EU plays hardball. complaints lodged

thehighground

marco_polo wrote: »

The privatisation of bus routes has been on the agenda for years now so whether anyone thinks it is a good or bad idea it is already allowable under current EU rules. There is nothing is Lisbon that makes the process any more or any less likely to happen.

Not quite on topic I think the plan for the partial privatisation of certain bus routes propose packaging profitable routes with unprofitable ones so that this cherry picking could not occur. In any case it has been shelved for some time now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by marco_polo View Post
It was a question not a point. To repeat the question how are workers rights or public services in any way undermined by the treaty?

You presumed Kerrigan was on about workers' rights - I thought he was on about public services - I was only trying to help you.

By the way, did you write to Kerrigan?

thehighground

sink wrote: »

What do you mean? There are no plans to change it that I am aware of.

At the moment under Nice, but with Lisbon? Can you do a bit better than 'I am aware of'. We have an indicipheral document that we are dependent on our politicians to interpret for us (who have got us into a right pickle with our economy).

They could of course but all they could afford to do would be to take up the slack if the dublin bus service is overcrowded. A lot of people use weekly/monthly/yearly tickets and they would use the dublin bus service regardless. The damage to dublin bus would be minimal and it would mean less overcrowding for the public.

You are waffling! I've seen how this private / public bus system works in New York - and it doesn't work the way you think.

Yes I know this. I don't have any figures but I would be surprised if the state didn't subsidise most of it already. I doubt they earn enough money from their busy routes to even cover half the cost of their rural services.

There is no rural bus service in this country. Don't confuse a bus service from a major town to Dublin every day. If you live in the country, you need a car.

sink

thehighground wrote: »

At the moment under Nice, but with Lisbon? Can you do a bit better than 'I am aware of'. We have an indicipheral document that we are dependent on our politicians to interpret for us (who have got us into a right pickle with our economy).

Well I can guarantee that there is nothing in the Lisbon treaty but much like the CCCTB there might be an initiative by the commission or the council that I am unaware of. In any case Lisbon will not change anything.

thehighground wrote: »

You are waffling! I've seen how this private / public bus system works in New York - and it doesn't work the way you think.

New York Metropolitan area
- Total Pop 18,815,988 (2007 est.)
- Pop Density 1,077/km²

Greater Dublin Area
-Total Pop 1,661,185 (2006 est.)
-Pop Density 238/km²

Yep there are a lot of similarities there alright.

thehighground wrote: »

There is no rural bus service in this country. Don't confuse a bus service from a major town to Dublin every day. If you live in the country, you need a car.

Sorry I thought you were talking about Bus Eireann. So if there is no bus service why are you worried the EU is going to harm a non-existent bust service?

molloyjh

marco_polo wrote: »

I forgot that bit. Thanks for nothing Charlie.

Didn't Charlie get a bit of bad press shortly after he started on the Commission for not looking out for our interests? I can't remember what it was about but I do remember chuckling to myself thinking how Irish it was that an Irishman who wasn't meant to favour us was being abused for doing just that, i.e. his job. :rolleyes:

thehighground

sink wrote: »

Well I can guarantee that there is nothing in the Lisbon treaty but much like the CCCTB there might be an initiative by the commission or the council that I am unaware of. In any case Lisbon will not change anything.



New York Metropolitan area
- Total Pop 18,815,988 (2007 est.)
- Pop Density 1,077/km²

Greater Dublin Area
-Total Pop 1,661,185 (2006 est.)
-Pop Density 238/km²

Yep there are a lot of similarities there alright.

Wasn't talking about size or anything. Just saw how in an area of New York (West New York) which had a number of small private mini buses which you hailed on the street. They actually were quicker (smaller) than the main buses, so people went for them in preference to larger buses which meant the big buses would have empty seats. During quieter times, they had even more empty seats . I'd love it on my bus route here in Dublin, particularly at rush hour. Hopefully, the Gov. will increase its subsidy so that Dublin Bus can run buses at 11am during the day, when they are usually only old age pensions with the free travel using them.

Sorry I thought you were talking about Bus Eireann. So if there is no bus service why are you worried the EU is going to harm a non-existent bust service?

I'm not worried about anything. I live in Dublin, I have a car, I have access to a bus service, a taxi service and I have a bike.

But there are some Irish people who don't. Tough luck, eh?

sink

thehighground wrote: »

Wasn't talking about size or anything. Just saw how in an area of New York (West New York) which had a number of small private mini buses which you hailed on the street. They actually were quicker (smaller) than the main buses, so people went for them in preference to larger buses which meant the big buses would have empty seats. During quieter times, they had even more empty seats . I'd love it on my bus route here in Dublin, particularly at rush hour. Hopefully, the Gov. will increase its subsidy so that Dublin Bus can run buses at 11am during the day, when they are usually only old age pensions with the free travel using them.

