EU Constitution AGREED!!

monument

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Patricia McKenna of the (europhobic) Greens called the Nice Treaty "the death of democracy" when she heard it had been negotiated and called for a "No" vote in December 2000. She could hardly have known of its contents at that stage.

And, did the Nice Treaty erode even more of the democratic nature of the EU?

arcadegame2004

Originally quoted by Monument
And, did the Nice Treaty erode even more of the democratic nature of the EU?

No it did the opposite. It extended the veto and amendment power of the European Parliament (which is elected in case you've forgotten June 11th so quickly) to 80% of those policy areas in which the EU has the power to legislate, thererby improving democratic control of EU decisions.

gaelic cowboy

Arcadegame2004 You did not give me a reason as too why the democratic result from Nice was wrong the people spoke we said NO that should be the end of it . Do you really want to live in a euro superstate if you do fine but I dont. I believe a federal europe is what is the main engine of any reform we have seen lately. This has been to enable us to efficiently run the EU as a proper state as it plainly can't be run as one now. I never said leave the EU anywhere in my post I just do not wish to live in a federal Europe that is all. I notice you talk of the steel tariff and how we need a big bloc to make a difference interesting what about when Ireland come's out on the wrong side of a majority vote one day how much influence will we have then??????
I never have or will vote green I do not know who Anthony Coughlan SF I take it well I never have or will vote SF either. I am far to wide to there guff I see it for what it is vote getting publicity and just plain scaremongering.
Tax will be and is been attacked every day If we do not watch out it will be eroded away from us. Quote any passage from the constition you like it is an issue at the heart of many EU countries we must resist this.
All I ever hear from various Euro federalisers is guff about "Ballancing US" BLAH BLAH BLAH. This is complete guff and should be treated as such there is no call for or need for such an entity.
Big test is Turkey at the minute for the federalisers they are witholding entrance from them because they fear Turkey and it's growing population of muslims. If many countries like say France want a federal Europe then obviously they must believe that strategically they with Germany can more or less be top dog in such an arrangement. As long as this continues People time and time again will vote for euro sceptic parties why they do is as varied as the people of Europe but there is on common theme alienation from the EU and it's politicians people feel there being dragged down a road they never wanted to travel.

arcadegame2004

As long as this continues People time and time again will vote for euro sceptic parties why they do is as varied as the people of Europe but there is on common theme alienation from the EU and it's politicians people feel there being dragged down a road they never wanted to travel.

Okay well first of all, if the Irish electorate did not want to be "dragged down a road they never wanted to travel" then they wouldn't have voted "Yes" to all of the EU treaties, now would they? And regarding your reference to the "common them" of "alienation" from the EU, how do you square this, in relation to Ireland, with the number of Eurosceptic MEP's representing the 26 counties falling from 3 (all of whom lost their seats good riddance) to 1 (Mary-Lou McDonald of SF)? The Irish electorate voting in favour of European integration does not constitute being "dragged down a road" as far as I am concerned.

In relation to the "No" vote in the first Nice Treaty referendum, I seriously question how representative it was when you consider that the 17% increase in turnout in the second Nice referendum coincided with a 17% increase in the "Yes" vote. Now I know that some people did change their minds and vote "Yes" but the main reason for the "Yes" vote the second time seems to have been this, together with the changes in the referendum question. You seem to be repeating the Eurosceptic mantra that this was the same referendum being held twice just to get "the right answer". I strongly disagree with that.

Remember, the second time around there was the Seville Declarations which most international legal experts believe gives legal force to the protection of Irish neutrality whatever way the EU's common foreign and security policy develops. Also, the second referendum amended the Constitution to include a specific ban on Irish involvement in a common defence policy without the holding of a new referendum on that very issue beforehand. So the second referendum was a very different beast to the first one.

Tax will be and is been attacked every day If we do not watch out it will be eroded away from us. Quote any passage from the constition you like it is an issue at the heart of many EU countries we must resist this.

The veto on taxation remains in the EU Constitution. You are just scaremongering by making assertions without any evidence to back them up. When the EU criticised our economic-policies in 2001, just a few months before the first Nice referendum, they were able to do no more than criticise. They were not able to stop Charlie McCreevy from continuing to cut taxes drastically and increase spending. It has been a good while since Chirac and Schroeder have groaned about our low corporation-taxes and I really think you are being paranoid on this question.

I never said leave the EU anywhere in my post I just do not wish to live in a federal Europe that is all. I notice you talk of the steel tariff and how we need a big bloc to make a difference interesting what about when Ireland come's out on the wrong side of a majority vote one day how much influence will we have then??????

