Lisbon Part Deux. What way will/would you vote?

tallaght01

I'm starting this thread as an experiment. I'm interested to see if the healthcare/biology community vote any differently to the rest of the population.

It;s an anonymous poll. No-one (including moderators and admins) can see who voted for what. We also have posters from overseas, so you're welcome to vote too. As are students, and people who don't work in biology or healthcare, but have a scientific bent.

Please don't vote if you have no interest in health/biology and just saw this thread on the front page. Pretty please :P It's just a bit of a demographic experiment. We'll see how our results compare to the actual results next week.

Feel free to add your reasons in the thread, especially if they relate to biology/medicine issues (intellectual property, EWTD stuff etc).

tallaght01

9-1 in favour of the yes camp so far, which is interesting. Though it's early days.

tallaght01

Interesting to see the poll over on the emergency services forum, where it's roughly 50:50, though the numbers are very small in both cases.

panda100

I'm voting No for various reasons.I fundamentally oppose the neo liberal agenda of the EU, but more specifically on Lisbon I am strongly against the heavy emphasis on militarisation.

Saying that,was anyone else very suprised by the heavy bias towards the No side by the IMN last week?
Firstly the headline read that "The Lisbon treaty contravenes the Mental Health act". I was very surprised the IMN would use such a sensationalist headline without backing it up with concrete facts? As far as I'm aware the ECHR, in which the provision to detain drug and alcohol addicts lies, is not EU law but just 'guidelines'?

Then there was a full page comment piece by a Dublin based consultant psychaitrist on why he's voting No. I thought the IMN may have evened the debate out with a comment peice by the Yes side this week but there was nothing?
Thats not to say he did not raise some excellent points. I am delighted someone in the medical community has finally spoken out about the gross misuse of courts ordering pschiatric assements for those opposing the Shell corporation in Mayo.

tallaght01

panda100 wrote: »

As far as I'm aware the ECHR, in which the provision to detain drug and alcohol addicts lies, is not EU law but just 'guidelines'?

.

Can you detain drug and alcohol addicts in ireland? Just for that reason? As opposed to under the mental health act?

sam34

tallaght01 wrote: »

Can you detain drug and alcohol addicts in ireland? Just for that reason? As opposed to under the mental health act?

well, im not too au fait with all the EHCR, but someone can only be detained in a psychiatric unit under the mental health act, and you cannot be detained under the MHA for alcohol or drug addiction.

im not aware of any law by which they could be detained in ageneral hospital setting.

i havent read the article you referred to panda -any chance of a link, id be interested to see it? do you know who the psychiatrist was?

anotherlostie

sam34 wrote: »

well, im not too au fait with all the EHCR, but someone can only be detained in a psychiatric unit under the mental health act, and you cannot be detained under the MHA for alcohol or drug addiction.

im not aware of any law by which they could be detained in ageneral hospital setting.

i havent read the article you referred to panda -any chance of a link, id be interested to see it? do you know who the psychiatrist was?

Dr. Seán O'Domhnaill (is he a friend of Ganley?). Here is a link to the article in the IMN.

http://www.imn.ie/index.php/current-issue/news/2322-lisbon-treaty-contravenes-mental-health-act

tallaght01

Once he started claiming 1 in 6 irish people could be detained for alcoholism, I started taking him less seriously :pac:

My granny couldn't even get a bed when she was in cardiac failure!!!!

sam34

tallaght01 wrote: »

Once he started claiming 1 in 6 irish people could be detained for alcoholism, I started taking him less seriously :pac:

My granny couldn't even get a bed when she was in cardiac failure!!!!

absolutely. its sensationalist crap, tbh. nobody is going to start rounding up druggies and detaining them. :rolleyes:

Traumadoc

I am voting no, because while I support the "common market" ideals of the past, I do not think we have debated the steps towards a centralised federal europaen republic.
For all its faults I like the idea of a nation state.


While Lisbon is not going to create a Federal Europe it is a step towards that.
It is a debate we needed to have but never did.

ZYX

anotherlostie wrote: »

Dr. Seán O'Domhnaill (is he a friend of Ganley?). Here is a link to the article in the IMN.

http://www.imn.ie/index.php/current-issue/news/2322-lisbon-treaty-contravenes-mental-health-act

There are 2 letters in this weeks IMN explaining how the Lisbon Treaty does not make any difference to Mental Health Act

Traumadoc

Sorry link did not work, but youtube "sean o' domhnaill" he may be his enemy's enemy but he is no friend of Ganley

MrCreosote

Personally voting yes, I think overall the treaty will improve the efficiency of the EU for dealing with larger problems in the future like climate change.

Also of course I'm all in favour of Irish conscripts in a pan-European army wading into foreign countries to kill unborn children for less than 2 euro an hour.

liberal

as a liberatarian i beleive big government is bad, therefore i SHOULD vote no

however with the likes of Cóir and other Taliban organisations pushing for a no vote I'd rather sell out my liberatarian ideals than side with that bunch

I'm voting yes with two thumbs up

liberal

Traumadoc wrote: »

I am voting no, because while I support the "common market" ideals of the past, I do not think we have debated the steps towards a centralised federal europaen republic.
For all its faults I like the idea of a nation state.


While Lisbon is not going to create a Federal Europe it is a step towards that.
It is a debate we needed to have but never did.

