Vote on Nice Treaty Referendum

Cork · 03-07-2002 12:28pm

Those in favour of the NICE treaty – while their intentions are genuine avoid looking at these consequences of passing this treaty.

We will loose our Veto in certain areas.
We will loose our automatic right to a commissioner.
A certain number of countries can go it alone without the others.

We will also be expected to fund projects in these applicant countries. This is when, we still do not have decent roads in our country after 30 years of EU membership.

We are now the2nd most expensive countries in the EU – Where is the common market. A basket of goods should be the same price in Charleville, France as Charleville, Cork.

The US has a trade agreement with Canada & Mexico. The US taxpayer is not expected to pay for infrastructure in either Canada or Mexico.

By voting No –we will still be EU members. We will still have access to various markets & as Prodi recently stated that other countries may join without the passing of this treaty.

The one thing that is currently impossible in the EU is freedom of movement of labour. We need a common EU language. Languages like German are not widely used and only act as a barrier against us going to work in Germany. English being the language that business is done in needs to be swiftly adopted as the community’s first language.

This will help encouraging the freedom of movement of labour & business transactions.

Another point, that some people think that the EU contributions contributed to our economic success or that we cannot cope without EU interference.

The Celtic tiger was brought about by US industry setting up here. (Microsoft, Dell & Intel etc.).

We live in a country that was a colony. Because of this, we often knock our achievements. All postcolonial countries have this problem of low self-esteem.

We have had bad experiences of empires. We don’t want to swap one for another. Democracy has done us well. We have had democracy when many European Countries have had Fascists, dictators, Communists & Marxists. We value our democracy.

We voted against this treaty once. Our vote was not respected in the EU.

I think that we’ll have to vote No again to show them one or two things about the value of democracy.

bonkey · 03-07-2002 2:11pm

Originally posted by Cork
We will loose our Veto in certain areas.

...
I think that we’ll have to vote No again to show them one or two things about the value of democracy.

But the Veto is a fundamentally undemocratic tool. Its express purpose is to enable the mninorities to prevent the wishes of the majority from being effected.

Also, we have already lost the veto in certain areas from previous changes to the EEC/EC/Euro. Why is it any different this time?

We will loose our automatic right to a commissioner.

[/b]
So what? You dont hear people complaining in Ireland if there isnt a Ministership given to a politician from their constituency. There is no absolute need for every nation to have a comissioner.

We will also be expected to fund projects in these applicant countries. This is when, we still do not have decent roads in our country after 30 years of EU membership.

The EU, as already mentioned, pumped incredibly massive amounts of money into Ireland in the last 30 years. What we did with this is not the EUs fault. Also, there is a lot more to a country than its roads.

And yet, once more, we have the "it was OK for people to hand us a ****eload of money, but now that we're being asked to do the same for those less well off, its a major problem". It was fine when we were taking, but now we're being asked to give, its a problem.

We are now the2nd most expensive countries in the EU – Where is the common market. A basket of goods should be the same price in Charleville, France as Charleville, Cork.

This coming from the person arguing against the creation of a European superstate? To have anything close to the same prices, you would need centralised taxation, foreign spending, employment, etc. etc. etc. In other words, you would need a USE. Nice times 100 should do it.

Our national fiscal policy is what determines much of this issue - not the EUs existence and/or our membership in it. What we have done with out wealth is what got us here. Blaming this on the EU, let alone Nice, is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

The US has a trade agreement with Canada & Mexico. The US taxpayer is not expected to pay for infrastructure in either Canada or Mexico.

Again - you conveniently forget the billions that other nations have already put into Ireland because of our membership. The EU is not "trade agreements". What you are talking about is not anti-Nice - its anti-EU.

Languages like German are not widely used

LOL! You seriously believe this?

Look at the INTERNAL languages - the ones used within the EU. You'll find that German out-strips English by a huge margin. If anything, German would be the logical language to make as the "Common tongue" in the EU. But no - because its not what we speak, you think it should be the others who change.

For this reason, English and German are the two official languages - one for its general use, and one because it
is the most widely used language in the EU.

I'm guessing you dont give a fig for the nations who dont actually natively speak either of these languages? Their nationalism doesnt matter a toss - only ours, right? We should have English because thats what we want. Anything else just doesnt make sense.

The Celtic tiger was brought about by US industry setting up here. (Microsoft, Dell & Intel etc.).

Really? What percentage of our economy is based on the US industries setting up here as a matter of interest? You must know this to make such a sweeping statement.

I'm really curious as to how companies who's only contribution to the nation was to decrease unemployment (remember - they all have tax-breaks etc.) made such a huge difference. Maybe you could explain this to me.