In a federation, power is conferred on the states from the centra authority. In a confederation, power is conferred on the central-authority by the member states, and therefore the EU is confederal, rather than federal. The Constitution makes this clear, e.g.:

"Article I-1(page 9) ......this Constitution establishes the European Union, on which the Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common..."

And Anthony Coughlan is a TCD lecturer and not a member of SF btw. Though he reminds me of you in his talent for scaremongering over the EU. If he had been right, our economy would have collapsed after every EU treaty we signed up to in the past 30 years had been ratified.

Regarding your point about how we lose some votes my response is that in net-terms we have benefited enormously economically from EU membership and as such, a few lost votes is worth it as long as we retain the veto in the really important areas like taxation, defence, education etc. You should also realise that most decisions taken at EU Council of Ministers level - in spite of theoretically being decided by a weighted majority of the states plus the %s, are in reality drawn up by consensus most of the time.

therecklessone

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
It has been a good while since Chirac and Schroeder have groaned about our low corporation-taxes and I really think you are being paranoid on this question.

Somebody tell Charlie McReevy he's barking up the wrong tree, arcadegame2004 says the coast is clear...

http://www.fiannafail.ie/new/site/policy_page.php4?topic=173&id=3288

Note the date.

arcadegame2004

Okay thereckless one. But remember that harmonised taxes can only happen if all 25 countries agree to it. The veto remains in that area. Do you SERIOUSLY believe that ALL 25 EU member-states (especially Britain) would agree to something like that!??!!

May I add that I have not taken a position on the Constitution yet. I have simply pointed out from what I have read so far that it seems a good deal for small countries, and that I strongly object to opposing a treaty based on slogans and fear of the unknown. I have also pointed out that we should realise that small countries like Ireland need large trading-blocs like the EU to wield influence over international-factors that have major effects on the Irish economy, as well as the fact that only by acting in unison with other countries can we adequately address common problems like global-warming, international organised-crime etc.

I strongly feel that whatever way we vote, we should be motivated by the contents of the Constitution itself and not by the latest quote from Chirac or Schroeder etc. Quotes are not laws remember!

gaelic cowboy

quote:

---

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Okay well first of all, if the Irish electorate did not want to be "dragged down a road they never wanted to travel" then they wouldn't have voted "Yes" to all of the EU treaties, now would they? And regarding your reference to the "common them" of "alienation" from the EU, how do you square this, in relation to Ireland, with the number of Eurosceptic MEP's representing the 26 counties falling from 3 (all of whom lost their seats good riddance) to 1 (Mary-Lou McDonald of SF)? The Irish electorate voting in favour of European integration does not constitute being "dragged down a road" as far as I am concerned.

---

Simple People in ireland voted on local Issues eg Marian Harkin, Kathy Sinnott nice people but I honestly cant remember the last time I saw a politiician campaiging on Euro issues as opposed to homegrown for the MEP election but a quick scan of the results europe wide tells a differant story. And if we vote in favour some time in the future that is okay but we haven't so why is it on the future agenda. We only have to listen to what comes out of Brussels to know it is a slow and gradual process.


quote:

---

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
The veto on taxation remains in the EU Constitution. You are just scaremongering by making assertions without any evidence to back them up. When the EU criticised our economic-policies in 2001, just a few months before the first Nice referendum, they were able to do no more than criticise. They were not able to stop Charlie McCreevy from continuing to cut taxes drastically and increase spending. It has been a good while since Chirac and Schroeder have groaned about our low corporation-taxes and I really think you are being paranoid on this question.

---

The negotiations for the last treaty Nice fell through several time as the french several times tried to include stuff on Tax. It is an issue it is not scaremongering there economies are losing business and job's to acession and non EU countries they want to level the field. If i believe there is even an outside chance that any agreement even opens the door a crack I will vote against it.


People in Ireland voted for many treaties cos they thought they would get loads of cash not cos they knew anything about the EU.

arcadegame2004

Gaelic cowboy the EU's primary economic importance to Ireland is in the form of exports (60% of which go to the EU). Exports constitute 70% of our GDP, and consumer spending the remaining 33%. That will continue to far outweigh any net-contributions we make from 2007 when we cease to be a net-receiver.