My point about population is that the New York area has the size and pop density to support those sort of services whereas the Dublin area does not. It would simply be uneconomical to have an equivalent bus service in the Dublin, so you can't compare like for like.

thehighground wrote: »

I'm not worried about anything. I live in Dublin, I have a car, I have access to a bus service, a taxi service and I have a bike.

But there are some Irish people who don't. Tough luck, eh?

Well that's the way the world works I'm afraid.

molloyjh

thehighground wrote: »

I'm not worried about anything. I live in Dublin, I have a car, I have access to a bus service, a taxi service and I have a bike.

But there are some Irish people who don't. Tough luck, eh?

Surely thats an Irish issue and not a European one?

marco_polo

thehighground wrote: »

You presumed Kerrigan was on about workers' rights - I thought he was on about public services - I was only trying to help you.

He specifically mentioned both in the article. I meerly made the point that there is not much of note of either of these topics in the Lisbon Treaty either way.

"we're heading for a centralised, militarised entity, where workers rights and public services exist merely to be sneered at."

By the way, did you write to Kerrigan?

I'd forgotten about that. I may just get the old pencil out later.

IRLConor

thehighground wrote: »

I'm not worried about anything. I live in Dublin, I have a car, I have access to a bus service, a taxi service and I have a bike.

But there are some Irish people who don't. Tough luck, eh?

Those areas will never have a bus. If they do, it'll disappear as quickly as it appears.

If there's a state monopoly on public bus services then there won't be a bus service between Ballybackarseofnowhere and Ballyoneshopthreepubs because it would be political suicide for any minister to piss off the majority of voters who live in either cities or towns by using their tax money to pay for a highly unprofitable service. The urban vote would be doubly pissed off at the fact that the urban public transport is still crap, so why not spend the money making it better?

If there's a free market for public bus services (with or without state companies being involved) there still won't be a service since it's extremely hard to make any money on a rural service. The only way it could work is if it was state subsidised and then you're back to square one with urban vote > rural vote.

djpbarry

thehighground wrote: »

Hopefully, the Gov. will increase its subsidy so that Dublin Bus can run buses at 11am during the day...

Eh, they already do?

thehighground

molloyjh wrote: »

Surely thats an Irish issue and not a European one?

We have the winner here! "Surely" is the important word in this sentence.
Is it, or is it not?

thehighground

djpbarry wrote: »

Eh, they already do?

*sigh* They (Gov) do, but if Dublin Bus are losing money due to competition, the Gov. will have to INCREASE its subsidy to Dublin Bus so that there will be a bus that one can pay for, let alone so that the OAP's can get their free travel.

A bit of rob the poor to pay the poor.

sink

thehighground wrote: »

We have the winner here! "Surely" is the important word in this sentence.
Is it, or is it not?

It is in no doubt that it is a purely Irish issue. Only you seem to think it has anything to do with the EU, why?

thehighground

IRLConor wrote: »

Those areas will never have a bus. If they do, it'll disappear as quickly as it appears.

If there's a state monopoly on public bus services then there won't be a bus service between Ballybackarseofnowhere and Ballyoneshopthreepubs because it would be political suicide for any minister to piss off the majority of voters who live in either cities or towns by using their tax money to pay for a highly unprofitable service. The urban vote would be doubly pissed off at the fact that the urban public transport is still crap, so why not spend the money making it better?

If there's a free market for public bus services (with or without state companies being involved) there still won't be a service since it's extremely hard to make any money on a rural service. The only way it could work is if it was state subsidised and then you're back to square one with urban vote > rural vote.

Not arguing for rural transport (too late now). But, the village I came from, there used to be a Bus Eireann bus in the morning and the evening that brought to/from the nearest town (7 miles away). It was stopped because it wasn't financially viable and there were not enough people protesting to be noticed.

The same thing could happen if there was competition on lucrative bus routes - the unlucrative ones would need to be subsidised - but reading what the 'Yes' campaigners post here, they are only interested in what effects them personally (their wallet) and have very little interest for the kind of society they want to live in.

