote: »

Can you point to the article in the constitution that defines our neutrality? I can't find it, because afaik it has never been committed to the constitution, its a policy that has been followed and can be changed by future governments. If I'm wrong then great but this is somethign that's been mentioned on boards a few times.

You're right, it isn't explicitly stated, it's legislation and wants to be written into the constitution by some parties/groups. Apologies, I'm distracted by my final year exams starting on Tuesday and making mistakes.

It can be changed by future Governments, the treaty still doesn't override it though iirc.

turgon

nesf wrote: »

The EU cannot force Ireland to commit troops to actions that lack this mandate. The Government cannot by law, send troops to partake in such an action.

Well in the case of a war I think your petty "law" which in effect is no more than a piece of paper, goes out he window.

nesf

turgon wrote: »

Well in the case of a war I think your petty "law" which in effect is no more than a piece of paper, goes out he window.

Um, your point?

boomslang

The reason I am voting no is simple. Nowhere can I find clear understandable reasons why this is good for me and Ireland.

"The European Commission is the EU's executive arm; it put forwards legislation and ensures that EU policies are correctly implemented. Since 2004, it has been made up of 27 commissioners, one from each member state. Under the new treaty, the commission will be reduced to 18 members from 2014, with membership rotating every five years. This means that only two-thirds of member states will have their own commissioner at any one time, and each country will lose its commissioner for five years at a time."
Source:Waterford Today.

I think every country should have a commissioner at all times!