Vote on Nice Treaty Referendum

Elmo

I would draw the line at Milatary Agreements.

I do not beleive we would be better served under a fedral super power, and yes prehaps i am getting hung up about being part of a super power.


The European Union is fine as it is and should slowly allow other countries to join it without forcing to join things the don't wish to join.

Did Grease vote againist Nice As well????????

sceptre

Originally posted by Elmo
Did Grease vote againist Nice As well????????

No. They did take their time ratifying the Treaty but the Greek parliament ratified it on March 20.

http://www.bhma.net/archive/2002/0322/09.asp

Ireland is the only EU country that has had or will have a plebiscite on the matter. In all other countries the Treety was ratified simply by parliament.

Cork

Trade, Economic and Peace Agreements they are the agreements we should sign up to. Milatary Alliences are Agreements between Super Powers not small countries like Ireland(We would never have any power of the alliance).

I agree 100% with the above. I am sure that we will have FF, FG, Labour, Trade Unions, Farmers Unions, Journalists, Pat Cox etc preaching otherwise.

The EU needs drastic reform. Voting Yes to Nice will reduce our influence. We won't have as many MEPs and we will loose our veto in several areas.

It would be like tuckeys voting for Christmas.

bonkey

Originally posted by Elmo
Trade, Economic and Peace Agreements they are the agreements we should sign up to. Milatary Alliences are Agreements between Super Powers not small countries like Ireland(We would never have any power of the alliance).

But surely a Peace Agreement (or non-aggression pact or anything you like of that nature) is simply a specific form of military agreement?

I dont think there is any simple clear-cut point where we can say "the line is drawn here" and stick by it. If, god forbid, Ireland was attacked by a foreign nation, it would be nice to know that we had the EU to back us up.

Of course, its easier for us to discount this being on the edge of an ocean with our allies all to the east than (say) some of the more Eastern and Southern nations who are within striking distance of many non-EU nations.

On the other hand, I wouldnt like Ireland to have military "requirements" imposed on us by the EU such as the size or nature of army we would have to have, and so on.

Like I said - for me its not a cut n dry issue.

jc

Elmo

What if France and Germany were to go to war what side would we be on? (I know It wont happen)

But if any of the countries were to be come involved in any kind of war due to their own making would we be on their side?

Bismark did it with europe before the first world war, but he choped and changed all the time so as not to go to war. Is that what we are to do? This is the 21st century after all.

Trade and a better life style has made us happy with Europe and how it is run we should allow other countries become part of this Economic non-nationalist Europe so they can have the same kind of life style, But we must also except their National rights as a free country.

Lets face it if the Unionist in the north had treated the Nationalist with respect and human dignatiy there would never had be any troubles.

swiss

Originally posted by Elmo:

Military sure get rid of the Irish Army and replace with the EUA.

I mean we could save money their couldnt we as the Irish Army do nothing and while were at it make Officers Redundant, as the europeans have plenty of men to protect the EU.

Then get rid of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Keep them all in Brusells.

Sure the closer we are together the more money we save and that is what it is all about at the end of the day money.

Melodrama aside, there is no forseeable possibility of this taking place. Neither the PfP or the RRF impinge on any way either on the Irish army, the sovereign defence of our nation, or on our military neutrality.

This website gives details on both their PfP and RRF, their scope and function, and Irelands committment (or lack thereof) to both.

[edit]
*slaps myself on forehead* corrects a stoopid typo
[/edit]

sceptre

Originally posted by Elmo
What if France and Germany were to go to war what side would we be on? (I know It wont happen)

But if any of the countries were to be come involved in any kind of war due to their own making would we be on their side?

Could happen with Greece and Turkey yet. Though Turkey don't look like being admitted for a while.

Or if the Greek Cypriots get bored with having control over only half the island (though I've a lot of sympathy for the Turkish Cypriots - if I were Turkey I would have invaded then as well).

OT of course.

BEAT

after reading up on this and taking into account how the real world works, my vote would be 'NO'
If you only knew what would happen if that vote came to yes in the end, if you only knew
it's not all what you tihnk at all, many things are disguised to look appealing to get that yes vote, the truth of the matter is your way of life would take a turn for the worse if that vote resulted in 'yes' , I can say no more, for I have said too much already

bonkey

Originally posted by BEAT
I can say no more, for I have said too much already

Ahh yes - good old contentless scaremongering.