We voted against this treaty once. Our vote was not respected in the EU.

Really? So exactly what has the EU done which shows a lack of respect for this? Has it treated Ireland as though we had ratified it?

Dont you mean that the IRISH GOVERNMENT have not respected the wishes of the people - a point I have addressed in previous posts.

jc

Cork · 03-07-2002 3:09pm

English is the language of business worldwide.

There is no mobility of labour because of these regional languages.

The introduction of the common currancy has led to higher prices in Ireland.

The EU is not accountable?

Who is the comission accountable to?
How much will Ireland have to contribute to the EU if the applicant countries are admitted?

We have had bad experiences of empires. We don’t want to swap one for another. Democracy has done us well. We have had democracy when many European Countries have had Fascists, dictators, Communists & Marxists. We value our democracy.

The EU fisherys policy is plundering our seas.
The EU farm policy is deiving farmers from the land.

It needs to get its own house in order before looking to expand.

We had our one experiences with empires - and like the EU - we did not have much of a say in the British Empire either.

If you are interested Raymond Crotty wrote some very interesting books on this subject. We would not be voting on EU treatys only for him.

But we are not voting on the EU - we had that vote:

We are voting about the loss of Power , Influence & money.

The EU should stick what its good at:
Shape of banannas & try to ban red lemonade

Shazbat · 03-07-2002 4:26pm

Originally posted by bonkey

But the Veto is a fundamentally undemocratic tool. Its express purpose is to enable the mninorities to prevent the wishes of the majority from being effected.

Also, we have already lost the veto in certain areas from previous changes to the EEC/EC/Euro. Why is it any different this time?

jc

Undemocratic to who? So called europeans? Why shouldn't we have a veto over issues that affects the people of this country? You speak of minorites like they don't matter which in this context is quite ironic. Do you remember that it was a minority who voted yes in the last referendum and I quote:

"But the Veto is a fundamentally undemocratic tool. Its express purpose is to enable the mninorities to prevent the wishes of the majority from being effected."

By your own argument it seems that the government used a veto over the majority, blatantly disregarding the majority.

Hmmm.. you are anti veto yet if the government had not vetoed the last referendum result we wouldn't be in this position (ie voting again). Surely if you are opposed to vetoes you should be voting no to try and bring about the original un-vetoed result?

MEP's are now making noises over Irelands stance on abortion, if Nice is ratified maybe they will be able to just shove it down our throats whether we like it or not, as we will not have a veto.

(PS:I'm not saying that I am pro or anti abortion I'm just using it as an example as it is in the papers today)

bonkey · 03-07-2002 4:29pm

Originally posted by Cork
English is the language of business worldwide.

There is no mobility of labour because of these regional languages.

Now you're flat-out contradicting yourself here. If English is the language of business worldwide, then it stands to reason that English is the language of business in Europe.

And yet, you're complaining that English is not the language of business in Europe.

How can this be? If its worldwide, then its world-wide. I'm pretty sure that the Asian, African, and South American businesses do not all use English either. I'm sure that immigration to these places would be equally hindered by these "regional" languages.

This whole "international" thing is looking more and more like "international when at least one company involved speaks english".

The introduction of the common currancy has led to higher prices in Ireland.

This despite the national government making it illegal for companies to increase prices during the Euro cut-over? Surely it is the government who are to blame for not enforcing policy here, not the EU for introducing the Euro.

How much will Ireland have to contribute to the EU if the applicant countries are admitted?

The Irish will be asked to pay what it is reckoned is a fair amount, based on the relative state of our finances compared to other nations, and also our size. This is not unreasonable - it is how we received money in the first place....again, something which I heard very few complaints about.

You make it sound like there's a conspiracy against small nations like Ireland. The Germans and French must want to destroy our economy or something?

The EU fisherys policy is plundering our seas.

In what way? The plundering of "our" seas has always been - and remains - largely associated with illegal fishing.

I would also point out that "our seas" dont stretch very far at all. What we consider to be ours is what has been defined by you know who. Without them, we would have no claim to ownership of these fishing areas in the first place.

The EU farm policy is deiving farmers from the land.

Irish farming as we know it would disappear overnight if it wasnt for the EU policies in place. Our farms are too small and inefficiently run to be able to survive in an unsudsidized market. In fact, without the massive subsidies received over the last 30 years, it would probably have been the fathers of those farmers who were driven from the land.

If the EU are making it slightly tougher than before, its still a damn sight better than if they were doing nothing.

Again there seems to be this idea that whatever we have been given cannot be taken away once it is decided that others need it more.

bonkey · 03-07-2002 4:47pm

Originally posted by Shazbat
Undemocratic to who?

