Vote on Nice Treaty Referendum

dahamsta

I just read the summary on the refcom site. Bonkey, you make a lot of sense, but the No argument still makes a lot of sense to me too. It's a bloody close call for me, I can tell you.

Another of the things I'm concerned about is dilution of people power. The actions of Governments these days - such as the RIP Act in the UK, the PATRIOT Act in the US, and of course our own Government's decision to try and stifle their own embarassment by shoving Nice down our throats again - are getting more and more worrying for me. Perhaps that's because I'm young - at least mentally - and haven't studied political history enough, but it remains a real concern for me. In this particular case, my concern is that the EU is trying to give itself more power, and take decision-making out of the hands of the citizens. The former doesn't bother me that much, as long as it's for the good of the community. The latter, though, is bloody dangerous in my view. If we give them an inch, they'll take a mile, and they'll trample all over our rights and freedoms in the process.

adam

Deathtobertie

Originally posted by bonkey
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 think you'll find your statement is complete hogwash. Look at the attached jpeg to see actual statistics on european language usage. These tables were taken from this site:http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/languages/lang/europeanlanguages.html

As you will see German has the largest number of native speakers but more people can actually hold a conversation in English than German.

Originally posted by bonkey
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.

A case of the pot calling the kettle black maybe?

Originally posted by swiss
(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.

At present we are ever so slightly over represented but not to the extremes that Luxembourg is. Ireland has ten times the population of Luxembourg yet it is proposed that they have 4 votes and we have seven (out of 237).

The sums don't really add up neither do arguments about 'over/under representation' the percentage of votes Luxembourg would have if Nice is ratified makes a mockery of that argument

bonkey

Originally posted by Deathtobertie
I think you'll find your statement is complete hogwash.

<snip>
As you will see German has the largest number of native speakers but more people can actually hold a conversation in English than German.

Firstly, I think you'll find that my statement was in reply to an assertion that German was not widely used within the EU. Your presented figures prove nicely that it is widely used. Thank you

Furthermore, the figures you present show that more people are capable of using english - not that they do actually use it.

For example, English is far and away the strongest second language in pretty much every non-native English speaking nation. This does not mean that these people use English on a regular basis, or even at all. It merely shows that they are capable of using it if they wish or need to.

So - those figures would indicate that English is the most widely known language (which I never disputed), but does tend to show that German is probably the most used - which is what I claimed. Usage cannot be accurately determined from the figures you present. We cannot know what percentage of people use non-native languages on a regular basis, or indeed what percentage even use native languages on a regular basis. However, given that there are 50% more native German speakers than English, French or Italian, I think its reasonable to state that on a day to day basis more people probably use German than English. Its definitely not "complete hogwash".

Given that my original comment was partly in reply to an argument which claimed that lack of English was a barrier in many EU nations, I think your figures only go to strengthen what I was saying in the first place.

Taking it to the logical end, it would show that the best combination of languages to have would most likely be English & German. As native English speakers, I find it facetious in the extreme for us to assume or assert that the rest of Europe should learn our language, rather than us learning any of theirs. Taking figures from your quoted report :

45% of European citizens can take part in a conversation in a language other than their mother tongue

People in the UK, Ireland and Portugal are least likely to speak another language, with less than a third of these population saying they can do this.

In other words, we lag behind most of the rest of the EU in terms of being willing to make an effort to communicate.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
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.

JC, I'm dissapointed in you misquoting figures like that.

Ethnic groups: black 75.2%, white 13.6%, Colored 8.6%, Indian 2.6% - http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

---

Originally posted by bonkey
European DEFENCE Force - a Force which would be used for Peacekeeping missions, humanitarian missions and common homeland defence.

Isn't this a military alliance in it's true sense? Does this include overseas territoties and the like?

France is divided into 22 regions (including the "territorial collectivity" of Corse or Corsica) and is subdivided into 96 departments; see separate entries for the overseas departments (French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Reunion) and the overseas territorial collectivities (Mayotte, Saint Pierre and Miquelon) Dependent areas: Bassas da India, Clipperton Island, Europa Island, French Polynesia, French Southern and Antarctic Lands, Glorioso Islands, Juan de Nova Island, New Caledonia, Tromelin Island, Wallis and Futuna

UK - Dependent areas: Anguilla, Bermuda, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Guernsey, Jersey, Isle of Man, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands

The Netherlands, Spain and other countries also have overseas territories. Are you going to defend all of the above areas? And when Turkey joins, will you defend the Turkish border against the likes of Iraq?

