USA-Australia Trade Deal on Public Health shows way for Proposed Antidemocratic EU Constitution

by Alan Thu Jan 22, 2004 11:33

So you believe that the Irish government are less likely to cave into US demands than the Ministers of other EU countries (in the Council of Ministers where the final decision to sign would be agreed) ? Any Irish Government negotiations are also secret under Irish law so saying that the EU set-up is more secretive isn't true - Ministers may find out at the last minute but joe public knows feck all and the freedom of information act backs that up. The position in Australia re information on deals sounds great, but that's not the position here and I wouldn't hold my breath expecting that to change.

Personally I'd trust EU ministers more than than the Irish, they have a tradition that is less pro-American than Irish politics, have decent health care systems compared to ours and the EU collectively has much more clout that little ol' Ireland on it's own. If there's no common EU position the yanks will use salami tactics, playing one euro country off another.

That doesn't of course mean I'll be voting for the consitution, there are other more convincing arguments in the military area, but there's no point throwing arguments into the mix that don't make sense, as that'll just confuse people and they won't bother to vote against it, not trusting either side.

by Alan Thu Jan 22, 2004 16:21

PS - you link "For further details on the USA attack on the Australian public health system see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1126657,00.html " brings you to an article about Israel!

by Bary Finnegan - own behalf Thu Jan 22, 2004 17:02 John.finnegan3 at mail dot dcu dot ie

Alan,

I do not know anything about your political background or your surname but one must accept that just because you cannot understand the technicalities of the changing legal infrastructure of international trade negotiation does not mean (a) my points are incorrect or that (b) the average member of the public will fail to understand.

To deal with your comments one by one:

You say: ‘So you believe that the Irish government are less likely to cave into US demands than the Ministers of other EU countries (in the Council of Ministers where the final decision to sign would be agreed) ?’

I say: No I don’t. Let me explain it all again, perhaps more clearly. If the Irish government wishes now to sign away its right to bulk buy medicinal drugs so as to be able to keep the prices down or to be able to more afford to give them away for free, and in a few years the Irish people decide that we do not like this new arrangement, then we can elect a new government and reverse the situation back to its original state.

The point is quite simple despite what you say. At least the minimum of democratic situations exists now before this Draft EU Constitution comes in, where at least the electorate can have a direct impact on how the health industry is run. The health sector is of such vital importance to quality of life and the right itself to be alive, that to move the entire sector into the realm of irreversible undemocratic trade deals is to reverse some of the small democratic gains that were hard won during the last century.

You say: ‘Any Irish Government negotiations are also secret under Irish law so saying that the EU set-up is more secretive isn't true’

I say: I disagree with you on the direct secrecy of individual Irish trade deals until after adoption. I don’t know who you are working for or why you are refusing to deal with the issues as they stand rather than how you would like them to stand. There is no provision in Irish law which bars the members of the Dail from viewing an international trade deal prior to the government signing it. Furthermore:

(a) if the Irish government did sign a trade deal now, at least we elected them,
(b) and if we didn’t like the way the deal turned out in a few years we could elect a new government and pull out of it - this is not the case with EU GATS health issues,
(c) if the Draft Constitution comes in it would not matter not who was in power in Ireland, our elected officials could be overruled on all health related matters when voting at EU level.

You say: ‘The position in Australia re information on deals sounds great, but that's not the position here and I wouldn't hold my breath expecting that to change.’

I say: It is the situation in the USA too that Congress and the public gets to see the whole deal before it’s signed. It used to be the situation in the EU too, let me explain how.

I don’t think, from the way you write, that you are too aware of the workings of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The WTO is the highest legislative and judicial body on the planet. Annex B and C of this entity consist of the General Agreement of Trade in Services (GATS), and the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

During the 90s EU trade negotiators discovered that they had to keep going back to democratically elected politicians in the national and EU parliaments in order to get ratification for trade deals in the ‘manufactured goods’, the ‘services’ and the ‘intellectual property’ sectors and the public kept seeing the documents. This slowed down their dateline implementation policies for the ongoing liberalisation of the EU and global economies and societies. [And for the trade geeks out there: this is the main reason they have missed many deadlines in the Lisbon Review documents]. In other words, the democratic structures, however limited, of the EU, slowed down, stalled and in many cases stopped deregulation and privatisation in many sectors. Part of the reason for this was that the national governments kept having to go back to their respective national electorates every few years for approval. This niggling hassle of minimal democratic accountability interfered with the efficiency of the plans for progressive liberalisation and had to be got rid of. You see, your fixation on Ireland makes you miss the point that there are trade deals the FF/PD would love to sign but would not because the electorate would hammer them, this goes for most EU countries. So this encroaching power of the EU to finalise these trade deals, without the need for parliamentary approval, means that the political parties get off the hook and say ‘hey, we did our best for yiz in Europe, but we got outvoted, nothing we could do, don’t blame us’ and the electorate don’t.