Undemocratic to anyone who is effected by it.

The Veto is a tool of absolutism, not democracy. It gives the vote of one more weight than the votes of all bar one. It is limited to being there to prevent change, but it is still undemocratic.

You speak of minorites like they don't matter which in this context is quite ironic. Do you remember that it was a minority who voted yes in the last referendum and I quote

<snip>

By your own argument it seems that the government used a veto over the majority, blatantly disregarding the majority.

No - by my own argument, the government did not exercise a veto, because a veto is used to prevent change. The decision to attempt a second vote is a completely different approach. It neither changes the law, nor does it prevent change. The people have said no, and unless they change their minds, the answer is no. However, the government feels it has credible reasons to believe that the people will change their minds - or at least in terms of how that is expressed in the form of a vote.

As I already pointed out previously, there is nothing undemocratic about asking for a new vote. It may not be in the best spirit of democracy, but I also think people voting no to "spite the government" is equally not in the spirit of democracy. Neither side has the moral high-ground.

Besides, the only reason I can think of why the no-voters would have a problem with a re-vote is if they fear they may actually lose.

Should this come to pass, will the no-voters practice what they preach and accept the democratic outcome, or will they "lower" themselves to comitting the same type of acts that they are themselves complaining about - seeking a new vote because they refuse to accept the outcome.

Hmmm.. you are anti veto yet if the government had not vetoed the last referendum result we wouldn't be in this position (ie voting again).

First of all, I never said I was anti-veto. I said it is undemocratic, and that I have no problem with it being removed.

I think that if and when the EU expands, it will have no choice but to remove the veto, because otherwise nothing would ever be accomplished. As the number of nations increases, so will the number of times veto gets used. Once you reach a certain size, the existence of the veto becomes untenable.

I would also point out that it is not just Ireland who loses the veto. Everyone does. We stand to benefit from this as well as lose from it - there have been bills which the Irish have strongly favoured which have been vetoed in the past by other nations. The same will happen again, only now the chances are that it can happen in a more democratic way.

Surely if you are opposed to vetoes you should be voting no to try and bring about the original un-vetoed result?

Youve asked this in so many different ways I feel comelled to answer it in so many different ways.

Maybe if you went and learned what a veto is, you might realise what a ridiculous question you've just asked. The government did not veto anything.

And no thank you, I dont need you to paste the definition of veto from dictionary.com in your reply.

MEP's are now making noises over Irelands stance on abortion, if Nice is ratified maybe they will be able to just shove it down our throats whether we like it or not, as we will not have a veto.

Which area of the Nice treaty gives the EU the right to change national laws and constitutions arbitrarily?

(I'm just using it as an example as it is in the papers today)

At a guess, I'd say it was scare-mongering reporting. I'd love to hear exactly how the EU could effect such a change to Irish law.

jc

Cork · 03-07-2002 5:14pm

The Irish will be asked to pay what it is reckoned is a fair amount, based on the relative state of our finances compared to other nations, and also our size. This is not unreasonable

Unreasonable?

We have dire roads.
We have a neglected health service.
We have poor telecommunications infrastructure,
We will probably have a budget deficit pretty soon,

& you expect us

to pay what it is reckoned is a fair amount, based on the relative state of our finances compared to other nations

As a Irish tax payer - I really don't think so.

Cork · 03-07-2002 5:50pm

Seriously folks - the Nice treaty is a mess.
The EU are about as accountable as Queen Victoria during the famine.
The Nice treaty is not for me or you - it is for big business.

Giving the EU more power is asking for it.

I don't the Irish people will be so stupid.

Shazbat · 03-07-2002 5:50pm

Originally posted by bonkey

Maybe if you went and learned what a veto is, you might realise what a ridiculous question you've just asked. The government did not veto anything.

And no thank you, I dont need you to paste the definition of veto from dictionary.com in your reply.

jc [/B]

No need to get snotty young man, you can put your handbag away now.

Sand · 03-07-2002 7:23pm

Seriously folks - the Nice treaty is a mess.
The EU are about as accountable as Queen Victoria during the famine.
The Nice treaty is not for me or you - it is for big business.

Giving the EU more power is asking for it.

I don't the Irish people will be so stupid.

Then youve nothing to worry about, so relax, stop trying to use emotive language by comparing the EU to the British Empire ( a clear attempt to get the instintive Irish dislike of Victorian times and paste it onto the EU).