A scan of the results Europewide certainly shows a strong anti-government trend, but this is not always the same as an anti-EU trend, e.g. the pro-EU Greens in Germany went from 7% last time to 11% this time, and the pro-EU French Socialists pushed ahead of the ruling UMP in France, the pro-EU Italian Socialists beat Berlusconi's Forza Italia, etc. Yes, in Poland and the UK the Eurosceptics made big gains, as well as the "usual suspects" i.e. Denmark and Sweden, which are traditionally Eurosceptic. But in the main what we saw on June 11th was a continent-wide swing against national-governments, some of which involved larged swings to Eurosceptic parties. So your claim that there was a continent-wide swing against the EU is one i reject.

gaelic cowboy

Do you believe there will be a federal EU or not do you believe it is good or not my belief is no it is not good.

thejollyrodger

I hope this EU constiution puts an end to the EU federal state that has often been banded about. A lot of countries have to put this through a referarendum before it becomes law. However fair play to Bertie on getting a deal, I think most E.U leaders were impressed. I hope he doesnt take the commisionsers job because its not very well suited to him

woody

Does anyone notice that the word "God" and "Almighty" has been ommitted from the Constitution.

Now the Majority of Europeans are Chrisitians in some form or manner.

Why I ask myself and it becomes clear.

The EU is now the New Rome and the UK are the only ones objecting to being there anymore.

We have the likes of the French and German's going to be the major players mmm sounds like a Franco-German Foruth Reich to me.

The Advent of Far Right parties in europe is so great that it could be similar to the scale of the rise of fascsim in europe in the 1930's.


Each induviudal state will loose it's national identiity in this new super state.

And from the Torah and the Bible the signs are clear about the Anti-Christ rising out of the New "Bloc" and that seems like europe to me.

I am no relgious freak but the EU Money aside should be dismantled as it has it's dark side and I and many others see it.

A Trans Altlantic Trading Alliance Yes would be good but an Alliance controlling governments and there people is not on.

An we thought the Communist Bloc was bad, well it will be like kindergarten compared to the "New EU".

jackofalltrades

Does anyone notice that the word "God" and "Almighty" has been ommitted from the Constitution.

IMO a good thing.
Religion and politics shouldn't mix.

sceptre

Originally posted by woody
And from the Torah and the Bible the signs are clear about the Anti-Christ rising out of the New "Bloc" and that seems like europe to me.

I am no relgious freak

Apart from the rest of your entirely unsubstantiated post, you can't play the "I'm not religious" card and the "it was foretold by a religion" card in the same post.

You are aware that the relevant Revelations passages have been interpreted in the past as Nazi Germany, France, the Holy Roman Empire, invasion of the Visigoths, Soviet Russia, the Roman Catholic church and given time probably the US and Iraq as well (I've certainly heard a few nutters making reference to the latter)?

It's just as likely to be Fianna Fail, the ICP, the DUP or Jim Henson's muppets.

As for the idea of the EU being worse than the USSR and Soviet satellite states, I'm afraid my wackymeter broke when I read that.

earwicker

Sceptre, I utterly reject your mention of the muppets in the same breath as FF, the DUP.

You can't easily put brown envelopes in your pocket or bang a lambeg with a puppet on your hand.

monument

Originally posted by woody
An we thought the Communist Bloc was bad, well it will be like kindergarten compared to the "New EU".

LOL

arcadegame2004

In answer to your question Gaelic Cowboy, no, I do not believe the EU will ever end up like the US, i.e. a strictly federal structure. All 25 EU countries (and eventually the 2 new members joining in 2007) would all have to agree to set up such a structure, including a central exchequer, common taxes, subordination of national armies to a European army and an EU executive, and a European federal p[olice-force etc. This is far beyond anything in the Constitution so not I don't believe that will happen. Neither do I believe a federation would be a good thing.

arcadegame2004

On balance, I believe that this EU Constitution will never come into force. I just cannot visualise such a Europhobic electorate as the UK possibly passing it, or indeed passing anything with the word "Euro" in it. There exists a strain of xenophobic nationalism in the UK (particularly England) that is embodied by the riotous and violent behaviour of some before and after almost every England football match, and this should give us an idea of how strong such xenophobia is in the UK. But at least, if it does fall, it's likely that they will get the blame, rather than us, and that's better for us.:p

gaelic cowboy

If England even get close to winning the EURO championship in Portugal then there is even less of a snowballs chance in hell of passing it than there was with all this UKIP lark. It will not pass in blighty so the EU will either have to start again on a new one or forget it.

sceptre

Originally posted by earwicker
Sceptre, I utterly reject your mention of the muppets in the same breath as FF, the DUP.

You can't easily put brown envelopes in your pocket or bang a lambeg with a puppet on your hand.

I'll bow to your superior knowledge of muppetdom and lambegs:). I was going to run with the ICA but slotted the ICP in there instead.

... though I'll point out that most of the movement on the show is done with wires. Never missed it when I was a nipper and there's quite a good "making of" special. Same with the Fraggles.