The Erosion, Bit By Bit:
There was full disclosure of the trade deals texts that the EU signed on our behalf prior to The Treaty of Amsterdam. Under this Treaty, ‘manufactured goods’ were brought into QMV and the national and EU parliaments were excluded from having a definite legal right to see the documents and were excluded from having the final say on ‘manufactured good’ trade deals. You must agree that this was a reduction in democratic accountability.

This was not enough so in The Treaty of Nice the 133 Committee fought to get the ‘services’ and the ‘intellectual property’ sectors into line with trade deal making in ‘manufactured goods’. They pulled it off but deliberately excluded ‘health’, ‘education’, ‘culture’ and ‘audio/visual’ services sectors, leaving these in the hands of the national parliaments and not applying QMV etc.

So now, this Draft Constitution comes along and they want to get rid of that last infringement of elected officials and their inefficient ways of democracy (however minimal) on these trade deals by removing the veto from national governments and shuving ‘health’, ‘education’, ‘culture’ and ‘audio/visual’ services sectors into QMV and into the ‘exclusive right of the Commission’ to finalise trade deals in this areas.

You say: EU Countries ‘have decent health care systems compared to ours’ - but can’t you see that the whole purpose of these proposals is to change this situation so that local and national governments loose control of their heath systems so that the technocrats in the EU can reduce them to US standards. If you can’t see this, you are very trusting and I admire your ability to ignore the main currents in international affairs towards progressive liberalisation.

You say: ‘If there's no common EU position the yanks will use salami tactics, playing one euro country off another’
I say: Fine, grand. But explain to why they need to have such secrecy. Explain to me what is that they are doing that we the people are not allowed to see a trade deal before it becomes law.

You say: ‘but there's no point throwing arguments into the mix that don't make sense’
I say: Might I be so bold as to advise you to do some reading on the WTO, GATS, TRIPS and the secretive Article 133 Committee. Everyone from the Workers Solidarity Movement to Comhlamh and Oxfam have contrary positions against these entities and agreements.

You say: ‘as that'll just confuse people and they won't bother to vote against it, not trusting either side’
I say: That sounds a might authoritarian to me boyo. Just because you cannot understand it does not mean the public will not understand it. Try this:

Your child gets sick. The doctor tells you to buy medicine and gives you a prescription. You go to the chemist and the medicine costs €22.98. The reason it is so cheap is because the government is subsidising the price. If this Draft EU Constitution comes in, it is very likely that that medicine will increase in price to €41.67 [just like it is in the USA]. Now under this Constitution it does not matter who you vote for in your national or European parliament, no elected official will ever be able to reintroduce government subsidised medicine - (without of course triggering a massive international trade war.)

You say: ‘there are other more convincing arguments in the military area, but there's no point throwing arguments into the mix that don't make sense, as that'll just confuse people and they won't bother to vote against it, not trusting either side.’
I say: It shows a great weakness in your argument when you start the: why help Palestinians when the Irish travellers have no human rights, why help animals when there are people with no human rights, apples, oranges ... If you genuinely want to address the issues and help promote democracy and struggle against neoliberalism then why not work alongside other people with your anti-militarism campaign.

No health, education or culture in the GATS.
No food in the TRIPS.
Democratic control of health, education or culture.

- Barry F.

by Alan (Kelly if it matters!) Fri Jan 23, 2004 13:17

In response!

>Alan,
I do not know anything about your political background or your surname

Name is above (although why that matters is beyond me) am an independent lefty who gets involved in some campaigns and not others (probably rules me out having a right to talk I guess...) I vote WP more by default than any other reason.

>but one must accept that just because you cannot understand the technicalities of the changing legal infrastructure of international trade negotiation

Heh, they go to DCU and they think they know everything!

>does not mean (a) my points are incorrect or that (b) the average member of the public will fail to understand.

OK, so will we look at them then?