We have dire roads.
We have a neglected health service.
We have poor telecommunications infrastructure,
We will probably have a budget deficit pretty soon,

Whereas the Europeans do not, and have been forking out for us to improve our own for the past 30 years, indicating an ability to fund and create these services whilst having cash to spare. The obvious solution is to move away from integration and entrust our future to Jackie Healy Rae and his swarm of short sighted, myopic independants....wtf?

As a Irish tax payer - I really don't think so.

The problem with Europe is that it has never really addressed this attitude. Youre a taxpayer....the Irish government does not send you shamrock with your tax bill, it does not employ gaily dressed flag waving patriots to chase down tax evaders, your taxes are used throughout Ireland to pay for services you do not use, to help people you do not know and to build motorways youll never drive on. This is all fine because their Irish things youll never know or use. Whereas it upsets you that your taxes might be used to pay for spanish things youll never use and to help Slovakians youll never meet - because theyre not Irish I assume.

Your tax bill remains the same but youre upset because your taxes arent being spent in Ireland. Surely as long as you, as an individual are paying the same fraction of your income towards the European budget as everyone else then does it bother you that much thats its being used to pay the dole of wasters/farmers in Ireland or Poland?

Despite all the above I do agree that it would be in Irelands and Europes best interests to reject the Nice Treaty and force reform of the EUs undemocratic formation which puts the views of governents before the views of European citizens....basically using a middle man which completely flies in the face of European unity.

fisifan01 · 04-07-2002 2:27am

Deathtobertie`s reasons for voting against the Nice Treaty are rather mundane. Has he even thought about the implications of the treaty?. I believe we should vote yes. Europe have done a lot for us in the past 29 yeats. It would be selfish and arrogant to delay entry for Poland and other countries. Imagine how it would look if another country was denying ireland the right to join the E.U.

Cork · 04-07-2002 11:54am

Yesterdays vote in the European {parliament highlights the sheer lack of respect that that body has for Irish democracy.

Abortion is illegal in our country. Is this respected by the EU parliament?

No. They have nothing but contempt for our constitution.

As a young state, we ought to be proud that we have had a democracy since independence. Many of these countries were over ridden with Marxists, Communists, Nazis and dictatorships.

We value of democracy. Our Dail is accountable. The EU commission is not.

Cork · 04-07-2002 11:59am

Europe have done a lot for us in the past 29 yeats. It would be selfish and arrogant to delay entry for Poland and other countries. Imagine how it would look if another country was denying ireland the right to join the E.U.

Poland and other countries can enter if we vote No - Prodi has stated this.

If we vote no - we will still be members of the EU.

But I must agree with this intelliget contribution:

Despite all the above I do agree that it would be in Irelands and Europes best interests to reject the Nice Treaty and force reform of the EUs undemocratic formation which puts the views of governents before the views of European citizens....basically using a middle man which completely flies in the face of European unity.

seamus · 04-07-2002 12:39pm

Has anyone got an unbiased link to exactly what the Nice Treaty will amend if passed, etc etc, ie WTF is it about??

I'm still undecided, because the Government doesn't seem to give a flying fu<k about educating it's citizens on the subject, and I really don't have a clue exactly what it's about. I know neutrality is a farce though, so there's one point in favour of the yes camp.

(oh, BTW swiss - ROFL very good

)

swiss · 04-07-2002 1:47pm

I've always found http://www.refcom.ie to be quite unbiased and display both sides of an argument. This will give you the information you want, albeit this is in relation to the last time the Nice treaty was brought before the Irish people for ratification.

http://www.europeanmovement.ie also provide information about the Nice treaty, although it does have a pro-EU bias, it's arguments are intelligable and do display the positive aspects of the treaty (of which there are several).

Originally posted by Cork:

Poland and other countries can enter if we vote No - Prodi has stated this.

Some other countries can join, should we vote no, but not all of the applicants. Would you care to explain to say, Turkey (which has been given candidate status) why they would be excluded in favor of Poland or other countries.

But I must agree with this intelliget contribution:

Intelligent because you happen to agree with the opinion expressed. I see it as a sweeping statement, easy to say when you don't have hard evidence to back it up. You say that voting no will force a more democratic change. Are you certain of that - or will it merely delay the entry of the applicant member states into the EU? What reforms do you see the EU undertaking should the Nice treaty be rejected? On what basis do you make this assessment?

I'm not saying I'm infallible, I'm not saying the EU are a perfect model of democracy in action. What I am saying is that I have yet to meet a convincing alternative to the EU, or this proposal. It is IMO the best means of reaffirming democratic principles amongst member states that we are likely to see, and although I would like to see more reform I do believe it is a step in the right direction.

No. They have nothing but contempt for our constitution.