If youre not going to come out and tell us what youre interpretation of what will happen is, then theres not much point in telling us that its bad, because its hardly a credible stance.

I mean - youre basically saying the opposite of the government.

Them : Trust us, this is a good thing.
You : Trust me, this is a bad thing.

Personally, I wouldnt trust anyone who offers such a contentless stance.

jc

Shazbat

<quote>Personally, I wouldnt trust anyone who offers such a contentless stance. </quote>

Did you mean beat or the government?

Victor

Personally, I'm not 100% against some military involvement, however I feel it would eventually lead to American -style military adventurism.

Originally posted by Shazbat
<quote>Personally, I wouldnt trust anyone who offers such a contentless stance. </quote>

Did you mean beat or the government?

Quite true.

Country		 Commitment	%	Population	%	Commitment per 100,000 population
Germany	 	 13,500 		 20%	 83,029,536	22%	 16.26 
United Kingdom	 12,500 		 18%	 59,647,790	16%	 20.96 
France		 12,000 		 17%	 59,551,227	16%	 20.15 
Italy		  6,000 		 9%	 57,679,825	15%	 10.40 
Spain	 	  6,000 		 9%	 40,037,995	11%	 14.99 
Netherlands	  5,000 		 7%	 15,981,472	4%	 31.29 
Greece		  3,500 		 5%	 10,623,835	3%	 32.94 
Belgium		  3,000 		 4%	 10,258,762	3%	 29.24 
Austria		  2,000 		 3%	  8,150,835	2%	 24.54 
Finland		  2,000 		 3%	  5,175,783	1%	 38.64 
Sweden		  1,500 		 2%	  8,875,053	2%	 16.90 
Portugal		  1,000 		 1%	 10,066,253	3%	  9.93 
Ireland		    850 		 1%	  3,840,838	1%	 22.13 
Luxembourg	    100 		 0%	    442,972	0%	 22.57 
Denmark	 	      -   	 -	  5,352,815	1%	    -   
Total		 68,950 		 100%	378,714,991 	100%	 18.21

I know countries have commitments elsewhere and different poeple bring differen skills to the party, but some of the above aren't pulling their weight.

dathi1

better to vote no now and avoid a European super state with all the power at the top and separatist paramilitary groups setting off Bombs in Brussels in 2020

dathi1

sh!!!!!T did ye see the Business post today......Ireland along with Sweden, Holland and Denmark agreed (Cowen) to open its borders to immigrants from new member states when enlargement starts??? Other member states ...biggies like France Germany etc.. have excluded themselves from this.
IBEC's delighted with the whole idea....a cheap pool of workers to keep wages frozen and knock off overtime costs. If I were an Intel / HP employee, Taxi driver, Plumber...i would be worried.

Cork

I think that employers want cheap labour. Every cent they can save will increase their profits. I think that it is so badly tought through. We are trying to import workers to work in poor jobs with low pay & very long hours.

swiss

Originally posted by Cork:

I think that employers want cheap labour. Every cent they can save will increase their profits. I think that it is so badly tought through.

Employers caught in "trying to make a profit" scandal.

Government leaders and concerned citizens are stunned by revelations that many reputable businesses have reported greater revenue than expenditure. This accounting discrepancy, called "profit" is feared to be endemic to the business community.

As esteemed Professor of Codology, Dr Mike Rotch explained, this can happen when businesses shell out less money in order to pay for their fixed and variable costs.

Dr Rotch continued, "businesses seek to lower these costs to increase the margin by which their revenue outstrips what it costs them to generate this revenue". "Labour is a major variable cost to many businesses, and this is why many of these morally defunct - so called 'profitable' businesses seek to lower their labour costs".

Outraged commentators called for the immediate closure of these profitable businesses, citing them as a blight on the fair green pastures of Ireland, with comely maidens dancing at the crossroads.

"I blame Europe" cried one deranged protestor. "If we didn't have Europe, we wouldn't have all this money". "Exterminate Europe, Exterminatee..." cried the shrill protestor before morphing into a Dalek and proceeding to paralyse bystanders with the newly formed gun-arm.

I'm afraid I couldn't quite resist that.

Sarcasm aside, I wonder what difficulties people have with the idea of foreign workers coming over here. These workers are coming over here, not to have an easy ride, but to try to make something of their lives. There are labour and minimum wage laws that guarantee a minimum standard in the world of work for any worker. If this is not enough, then it is up to people to lobby the government to change the labour laws. It would be disingenuous to blame the foreign workers who only want to earn enough to have a reasonable standard of living, which they have often been denied in their own countries.