> Let me explain it all again, perhaps more clearly. If the Irish government wishes now to sign away its right to bulk buy medicinal drugs so as to be able to keep the prices down or to be able to more afford to give them away for free, and in a few years the Irish people decide that we do not like this new arrangement, then we can elect a new government and reverse the situation back to its original state.

The same would apply to the people of Europe. In the (rather less likely event) that the EU folded to the USA in an international deal, Europe's effective Government (i.e. the Council of Ministers) could reverse the deal. In (again I believe the unlikely event) that such a deal was agreed by the EU, there would be be uproar across Europe (where they are used to good healthcare unlike here). Your statement that it is 'unreversable' is simply untrue (and its odd that you would resort to a lie if you believe your case so convincing). The EU can walk away from an international treaty on the same basis as Ireland. The idea that Ireland has more power in this area to reverse previous decisions than the EU shows just how loose your grip on the reality is.

>The point is quite simple despite what you say.

I didn't say it wasn't simple, just that you didn't understand it.

>At least the minimum of democratic situations exists now before this Draft EU Constitution comes in, where at least the electorate can have a direct impact on how the health industry is run. The health sector is of such vital importance to quality of life and the right itself to be alive, that to move the entire sector into the realm of irreversible undemocratic trade deals is to reverse some of the small democratic gains that were hard won during the last century.

Again, not irreversable and no more undemocratic that Ireland doing the same (just less likely). But why let that get in the way of your argument, eh?

>You say: ‘Any Irish Government negotiations are also secret under Irish law so saying that the EU set-up is more secretive isn't true’
I say: I disagree with you on the direct secrecy of individual Irish trade deals until after adoption.

As I thought I said, look at the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. International negotiations are exempted, and there is no basis under which the govt can be forced to reveal it's stance. If you don't accept this there's no point arguing about it, it's the truth, well established and if you had half as much information on this topic as self-belief you'd know that.

>I don’t know who you are working for or why you are refusing to deal with the issues as they stand rather than how you would like them to stand.

Hamas. Or is it the People's Front of Judea?
Grow up, will ya? I have a different view and from what I've read so far I seem know a lot more about the issue than you do. Don't take it personally, I know that you're probably well meaning.


>There is no provision in Irish law which bars the members of the Dail from viewing an international trade deal prior to the government signing it. Furthermore:

OK, read very carefully. THEY - HAVE- NO- RIGHT-TO-SEE-IT-UNDER-IRISH-LAW-NOT-EVEN-UNDER-FOI. Govts don't show them current deals. This is established fact and I'm at a loss how you could not know this.

>(a) if the Irish government did sign a trade deal now, at least we elected them,

Speak for yourself. I certainly didn't vote for them and are realistic enough to know that no irish govt will ever even come close to my views (I've been a voter since the early 80s, so possibly have a better idea than you do). They are representative of people with views very different to most people who post here. The composite electorate of Europe would be far more likely to change their governements(and hence the Council of Ministers) over such a deal than the Irish electorate are, and if you believe otherwise you must spend your entire day on this site!

>(b) and if we didn’t like the way the deal turned out in a few years we could elect a new government and pull out of it - this is not the case with EU GATS health issues,
(c) if the Draft Constitution comes in it would not matter not who was in power in Ireland, our elected officials could be overruled on all health related matters when voting at EU level.

I think I've dealt with that sufficiently. The idea that the ministers of other EU countries would be forcing Ireland's elected officials to be more right wing in the area of health is a bizarre fastasy that few adults could imagine! Ireland has resisted attempts to even compare performance of health care systems because they are worried they might be pressurised into resourcing higher standards (you knew that, right? You being so knowledgable and all ....)

>You say: ‘The position in Australia re information on deals sounds great, but that's not the position here and I wouldn't hold my breath expecting that to change.’
I say: It is the situation in the USA too that Congress and the public gets to see the whole deal before it’s signed. It used to be the situation in the EU too, let me explain how.

The next (very long) bit of your post explains how it was/is with EU negotiated deals, NOT with Irish ones. The fact that you can't ackowledge this demonstrates that you can't answer my point, i.e. that if it's not done by the EU it'll be done by Ireland and we'll be sold out.

>snip <

>You see, your fixation on Ireland makes you miss the point that there are trade deals the FF/PD would love to sign but would not because the electorate would hammer them, this goes for most EU countries. So this encroaching power of the EU to finalise these trade deals, without the need for parliamentary approval, means that the political parties get off the hook and say ‘hey, we did our best for yiz in Europe, but we got outvoted, nothing we could do, don’t blame us’ and the electorate don’t.