Sweeping statement #2. No backup, no explanation. I guess that would require that you think about what you write though.

We value of democracy. Our Dail is accountable. The EU commission is not.

Sweeping statement #3

As a young state, we ought to be proud that we have had a democracy since independence. Many of these countries were over ridden with Marxists, Communists, Nazis and dictatorships.

Of course this is the best reason I've yet heard to reject the Nice treaty. Why focus on rational debate when you can spout such narrow minded Xenophobic opinions? If memory serves Ireland was subjected to English rule for around 800 years. I guess we're just as bad as those states that have been 'over ridden' by despots and tyrants, by that reasoning. Judging from that statement though, that hypothesis may not be wholly inaccurate.

[BTW thanks seamus]

Deathtobertie · 04-07-2002 1:54pm

Originally posted by fisifan01
Deathtobertie`s reasons for voting against the Nice Treaty are rather mundane. Has he even thought about the implications of the treaty?. I believe we should vote yes. Europe have done a lot for us in the past 29 yeats. It would be selfish and arrogant to delay entry for Poland and other countries. Imagine how it would look if another country was denying ireland the right to join the E.U.

If you actually read what I wrote you would have noticed that I did not state my reasons for voting no, my comments were specifically about floating voters.

Maybe in future you should make sure and read postings properly before you misquote or misinterpret them.

Here is what I actually said.

"I don't really think the Taoiseach should be calling 'opponents' of the Nice treaty: ie everybody who voted no "Whingers"

It is not fitting or dignified for a country leader to personally insult over half of the electorate. Is this his way of showing his colleagues in europe that he is serious about his commitment to the ratifying the Treaty?

I think his arrongance is remarkable in that he feels that he can make these kind of comments and expect no comeback. I feel that floating voters who aren't taken in by his cheap reverse psychology (ie I don't want to be seen as a whinger so I will vote for Nice) will vote against Nice out of spite."

I didn't actually give my reasons for voting no. It would have taken up too much space...

Shazbat · 04-07-2002 2:36pm

Originally posted by fisifan01 I believe we should vote yes. Europe have done a lot for us in the past 29 yeats. It would be selfish and arrogant to delay entry for Poland and other countries

What is wrong with being selfish? No voters are being selfish as are yes voters, thats the way it is. You are being selfish voting yes and I am being selfish voting no

We should worry about our economy before we worry about another countries, this is doubtlessly selfish but sensible. You can be damn sure Britain, (Especially Britain seeing their latest anti-euro stance) France and Germany put their own economies first, they didn't start thinking 'oh maybe it won't be fair on Ireland if we do such a thing'.

They put themselves first and foremost as we should we and we shouldn't be ashamed to do it either.

As for arrogant how much more arrogant can the EU be than ignoring the no vote last time? Do you remember the way officials in the EU carried on? They gave their little lapdog bertie a good booting and told him to sort it out.

What will happen when the no vote wins again? Will we keep voting ad infinitum until it is ratified? If not then surely we should be given some kind of assurances from the EU and our government before the referendum along the lines of a time limit before the next referendum can be called or something, so as not to make it a complete farce.

Originally posted by fisifan01
Imagine how it would look if another country was denying ireland the right to join the E.U.

Maybe you shouldn't worry about how things should look but rather contemplate on how things might be.

No doubt I'll be accused of scaremongering but things are not looking particularily rosy for the economy at the moment. Some people seem to have gotten the impression that we won't get any more money from the EU if Nice isn't ratified. We won't be getting anymore regardless. The days of massive EU funding are over and now it is our turn to fund new developing countries at a time when our economy is in its worst health for 6 or so years. Hospitals are closing down left right and centre, I have heard the word 'cutback' for the first time in years today and I honestly think we'll be hearing it a lot more from now on.

gandalf · 04-07-2002 4:14pm

I expressed my views on the Nice treaty during the last referendum. After reading the document (and that was tough) and all other material relating to it I came to the conclusion that it was giving away too much power without reforming the relevant bodies within the EC. I don't want to block entry of other qualifying candidate countries into the EU but I feel I have no choice as this is a flawed and dangerous piece of legislation.

We are also voting for all the people in the 14 other members of the current EU who are not been given the opportunity to vote on this extremely important piece of legislation.

We may have done well out of the EU over the years, but does that mean we have to lie down and say nothing if we feel something is wrong with the Nice Treaty? Do we listen to our elected representatives who call us whingers because we exercised our democratic right to disagree with them on this issue?

I am disappointed but not surprised that the Government have brought this before us so quickly again. I will consider my vote again but I am almost a 100% sure I will not change from the NO that I registered last time.