Well said

Red Sleeping Beauty

Some interesting posts there

I'd like to know what the opinions of doctors, nurses and other medical practitioners is on this. Possible further privatisation of healthcare in Ireland and the EU has been brought up as an issue - Joe Higgins has been the most vocal on this issue. There's nothing explicity in the Treaty about privatising healthcare but there's stuff in there about making sure every EU citizen has access to proper healthcare and there's talk of member states working together.

I imagine it would be a good thing if there provisions in the treaty to secure things like funding for drug task forces so that they aren't marginalised and chopped up if there's budget cuts.

So anyways, is it (it being Lisbon + health) a non-issue here or are there positive reasons for either voting yes or no with regards to health?

tallaght01

I don't know if Lisbon would result in further privatisation. BUt there's an argument for a degree of privatisation in some areas, at least until the health service can get up and running. You get problems with cherry picking etc. BUt it can work well in a few select cases.

I don't know how Lisbon 2 would affect it, though.

All, the same, it's an interesting poll, albeit it's a tiny sample.

samson09

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuV5JHHYh9g

No means no!

locum-motion

samson09 wrote: »

No means no!

I have to confess to being kinda confused by the way people keep saying this, and the many who suggest having another referendum is some sort of erosion of democracy. I mean, no obviously means no if you're talking about a woman saying it to a man in a - shall we say - "romantic" situation. But there's nothing wrong with being asked the same question again (in fact, it's not exactly the same question either.) How many referenda have we had on abortion? How many on divorce? Don't forget Nice 1 and 2. Just because "the people have spoken", does that mean that the people shouldn't be given another chance to speak?

If every decision taken by the electorate is a decision that we're not to be allowed consider again at another time, why do we vote for a new Dáil every five years and a new President every 7?

Being given a second chance to vote is not an erosion of democracy; it's the very essence of it!

samson09

locum-motion wrote: »

I have to confess to being kinda confused by the way people keep saying this, and the many who suggest having another referendum is some sort of erosion of democracy. I mean, no obviously means no if you're talking about a woman saying it to a man in a - shall we say - "romantic" situation. But there's nothing wrong with being asked the same question again (in fact, it's not exactly the same question either.) How many referenda have we had on abortion? How many on divorce? Don't forget Nice 1 and 2. Just because "the people have spoken", does that mean that the people shouldn't be given another chance to speak?

If every decision taken by the electorate is a decision that we're not to be allowed consider again at another time, why do we vote for a new Dáil every five years and a new President every 7?

Being given a second chance to vote is not an erosion of democracy; it's the very essence of it!

I agree with you, kinda . There are times people should be allowed to have another vote, such as when they ask for another vote. I don't recall anyone asking for another referendum on Lisbon after it was rejected last year (bar the politicians of course). Also, you can't really compare voting on abortion or divorce with voting on the lisbon treaty. With abortion or divorce it is up to the individual whether or not he/she chooses to terminate a pregnancy or a marriage. With Lisbon, there is no individual choice involved and we are deciding the fate not only of everyone in the country but also the other 500 million or so Europeans who weren't even given the opportunity to vote! Like many others, I think this "treaty" is nothing more than a re-packaging of the EU Constitution which was rejected by millions of Europeans already.

The way things are going, it's looking like its going to be given the green light which isnt surprising when you consider the enormous push its been given by 90% of our politicians and businessmen. The sad thing about this is that, imo, the majority of them think they are doing the right thing. Mark my words, in a few years down the road we'll look back at this and wonder how we could have all been so ridiculously gullible. October 2nd 2009 will go down in the history books as the day the Irish wilfully gave away their sovereignty and freedom.

tallaght01

Samson, I was really looking for an insight into the way the biology and medicine community would be voting, or health related aspects of why the treaty is good or bad.

I don't mind "off topicness" but you do have a history of soapoxing in this forum. So, I'd ask you to restrict your contributions to the health related aspects of the treaty.

nesf

Voting Yes. Interesting thread.

panda100

Just voted No so we can let all our druggies and alco's roam free

MrCreosote

Maybe there should be another option for "not going to vote" cos that looks like it'll be the biggest single group.

If you didn't vote and don't like the result then don't bother complaining...:mad:

Red Sleeping Beauty

tallaght01 wrote: »

Samson, I was really looking for an insight into the way the biology and medicine community would be voting, or health related aspects of why the treaty is good or bad.

I don't mind "off topicness" but you do have a history of soapoxing in this forum. So, I'd ask you to restrict your contributions to the health related aspects of the treaty.

It'll be interesting to see in the coming years what kind of direction the EU and Ireland take with regards to healthcare. Ireland's health system is hardly going to get any better.

I'm assuming this damn thing will be passed but even still, healthcare i don't think makes up that big a part of it. It just kind of says that everyone's entitled to equal treatment which is open to interpretation really.

nesf

Alan Rouge wrote: »

It'll be interesting to see in the coming years what kind of direction the EU and Ireland take with regards to healthcare. Ireland's health system is hardly going to get any better.

I'm assuming this damn thing will be passed but even still, healthcare i don't think makes up that big a part of it. It just kind of says that everyone's entitled to equal treatment which is open to interpretation really.

There hasn't really been a huge effort to homogenise our health care systems on an EU wide level and I'd hazard that there is no appetite for it either, the Dutch and the Scandinavians have produced superb results using drastically different approaches and any kind of compromise between the two would surely give a poorer result. I think such federalisation, while a wet dream for some of the more hardcore federalists, isn't likely to be seen or even mooted on a serious basis at least in the next decade in my opinion.

tallaght01

67% yes in the real poll. 58% yes here. Not a million miles off I guess.

Thanks for taking part

bleg

Voted yes on the real thing before I voted here!