That doesn't make a bit of sense. The idea that the German and French electorates wouldn't hold their govts accountable for what it voted for in the Council of Minsters shows just how deluded you are! They can't ALL be out-voted, there has to be a majority, and I'd see those other electorates holding being more unforgiving than ours anyday.


>The Erosion, Bit By Bit:
There was full disclosure of the trade deals texts that the EU signed on our behalf prior to The Treaty of Amsterdam. Under this Treaty, ‘manufactured goods’ were brought into QMV and the national and EU parliaments were excluded from having a definite legal right to see the documents and were excluded from having the final say on ‘manufactured good’ trade deals. You must agree that this was a reduction in democratic accountability.

I voted against Amsterdam but admit not remembering it as an issue, defence was the one that swung me. I'd bet a lot of money that was the main reason most of the 40-odd per cent of us did so.

>This was not enough so in The Treaty of Nice the 133 Committee fought to get the ‘services’ and the ‘intellectual property’ sectors into line with trade deal making in ‘manufactured goods’. They pulled it off but deliberately excluded ‘health’, ‘education’, ‘culture’ and ‘audio/visual’ services sectors, leaving these in the hands of the national parliaments and not applying QMV etc.
So now, this Draft Constitution comes along and they want to get rid of that last infringement of elected officials and their inefficient ways of democracy (however minimal)

well is it minimal or not? During the Nice referendum we were told that Article 133 as proposed in that would result in wholescale privatisation of social services (stil on the National Platform's site). Either that was true - in which case the intentions you apply to the new article aren't needed by those who wish that - or it wasn't, making your credibility on this rock-bottom.

If it is minimal, why would you stand in the way of these things being decided by the representatives of the people of Europe rather than the representatives of the people of Ireland (beyond a narrow nationalistic feeling of being more Irish than European)? Do you feel the latter are more likely to care about healthcare than the former?? That's the ultimate issue. I don't trust poiticians, nor do i trust the majority of electors to always vote in a way consistent with their interests, but i do acknowledge that the Irish governemnt is MORE right wing, and that the Irish electorate has a greater record of accepting such crap. That's why as a European I'd be happier with European level negotiations than national level ones. If the EU find it impossible to be the effective negotiator due to the current set up (which if I understand it you think is a good thing generally), it allows the USA to go to national govts one by one.

>on these trade deals by removing the veto from national governments and shuving ‘health’, ‘education’, ‘culture’ and ‘audio/visual’ services sectors into QMV and into the ‘exclusive right of the Commission’ to finalise trade deals in this areas.

The deal is finalised by the Council of Ministers not by the Commission. Although the idea that the same commission that wants to make Ireland raise its corporation tax wants it to slash health services is pretty funny. Sorry did I say funny? I meant 'valid'. Your ideas are completely valid. They don't have to be based in reality to be so.

Also amazing is your idea that the EU commission would even want to stop national governments from bulk buying medecine to keep costs down! That would contradict their policies and the policies of I think all 15 Member States from which they come.

>You say: EU Countries ‘have decent health care systems compared to ours’ - but can’t you see that the whole purpose of these proposals is to change this situation so that local and national governments loose control of their heath systems so that the technocrats in the EU can reduce them to US standards. If you can’t see this, you are very trusting and I admire your ability to ignore the main currents in international affairs towards progressive liberalisation.

So I should just beleive you that "technocrats in the EU want to reduce health standards in the EU"? Sorry I don't, and I reckon most wouldn't (some remember being told that EEC membershp would ruin Ireland's economy in the early 70s). There is an international trend towards liberalisation (and privatisation, which while related is a different thing, and more worrying) but I think that if you believe that the 'EU technocrats' are a motor behind this your daft. The motor is right-wing governments and parties, and the corporations that fund them.

>You say: ‘If there's no common EU position the yanks will use salami tactics, playing one euro country off another’
I say: Fine, grand.

Well I say, no, not fine, not grand. If you accept that is what will happen, you've got to be in favour of a common European position to stop it. you you accept that the current set up stops the EU achieving this, and believe that its good it stays at national level. Which leave us with what I presume you really agree is a worse position.

>But explain to why they need to have such secrecy. Explain to me what is that they are doing that we the people are not allowed to see a trade deal before it becomes law.

If I could change that I would, but it's still better than trusting Bertie in the same context of secrecy. Call me "naieve" if you like, perhaps I'm just not as clever as you.