Orion

Originally posted by arcadegame2004

In relation to the "No" vote in the first Nice Treaty referendum, I seriously question how representative it was when you consider that the 17% increase in turnout in the second Nice referendum coincided with a 17% increase in the "Yes" vote. Now I know that some people did change their minds and vote "Yes" but the main reason for the "Yes" vote the second time seems to have been this, together with the changes in the referendum question. You seem to be repeating the Eurosceptic mantra that this was the same referendum being held twice just to get "the right answer". I strongly disagree with that.

I disagree with you. It sets a dangerous precedent. On the day of the count the immediate reaction from our govt. was that the referendum would be reheld. They did not get into why it failed (protest vote againt FF/PD, euroscepticism, genuine opposition to it etc) but just wanted a re-run. That is wrong. the majority of the people who cared enough about it to vote the first time voted no and that result should have stood. Bertie et al should then have held a forum to find out the objections and re-negotiated them.

arcadegame2004

Macros42, so do you think then that it was undemocratic holding a second referendum on divorce? Had a second one not been held divorce would still be illegal. Do you want that?

Orion

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Macros42, so do you think then that it was undemocratic holding a second referendum on divorce? Had a second one not been held divorce would still be illegal. Do you want that?

There were huge differences in the referenda on divorce. We rejected one and then a completely different proposal was made many years later.

But we were forced to vote on the exact same treaty twice! Like I said in my post the govt should have asked us - the people who voted against it - WHY? Then they could have sought a protocol attached to the treaty (easy enough to do - England did!) or re-negotiated certain aspects with the other member states.(admittedly unlikely to happen). Then when it was put to a new vote it would have been a different treaty to vote on.

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Macros42, so do you think then that it was undemocratic holding a second referendum on divorce? Had a second one not been held divorce would still be
illegal. Do you want that?

A seperate referendum, suggesting a different modification of the law but with a similar (though not identical) outcome was held.

If you want to imply that this is the same scenario as holding a second referendum for the same change, with the same wording etc. etc. etc. is the same thing, then go right agead.....just don't expect many people to take you seriously.

jc

Orion

Originally posted by bonkey
A seperate referendum, suggesting a different modification of the law but with a similar (though not identical) outcome was held.

If you want to imply that this is the same scenario as holding a second referendum for the same change, with the same wording etc. etc. etc. is the same thing, then go right agead.....just don't expect many people to take you seriously.

jc

I agree.

Similar outcome in that divorce became legal yes. But the means of getting a divorce, provisions for children, property etc were hugely different. The only similarity between the first and second referenda were that the related to divorce.

The only differences between the first and second referenda on Nice were ... hmmm can't think of any!

arcadegame2004

http://www.refcom.ie/refcom/refcomwebsite.nsf/(WebFiles)/0C6671577703C0D580256E970050DF91/$FILE/Bill26.pdf

This link shows the changes present in the second referendum on the Nice Treaty, namely:

"(c) The addition of a new subsection 8° to Article 29.4 of the Constitution preventing the State from adopting a decision of the European Council to enter into a common defence pursuant to Article 1.2 of the Treaty of Nice where that common defence would include the State".

This wasn't in the first referendum so there WAS a difference the second time around.

Also, there were the Seville Declarations, which were added to the Treaty. Many legal experts believe that these declarations have LEGAL effect, not merely declaratory, contrary to the No to Nice side's claims at the time.

AngelofFire

Just thinking about certain implications of a common taxation rate. Would countries like denmark and sweeden be able to maintain their excellent standards in Healthcare,Childcare and Dentalcare under an E.U. common tax rate.

Would Ireland have to increase its corporate tax to bring it in line with EU policy thus driving out some foreign investment.

arcadegame2004

Just thinking about certain implications of a common taxation rate. Would countries like denmark and sweeden be able to maintain their excellent standards in Healthcare,Childcare and Dentalcare under an E.U. common tax rate.

The veto on taxation is not given up under the Constitution

No need to worry about that then. Especially after enlargement increased EU membership to 25, making it virtually impossible to get common EU-wide taxes or harmonised taxes, since unanimity is (and will still) be required on matters of taxation.

Orion

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
"(c) The addition of a new subsection 8° to Article 29.4 of the Constitution preventing the State from adopting a decision of the European Council to enter into a common defence pursuant to Article 1.2 of the Treaty of Nice where that common defence would include the State".

This wasn't in the first referendum so there WAS a difference the second time around.

Yes it was.

Also, there were the Seville Declarations, which were added to the Treaty. Many legal experts believe that these declarations have LEGAL effect, not merely declaratory, contrary to the No to Nice side's claims at the time.

Many legal experts believe that OJ is innocent. That don't make it so.

arcadegame2004

It WASNT in the first referendum question.