Gandalf.

pencil · 04-07-2002 4:40pm

I was a floating voter untill I read this:

http://www.isis.ie/nice.jpg

'Hidden agenda revealed'.
I REALLY wouldn't mind all this extra workers coming here if the rest of Europe were also opening their borders simulatiously, but they're not, if they where the pressure created would be diffused throughout Europe. Ask yourself, why aren't we all opening our borders at the same time???

IBEC the employers lobby group is licking it's lips at the though of
replacing a lot of us expensive Irish workers with people who'll be glad (poor sods) to work for a third of what we do.

Relative to the cost of living, Ireland is expensive enough as it is,
imagine having to take a pay cut or worrying about losing your job to someone who will work for less - asking for a pay rise will be a thing of the past . I'll tell you one thing when IBEC start to get excited about something all of you out there in worker-land should start to question why.

It's a lose lose situation for everyone except employers. Those coming here would get poor pay in an expensive country & those working here would be under serious pressure in an expensive country. Once again, if all of Europe opened their doors simultaneously I wouldn't think it a big issue.

I know it's short term but this is the BIG issue in the NICE treaty, the neutrality issue is a smoke screen to aid industry at your expense. If the government was worried about our neutrality there would be no US warplanes in shannon!

A NO vote from me unless the government allow people enter the country at the same time as the rest of Europe (whatever that time period may be, be it the first day or at the end of the 7 year period mentioned in the above article).

It's nice to know the shower of @!*s in FF are as concern as I am about being able to pay my mortgage. I am beside myself with annoyance!

Victor · 04-07-2002 5:37pm

Originally posted by Cork
The one thing that is currently impossible in the EU is freedom of movement of labour. We need a common EU language. Languages like German are not widely used and only act as a barrier against us going to work in Germany. English being the language that business is done in needs to be swiftly adopted as the community’s first language.

But more people have German as a first language than English (85m-90m against 60m-63m)

Shazbat · 04-07-2002 7:14pm

Originally posted by bonkey

Really? So exactly what has the EU done which shows a lack of respect for this? Has it treated Ireland as though we had ratified it?

Dont you mean that the IRISH GOVERNMENT have not respected the wishes of the people - a point I have addressed in previous posts.

jc

The EU showed a lack of respect by asking the Irish government to ensure the treaty was ratified after the majority of people voted against it, and then the irish government disrespected our wishes by giving in (not that they needed much persuasion) and having a second referendum on the issue. It is ludicrous to imply that the EU respected the wishes of the Irish people in the aftermath of the last referendum.

The government and the EU are both equally guilty of disrespecting the wishes of the majority of voters in the last referendum.

Has it treated Ireland as though we had ratified it?

You made this statement in the context of "respect" I think that if the EU did that it would show more than a lack of respect, doing that would indicate a complete lack of democracy, which nobody mentioned.

smiles · 04-07-2002 10:28pm

I'm not old enough to vote, but personally i think that people who're campaigning "No" are building mountains out of mole-hills, and voting No is practically racist in appearence (we're telling Europe "thanks for all the help - we dont want to let anyone else in now")

Thats not the way it is, but it's the way it can be intrepreted.

I'd prefer to see it split into different sections, to be voted on individually.

<< Fio >>

dathi1 · 04-07-2002 10:45pm

and voting No is practically racist in appearence

Projecting your Job isn't racist. Very much abused word these days.
Cowens Letter

dahamsta · 04-07-2002 11:56pm

[ I think it's important to point out that I haven't decided either way yet. I am leaning in favour of 'no' at the moment though, primarily because the argument being put forth by some - that we should vote 'yes' this time round because "it's the right thing to do" - is counter to [i]their own claims[/i]; that they didn't vote 'no' the last time just to tick Bertie off, but because the Treaty was wrong. The Treaty hasn't changed*, so doesn't this actually prove that they [i]did[/i] vote 'no' the last time just to tick Bertie off? ]

I'm not old enough to vote, but personally i think that people who're campaigning "No" are building mountains out of mole-hills, and voting No is practically racist in appearence (we're telling Europe "thanks for all the help - we dont want to let anyone else in now")

It's racist in appearance primarily because our Taoiseach's lack of support for our decision has painted us so. And speaking for myself, I have to say that I don't think I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. I voted against Nice the first time around not to piss Bertie Ahern off, but for two reasons in particular:

1) Our neutrality is called into question (and if anything this has been worsened by the Government's actions in the meantime); and:

2) Our 'power' in Europe is weakened even further by the treaty; by reweighting of votes.

The Treaty has not changed*, and all we have been offered is worthless assurances. Why should my vote change? Seriously, it's a valid question.