>You say: ‘but there's no point throwing arguments into the mix that don't make sense’
I say: Might I be so bold as to advise you to do some reading on the WTO, GATS, TRIPS and the secretive Article 133 Committee.

You've read them all, have you? So when the WTO's “General Agreement on Trade in Services”, within which these matters are negotiated, says that all WTO members can legitimately regulate economic and non-economic sectors within their territory to guarantee the attainment of public service objectives, and says that all WTO member states are free to establish specific rules for the organisation of sectors identified as public service sectors, this is all stuff that you know about, is it?

If you can't see by now that i do know more on this than you do, there's not much pointing it out.

>Everyone from the Workers Solidarity Movement to Comhlamh and Oxfam have contrary positions against these entities and agreements.

Well then I'd better let them do my thinking for me, hadn't I? That's as stupid an argument as you've made all thread. ICTU are in favour and represent a lot more, but I don't take my line from them either. As an individual I can make my own mind up, I don't need to hear what a pack of groups, none of whcih have more than a hundred or so members, telling me what to believe.

>You say: ‘as that'll just confuse people and they won't bother to vote against it, not trusting either side’
I say: That sounds a might authoritarian to me boyo. Just because you cannot understand it does not mean the public will not understand it.

I do, I just see through the argument. Do you think that the majority who voted no in either Nice referendum bought the same arguements on article 133?? Did they fuck, they were swayed on neutrality (and some right-wingers on other issues). It didn't sway them then and won't sway them now, because its not an even remotly convincing argument.

>Try this:
Your child gets sick. The doctor tells you to buy medicine and gives you a prescription. You go to the chemist and the medicine costs €22.98. The reason it is so cheap is because the government is subsidising the price. If this Draft EU Constitution comes in, it is very likely that that medicine will increase in price to €41.67 [just like it is in the USA].

No it isn't! And just saying it is won't mean people believe you. Europe, for all it's faults, does not agree with the American social model (ireland is closer), and even if it ever does ireland will get there a lot quicker on our own than we would as part of the EU.

>Now under this Constitution it does not matter who you vote for in your national or European parliament, no elected official will ever be able to reintroduce government subsidised medicine - (without of course triggering a massive international trade war.)

Again, your argument defeats you. If there is a withdrawal from an international deal, that may result in a trade war. But I'd rather be part of the EU in such as case than Ireland. No Irish govt would dare take on the USA, so your argument that we could just elect of new govt is daft, they wouldn't reverse it. But (in the unlikely event that an EU COM capitulated to the USA on this issue) the EU could win a trade war with the US, and the US would be much slower to act.

>You say: ‘there are other more convincing arguments in the military area, but there's no point throwing arguments into the mix that don't make sense, as that'll just confuse people and they won't bother to vote against it, not trusting either side.’
I say: It shows a great weakness in your argument when you start the: why help Palestinians when the Irish travellers have no human rights, why help animals when there are people with no human rights, apples, oranges ...

Because you're demonstrably wrong on this point. Sorry.

>If you genuinely want to address the issues and help promote democracy and struggle against neoliberalism then why not work alongside other people with your anti-militarism campaign.

You can campaign all you like and so will I, but I won't be making arguments I disagree with - yours any more than Justin Barret's.

by ec Sun Jan 25, 2004 11:37

Saw this programme - no attempt at balance or giving eurosceptics from right or left a space to express an opinion - pro euro fluff propaganda.

From Unison.ie:


LIAM COLLINS

'EUROPE How are You' became a mystery for a lecturer who was told he was edited out of an RTE programme on the orders of the Department of Foreign Affairs after he was "mildly critical" of the EU. "We are used to censorship in Russia," said Trinity's economics lecturer, Constantin Gurdgiev, "but I didn't think this would happen here."

An academic, broadcaster and director of the Open Republic Institute, he was invited to contribute to two TV programmes made to "promote awareness of the EU" and funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs to the tune of €86,699.

But he claims he got a call - hours before the first was to be broadcast - from the producers, telling him he had been "edited out" because of space and because the Department of Foreign Affairs was unhappy with his contribution.

"I was mildly critical of some aspects of the EU - but they knew that. I'm not against it but I did express caution," he said.

RTE says that his views were expressed in a voice-over and there was no interference. Mr Gurdgiev disagrees. The Department of Foreign Affairs says editorial control rested with RTE.