Scofflaw

I've posted this before - it's the Protocol on Services of General Interest (public services), and it runs completely counter to the claims that the EU plans interference in member state public services, or wishes them privatised:

PROTOCOL (No 26) ON SERVICES OF GENERAL INTEREST

THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES, WISHING to emphasise the importance of services of general interest, HAVE AGREED UPON the following interpretative provisions, which shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:

Article 1
The shared values of the Union in respect of services of general economic interest within the meaning of Article 14 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union include in particular:
– the essential role and the wide discretion of national, regional and local authorities in providing, commissioning and organising services of general economic interest as closely as possible to the needs of the users;
– the diversity between various services of general economic interest and the differences in the needs and preferences of users that may result from different geographical, social or cultural situations;
– a high level of quality, safety and affordability, equal treatment and the promotion of universal access and of user rights.

Article 2
The provisions of the Treaties do not affect in any way the competence of Member States to provide, commission and organise non-economic services of general interest.

Those who feel that the EU wishes to interfere, and wishes to privatise, and gains the ability to do so through the Treaty of Lisbon, are welcome to post the relevant articles.

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

thehighground wrote: »

Not arguing for rural transport (too late now). But, the village I came from, there used to be a Bus Eireann bus in the morning and the evening that brought to/from the nearest town (7 miles away). It was stopped because it wasn't financially viable and there were not enough people protesting to be noticed.

The same thing could happen if there was competition on lucrative bus routes - the unlucrative ones would need to be subsidised - but reading what the 'Yes' campaigners post here, they are only interested in what effects them personally (their wallet) and have very little interest for the kind of society they want to live in.

Generalise much?

Who on this forum has been advocating privatisation of Bus routes? Or public services in general? Indeed who has even mentioned it before you brought up the subject yourself?

thehighground

sink wrote: »

It is in no doubt that it is a purely Irish issue. Only you seem to think it has anything to do with the EU, why?

Could be a purely Irish issue, it could be an EU issue. Problem is, I was given a document which was presented in a way that made it very difficult to read - so guess what - I don't know if it should be an Irish issue, or it might be an EU issue. If I have difficulty in believing our politicians, I have even more difficulty believing someone on an MB.

I'd like a Lisbon Treaty document (like the Constitution document that the French & Dutch were able to understand) that I can figure out for myself

marco_polo

thehighground wrote: »

Could be a purely Irish issue, it could be an EU issue. Problem is, I was given a document which was presented in a way that made it very difficult to read - so guess what - I don't know if it should be an Irish issue, or it might be an EU issue. If I have difficulty in believing our politicians, I have even more difficulty believing someone on an MB.

I'd like a Lisbon Treaty document (like the Constitution document that the French & Dutch were able to understand) that I can figure out for myself

Broadly speaking the EU is unconcerned with the minute details of the provisions of Irish public services such as Dublin Bus routes.

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

I've posted this before - it's the Protocol on Services of General Interest (public services), and it runs completely counter to the claims that the EU plans interference in member state public services, or wishes them privatised:

Those who feel that the EU wishes to interfere, and wishes to privatise, and gains the ability to do so through the Treaty of Lisbon, are welcome to post the relevant articles.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fair play Scofflaw for eventually digging that out. Is this part of your job to dig out stuff like this?

PS - Its not about privatistion - it is about allowing competition (is there anything to prevent a company from cherry picking bus routes).

sink

thehighground wrote: »

Could be a purely Irish issue, it could be an EU issue. Problem is, I was given a document which was presented in a way that made it very difficult to read - so guess what - I don't know if it should be an Irish issue, or it might be an EU issue. If I have difficulty in believing our politicians, I have even more difficulty believing someone on an MB.

I'd like a Lisbon Treaty document (like the Constitution document that the French & Dutch were able to understand) that I can figure out for myself

Why would Sarkozy give two flakes of crusty crap what services dublin bus do/don't provide?

thehighground

marco_polo wrote: »

Broadly speaking the EU is unconcerned with the minute details of the provisions of Irish public services such as Dublin Bus routes.

But the EU is very interested in promoting Competition?

And you ignored the part about providing a composite document. Would you be criticial of the EU for this and why do you think they did it the way they did?

thehighground

sink wrote: »

Why would Sarkozy give two flakes of crusty crap what services dublin bus do/don't provide?

Its about allowing competition. Can the Lisbon Treaty reign in Charlie McCreevy?

marco_polo

thehighground wrote: »

Fair play Scofflaw for eventually digging that out. Is this part of your job to dig out stuff like this?

PS - Its not about privatistion - it is about allowing competition (is there anything to prevent a company from cherry picking bus routes).

No but that would be a matter for the Irish Government to ensure that this does not happen

thehighground wrote: »

But the EU is very interested in promoting Competition?

That is true, but many key public service areas such as Education and Health are completely insulated from competition law. The Lisbon treaty changes nothing in this regard, if anything it copperfastens the governments right to soley determine the best way provide these services.