One more comment: I'm delighted this topic is being debated, although I'm shocked and stunned that I'm actually in agreement with 'Cork' on a topic (although certainly not his reasoning). Most odd is that the only commentary I find worthy of a response - I'm not going to dignify some of Cork's comments with one - comes from bonkey, whose commentary I usually find well-weighted and reasonably thought out. But this...

the government feels it has credible reasons to believe that the people will change their minds - or at least in terms of how that is expressed in the form of a vote.

...well, it's just rubbish, isn't it bonkey? I'm certainly not going to refute it, for the simple reason that I don't actually believe that you believe it. I think you're far too intelligent to think that the Government thinks people will change their minds just like that. Not without their help...

adam

* I have the White Paper from the last Referendum in front of me. Perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps it has changed. If it has, I'd like to know how.

swiss · 05-07-2002 12:33am

"Ireland took the decision to allow the citizens of new EU member states full and free access to live and work here from the first day of accession"

Ireland made the decision to do this. I fail to see why you are blaming Europe, unless of course you are inferring that Europe coerced Ireland into making this decision. I personally am glad, although a little anxious that Ireland took this decision. On one hand yes I do think that it will stem increased wage claims or possibly bring them down. Although this will help stem inflation, increase productivity and in general help income tax receipts I would not like to see my livelyhood or the livelyhood of fellow Irish citizens being affected. However, I do feel a modicum of pride that we have demonstrated a willingness to give people a second chance with their lives, regardless of some of the negative aspects it may have on some workers lives.

certain member states have serious concerns that immediate access could result in distortions to domestic labor markets

Which is why Germany and France, amongst other EU states were reluctant to open their borders. A shame, I say, but that is their decision to make. Would you have that decision forced on them? In any case, this 'block' or restriction of foreign workers on the part of these countries is, according to the articles, temporary.

most other EU governments have reserved the right to stop such movement of people for up to seven years

Up to seven years. A long time, admittedly, but the domestic economic climate is different in these countries. Again I do find it disappointing that these countries decided to postpone the relaxation of regulations governing the entry of foreign workers, but again, that is their decision to make.

Originally posted by Shazbat:

The EU showed a lack of respect by asking the Irish government to ensure the treaty was ratified after the majority of people voted against it

The majority of the people did not vote against the Nice treaty. 17.4%, a small majority of those who voted for the referendum issue voted No. Also, as seen in this thread, many of those who voted no did so purely to spite the government. Where was their zeal during the election, the real acid test of our government?

Shazbat · 05-07-2002 11:22am

Originally posted by swiss

The majority of the people did not vote against the Nice treaty. 17.4%, a small majority of those who voted for the referendum issue voted No. Also, as seen in this thread, many of those who voted no did so purely to spite the government. Where was their zeal during the election, the real acid test of our government?

Thank you for correcting my error in wording. The majority of the 'electorate' then. How do you know 'many' of that percentage voted out of spite? Where are the facts to back this up? That is a sweeping baseless statement. In any poll or voting sytem if a substantial amount of people vote (and 17% of the population of Ireland is substantial, also is that 17% of the population or the electorate) it can be assumed that percentages in the number of people that didn't vote would follow a similar pattern, maybe varying by a couple of percent.

And the people who didn't vote don't matter in the context of a referendum they chose not to vote if they had have felt strongly either way they would have gone down to the local polling station and cast their vote. Results matter, not what could have been.

You mentioned a small majority. Its not the size of your majority but how you use it.

bonkey · 05-07-2002 1:33pm

Originally posted by dahamsta
1) Our neutrality is called into question (and if anything this has been worsened by the Government's actions in the meantime); and:

Our neutrality is little more than a myth anyway - at best we are militarily neutral. From what I can recall reading, the Nice Treaty would only affect this in terms of our membership of a European DEFENCE Force - a Force which would be used for Peacekeeping missions, humanitarian missions and common homeland defence.

The Irish are already involved in humanitarian and peacekeeping missions under the auspices of the UN, so this hardly intrudes on our neutrality.

As for common homeland defence...its a somewhat thorny issue. I agree that it impinges on what little claim to neutrality we have left, but in all seriousness, we are not a neutral nation. We simply havent sent soldiers to fight in someone elses war in quite some time.

2) Our 'power' in Europe is weakened even further by the treaty; by reweighting of votes.

Our "power" at the moment is disproportionately high. While you say weakened, I would rather say "corrected".

As a (somewhat extreme) comparison, the whites in South Africa had their power weakened even fuirther when they agreed to give some control back to the blacks. The fact that they made up < .5% of the population, and yet had 99% (or more) of the power was disproportionate. They were having their power "weakened" by this process, but this was done because they had no proportional or democratic right to that power.