[The following paragraph is a little OT, but i'll keep it short]
Say foreign workers do come here and take positions of employment which would ordinarily be destined for Irish citizens. Do we blame them for taking our Jobs? If they were ours, should we not be working in them? Perhaps it is because they are that little bit more desperate and hence willing to accept a standard of pay that would be unacceptable to Irish people. As I said, this is OT, and if you want, here is a more suitable thread. Suffice to say, the problems with foreigners taking employment in Ireland are IMO to do with the endemic problems within the labor market and the bureaucracy that regulates their employment - not with the foreign workers themselves.

Originally posted by dathi1:

better to vote no now and avoid a European super state with all the power at the top and separatist paramilitary groups setting off Bombs in Brussels in 2020

What? This is the same substanceless argument that Beat proposed. Firstly, please explain yourself when you say that all the power is going to be at the top. Do you mean "power" as in military dominance, economic dominance, or another form of power? I'm not a fan of separatist groups setting off bombs anywhere, but I would not like to allow my actions to be dictated by potential terrorists acts, because I don't like to think that nations can be bullied into changing their national or international agenda by thugs. I don't know about anyone else, but if such terrorist paramilitary groups did try to co-erce people/Europe to change it's polices, I would be even more supportive of closer cohesion between member states, if only to show solidarity against such attacks.

Cork

There are labour and minimum wage laws that guarantee a minimum standard in the world of work for any workerthat guarantee a minimum standard in the world of work for any worker

Do Trainees get the mimimum wage? Expliotation exists. It is more widespead than you'd expect.

Unemployment is rising. I have many friends who were in mega jobs and now are unemployed or working part time.

Is this country surposed to foot a social welfare bill for these new arrivals?

Victor

Originally posted by Cork
Is this country surposed to foot a social welfare bill for these new arrivals?

Generally, no.

Cork

Generally, no

If they are admitted into the EU and if most EU countries will not take them expect Ireland and a number of others.

As EU citizens - they will be entitled to social welfare.

We are getting away from this treaty that will take away our veto in certain areas & take away our right to a comissioner.

We will loose influence if we don't vote NO

Victor

Originally posted by Cork
As EU citizens - they will be entitled to social welfare.

Yes and no, they will be entitled to some things immediately, but others will take quite some time (12 months+) to kick in. Of course, EU citizens are still required to hold a green card and need to be able to prove they can support themselves. See http://portal.welfare.ie/foi/euregs.xml

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by dathi1
sh!!!!!T did ye see the Business post today......Ireland along with Sweden, Holland and Denmark agreed (Cowen) to open its borders to immigrants from new member states when enlargement starts??? Other member states ...biggies like France Germany etc.. have excluded themselves from this.

This is staggering, it really is! Now I'm certain......... mine is a NO.

Elmo

I wish to state that I am voting no in fear of a Super State.

I am not voting no, to prevent other eastern European countries entering the EU.

France Germany and the other big states that will not allow immigrates from coutries applying to be in the EU are Hipocritacal if the wish in the future to allow them enter the EU. And showes were the power would lie in europe if major alliances where to be taken up. This must mean that Nice isnt just about enlargement which we are lead to fell guilt ridden about. The Bigger Counties do not care by the looks of things.

MDR

will vote yes again, the no camp have a valid opinion, not one I share, it harks back to DeValera style politics of protectionism and exclusion of Ireland, they try and scaremonger people into following them with such slogans as 'you will loose money, power and freedom' eh ? come again how do you figure that ?

I hope Brian Cowen and chums will work hard this time to combat their makey upey arguments, and identify the real root of their argument, 'we don't want Ireland to be in the EU 'cos we think Ireland would be much better off by itself'.

Nuts to that I say, we had enough years of starvation and economic poverty by ourselves. The new treaty poses us no treat, it opens up new markets to our economy and gives the same hope that we recieved to new member nations.

dathi1

will vote yes again, the no camp have a valid opinion, not one I share, it harks back to DeValera style politics of protectionism and exclusion of Ireland, they try and scaremonger people into following them with such slogans as 'you will loose money, power and freedom' eh ? come again how do you figure that ?