And you ignored the part about providing a composite document. Would you be criticial of the EU for this and why do you think they did it the way they did?

Ideally perhaps they should have provided a composite document like some of the ones that are available from other sources.

Perhaps they didn't anticipate that Irish people would suddenly get so concerned about international treaties being complicated legal documents despite the fact that we have having signed dozens of them previously including EU treaties, Human Rights, climate change etc etc.

thehighground

marco_polo wrote: »

No but that would be a matter for the Irish Government to ensure that this does not happen

That is true, but many key public service areas such as Education and Health are completely insulated from competition law. The Lisbon treaty changes nothing in this regard, if anything it copperfastens the governments right to soley determine the best way provide these services.

Ideally perhaps they should have provided a composite document like some of the ones that are available from other sources.

Perhaps they didn't anticipate that Irish people would suddenly get so concerned about international treaties being complicated legal documents despite the fact that we have having signed dozens of them previously including EU treaties, Human Rights, climate change etc etc.

Marco, are you & Scofflaw one and the same?

marco_polo

thehighground wrote: »

Marco, are you & Scofflaw one and the same?

No that is not true at all.

cordially,
marco_polo

djpbarry

thehighground wrote: »

They (Gov) do, but if Dublin Bus are losing money due to competition, the Gov. will have to INCREASE its subsidy to Dublin Bus so that there will be a bus that one can pay for, let alone so that the OAP's can get their free travel.

But if Dublin Bus were losing out to the competition, then that suggests that people feel the competition is providing a better/cheaper service, so they're probably saving time/money by opting for the alternative; it all balances out.

thehighground wrote: »

The same thing could happen if there was competition on lucrative bus routes...

There already is (and has been for some time) and guess what? Dublin Bus is doing just fine.

thehighground wrote: »

Could be a purely Irish issue, it could be an EU issue.

There's no "could" about it; it's an Irish/Dublin issue plain and simple. You think Noel Dempsey has any say in how the tube operates in London?

thehighground wrote: »

Its not about privatistion - it is about allowing competition (is there anything to prevent a company from cherry picking bus routes).

thehighground wrote: »

Its about allowing competition. Can the Lisbon Treaty reign in Charlie McCreevy?

Congratulations; you've produced the greatest red herring I've come across to date with regard to the Lisbon Treaty. This is for you.

nesf

thehighground wrote: »

I'm not worried about anything. I live in Dublin, I have a car, I have access to a bus service, a taxi service and I have a bike.

But there are some Irish people who don't. Tough luck, eh?

It's a simple fact of life that if you live in a sparsely populated area that you can't expect to have access to the same services as those living in more densely populated areas. Some services, like bus routes, only make sense when there's enough people around to use the service. As more people bought cars, the need for buses died in many areas in the country. If an realistic alternative to oil for private transport doesn't come around in the next decade we could see a reversal of this trend as more and more people can't afford to pay for fuel etc. Arguably the cost of oil is providing a very strong argument for moving people from rural into "urban" settings, i.e. instead of loads of one off houses have them live in a village in the area which you can use to centralise services for these people etc, but that's a very controversial proposal.

dresden8

marco_polo wrote: »

Perhaps they didn't anticipate that Irish people would suddenly get so concerned about international treaties being complicated legal documents despite the fact that we have having signed dozens of them previously including EU treaties, Human Rights, climate change etc etc.

Hang on, you can't hold that position and then say no voters vote shouldn't count because they have not educated themselves and it's their own fault they can't understand a treaty which is a very long list of amendments to a very long list of treaties.

K-9

dresden8 wrote: »

Hang on, you can't hold that position and then say no voters vote shouldn't count because they have not educated themselves and it's their own fault they can't understand a treaty which is a very long list of amendments to a very long list of treaties.

The vast majority of people did not or don't want to read the whole damn thing!

I've heard arguments ranging from not having enough information, the Referendum Commission booklet being too confusing and contradictory to there being too much information because a 1 sheet document would do.

Doesn't help when some of the No posters are misleading eg. the Commissioner one!

marco_polo

dresden8 wrote: »

Hang on, you can't hold that position and then say no voters vote shouldn't count because they have not educated themselves and it's their own fault they can't understand a treaty which is a very long list of amendments to a very long list of treaties.

Thats is not what I meant by that at all.

I was just musing as to why people were so surprised that the treaty would be complex. Granted it requires more effort to follow as an amending treaty because of its difficult structure, but is it any more or less complex, say from the point of view of the language of the articles, than any of the previous treaties?

Besides you'd have to be insane to read the whole thing.