We are in a similar, although less extreme, position. We have more power than we are proportionately entitled to under a balanced democratic system. If we are losing that power to give someone more than they are entitled to, then fair enough theres a problem. However, if (as I believe to be the case) we are losing power so that representation is now proportionately more balanced - so that those who are under-represented are gaining the same level of power as the rest of us....this is a good thing as far as I am concerned.

One more comment: I'm delighted this topic is being debated,

I'm delighted its being debated and that we've managed to get to 4 pages without any serious name calling

the government feels it has credible reasons to believe that the people will change their minds - or at least in terms of how that is expressed in the form of a vote.

...well, it's just rubbish, isn't it bonkey? I'm certainly not going to refute it, for the simple reason that I don't actually believe that you believe it. I think you're far too intelligent to think that the Government thinks people will change their minds just like that. Not without their help...

I dont think its rubbish. The government have stated a belief that there were a number of causes for the no vote.

One is that the low turnout was skewed towards No - that the No voters were more inclined to come out and vote than the Yes, and that if a greater turnout was encouraged, the percentages would swing significantly enough to make it a yes vote.

This is somewhat analagous to the French reaction to LePen getting 20% (or whatever it was) in the first round. Statisticians believed that this was largely because he motivated his voters to vote for him, while the remaining candidates did this to a far lesser extent.

The same has been claimed to be true for the Ratification of the Nice Treaty - that if the Yes supporters had got off their ar$es to the same degree that the No supporters did, then the result would have been a Yes vote.

I'm not saying that the government are necessarily correct in holding this opinion, but they arent calling another vote just on the offchance that a Yes will happen.

As for people changing their minds without the govt's help....I never claimed they would. I think a lot of people (both Yes and No) will turn out for the second vote who did not turn out for the first. As a result, the end decision will be a much better representation of the will of the people, as the higher the turnout the closer the voter percentages are to the actual split.

I think the government has set a very dangerous precedent, and I fully expect to see legislation / constitutional change brought forward very soon which will put a minimum period between the introduction of a previously-rejected bill/amendment and its reintroduction.

The government have a right to do what they are doing. They are breaking no laws, and therefore there is nothing legally wrong with their actions.

jc

meglome · 05-07-2002 1:49pm

I'll confess that I haven't read any of the thread so far.

I was in Eastern Europe when the last referendum results came in and it really didn't do us any favours. It was painted in the foreign media that the Irish were against the enlargement of the EU, which I don't think was the problem most people had with the Nice Treaty. There was a lot of resentment against us.

Personally I'm fairly neutral on this treaty and haven't actually made up my mind which way I'm going to vote. But the one thing that does make me want to vote no is when the country votes in a manner the government doesn't like, they just rehash the same referendum again at a later date as if we were too stupid the first time. I am very annoyed by this, one more half arsed abortion referendum and I’m off with a can of petrol to Leinster House. This new referendum should have contained additional options to establish exactly what people had a problem with it the last time, instead of try to steam roller it.

bonkey · 05-07-2002 2:38pm

Originally posted by meglome
. But the one thing that does make me want to vote no is when the country votes in a manner the government doesn't like, they just rehash the same referendum again at a later date as if we were too stupid the first time.

As I have tried to say before (but I know you havent read the thread)....

the government believe that the result of the vote was not representative of the wishes of the majority. There is no legal barrier preventing them from reintroducing the same bill again. This is what they are doing, in the belief/hope that they will get a higher turnout, which will give a more accurate representative result, and which they believe will result in a Yes vote.

I understand and accept the moral argument that they should accept the vote as it stands, because people had their chance to vote, and if they blew it, they blew it.

I'm of the opinion that while I might not agree with the actions of the government, I must accept their right to do what they have done.

If people feel that strongly about it, why has no-one asked for legislation for a "minimum term" ? Simple - because despite all the rhetoric about how scummy the government is, a lot of interested parties now look at this and say "well - precedence is established - we can use this tactic at some point in the future". This will probably be done immediately after the referendum by some faction of the No supporters should the forthcoming vote result in a Yes.
[/B][/QUOTE]

jc

Biffa Bacon · 05-07-2002 6:30pm

I'm still undecided as to how I'm going to vote but one thing that annoys me is people claiming it is undemocratic to hold the referendum again. There is nothing undemocratic about it. If people want to vote No again they are perfectly able to do so. The government can run the same referendum as many times as it wants and each one will be democratic.

Vote on Nice Treaty Referendum

Comments