I'll be voting No for a more democratic Europe. Don't want an Orwellian Style Euro Commission that meets and decides policy in secret as is the case now and in the future. Putting more power in the hands of the biggies is a no no.

dathi1

also check out the business post revelations on Cowens letter to kit. HERE

GreenHell

I'll be voting yes again. I agree with EU enlargement and EU states moving closer together.

dathi1

EU states moving closer together

looks like France and Germany will be even closer than than the rest of us.

swiss

Originally posted by daithi1:

I'll be voting No for a more democratic Europe.

Strangely, I'll be voting Yes for a more democratic Europe as well.

From http://www.europeanmovement.ie

The voting power of existing EU member states, including Ireland, is slightly less under the Treaty of Nice. In the current system Ireland hold 3 of the 87 votes. This represents 3.4% of the total vote among the 15 members. In the proposed new system, Ireland would hold 7 votes out of 345 in a 27 country EU. This represents 2.03% of the total vote. This is considerably larger than Ireland's 0.8% of the total enlarged EU population.

Under this proposed arrangement, Ireland will lose some of it's influence, as the Union as a whole moves towards a more democratic voting model. It's not perfect, I'll admit, but this treaty is a step in the right direction.

Originally posted by Cork:

We will loose influence if we don't vote NO

*gasp* You mean to say that when the EU enlarges we will not have as much as the power we had before? That the applicant countries have a right to a level or representation as well? Well damn the democratic ways that bring this about!

MDR is correct. A No vote is one for protectionism and exclusion, whether this is the intention of the vote or not. While I dispute this ethos, I can at least understand it. This is why I cannot stand the double standard of some No campaigners that say that they are concerned about Ireland losing influence and complain about the lack of democracy.

Ireland will lose some of it's voice at European level, but IMO this is not only to be expected regardless of expansion or not (remember we are still over represented in per capita terms at European level) but is to be desired if people are serious about democratic reformation of the EU.

bonkey

Originally posted by swiss
(remember we are still over represented in per capita terms at European level)

And isnt this part of the problem?

People seem unable to accept losing something that, to be honest, we had no right to in the first place.

I remember the complaining when the disproportionate funding we were getting was being cut back, as though we had a right to that money.

I remember the even worse complaining when it looked like Ireland might have to pay money to fund the under-developed countries, as if we were entitled to aid from those better off, but should not have to be the ones paying for some of the aid for others now that we've done pretty well.

And now what do we have - "boo hoo, will lose some of our voice". Yes, better that some other nations be under-represented than let that happen. God forbid that we actually would want a fair system.

As to the whole undemocratic thing - I fail to see the lack of democracy when our elected officials play safe and ask the nation to vote on an issue which may or may not have required it, concerning our membership of a body which is ruled via elected officials.

Of course, if you think that putting the same issue forward for a referendum twice is undemocratic, then I suggest that you explain exactly what rules the government has broken. Given that the previous vote had a large amount of people voting no to "spite the government" rather than as an opinion on the question asked , I dont see why the government should treat the democratic process in any higher respect than the people.

As has been argued in favour of the spite-voters, so can we say about the government : they have every right to use the democratic process in this way . If they didnt, they'd be breaking some law, now, wouldnt they.

I'm not saying that anyone should vote yes or no. I'm just amazed at some of the reasoning.....

jc

Shazbat

Originally posted by bonkey

I'm not saying that anyone should vote yes or no. I'm just amazed at some of the reasoning.....

jc

I'm amazed too I don't think that anyone could possibly grasp or forsee all of the consequences of ratifying the Nice Treaty and if they say they do they are lying. The No camp and the yes camp both have valid points and as far as I can see neither of them are actually saying anything untrue, their arguments appear to me as highly optimistic on the Yes side and quite probable on the No side. Both arguments are based on interpretations and not on black and white facts, and I believe that the "No camp" have the more credible argument and that is why I'm voting no again.

I'm not against enlargement and voting no in the referendum will not prevent enlargement.
I do think that voting yes and giving more power to europe will endanger our neutrality, maybe not in the next ten years but I feel the danger will be there. How can it not be? The saville statements are not worth the paper they are written on if Ireland does not have sufficient power in the future to oppose neutrality threats. The government always says that they will put a referendum to the people regarding any neutrality issues, but was this the case when American planes were refuelling here? And what about the agreement with NATO? They promised a referendum before signing up for that but they just went back on their word as per usual. I'm not prepared to believe any assurances whatsoever from the government on any issues regarding nice or neutrality, because it will either be lies of suicidally optimistic.

Shazbat

I meant to say 'lies or suicidally optimistic' (not of)