Deathtobertie

I'm sick of statistics but the figures speak for themselves bonkey, English is the most widely used and the one people find most useful.

"English is the language which is most widely spoken in the EU. While it is the mother tongue for 16% of the European population, a further 31% of the EU citizens speak it well enough to hold a conversation."

47% can speak english, while 32% can speak german.

So - those figures would indicate that English is the most widely known language

No - those figures would indicate that english is the most widely spoken language. Or are you trying to say that 31% of the population of the EU learnt english as a second language not to bother speaking it?

The survey said...

When asked what language they find the most useful besides their mother tongue, most people answered English (69%) followed by French (37%) and German(26%).

Again the figures speak for themselves. You mentioned usage. Would you not see a link between 'useful' and usage? Surely when something is 'useful' the next logical step is 'usage' of that thing? In this case the 'thing' being the english language.

45% of European citizens can take part in a conversation in a language other than their mother tongue

People in the UK, Ireland and Portugal are least likely to speak another language, with less than a third of these population saying they can do this.

In other words, we lag behind most of the rest of the EU in terms of being willing to make an effort to communicate.
jc

In all fairness, I think that being able to communicate with 47% of the population of the EU can hardly be referred to as "lagging behind". The UK and Ireland are top of the communication table being able to communicate with 47% of our neighbours. (I don't know what portugals excuse is though.)

If you are specifically talking about "making an effort" a third is 33% and I think that shows a lot of effort.
French and German (and to a lesser degree Italian & spanish) are taught in every secondary school. How much more of an effort can you make?

Where are the statistics to back up your argument? You niggle at the ones presented to you, but you fail to provide any yourself!

(Although having said all that, 60% of people know that statistics can be used to prove all sorts of things )

gandalf

Deathtobertie & bonkey please stay on topic (god I loved that )

If you want to discuss what langauge is the most popular/used in the EU start a new thread.

Gandalf.

dmcc

Originally posted by pencil
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!

The current issue of eastern european workers is only coming to light in the mass media now. Looks like 'penci'l was on the ball

Typedef

Ditto with the no vote.

I understood the issues the first time I voted and being forced to restate my opinion will not change it.

I think this treaty creates a two tiered Europe and this two tiered Europe is being imposed upon this country.

I do not find any tangable benefit for this country in the Nice treaty. It seems to me a treaty that effectively asks me to vote to disenfranchise myself.

With a lessened voice in Europen affairs, would Ireland really be able to resist par example "Tax harmonisation".

Tax harmonisation would be a complete disaster for this country. Already Ireland is one of the most expensive member states to live in and has comparitively low wages. The low rate of tax in this country is one of the prime methods Ireland attracts inward investment and to abrogate that particular advantage would make so-called "Core" European countrys like France,the Netherlands and others a more logical choice for multi national investment, due to the lower costs of transportation to the main European markets and the fact that the taxation rate across the EU would be static.

Shazbat

It looks like the government is at it again. Mary Harney slagging off the no campaigners, where have we heard this before? Is this the best they can do to influence public opinion?

Again it goes to show that the government aren't willing (probably can't) to prove that the Nice treaty is a good thing and would rather just slag off the no campaigners. Pathetic.

bertiebowl

The Nice Treaty is an excellent deal for Ireland.

Its just a shame that the Regressive Democretin/Fianna Failure "government" are so piss poor at selling the Treaty.

For a discussion on migration of E.European workers see www.yestonice.com/spurious.htm

Deathtobertie

I had a look at the link above regarding so called 'spurious fears' and I came across this nugget of wisdom.

"Because people prefer to be unemployed in the home country, home culture and language, surrounded by their family and friends."

It it of course a well known fact that no Irish person has ever emigrated and the people with Irish accents that can be heard in Kilburn/New York etc etc are just clever impersonators.

Typedef

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

You say tomato, I say tomato. Tell me, by what sort of stultified notion of misguided and misplaced guilt would I want to vote away any of the influence this country has in Europe, when already Ireland cannot control it's own interests rates and thus, is at a disadvantage because interest rates are set at a level that is benefiting the French and German economies, economies who are in a state of slowdown, in contrast to the Irish one, which is in a state of boom? It seems a little too compassionate, a little too much of the old Irish kindness and bleeding heart to give up the pithe little influence Ireland really has, so that the big countrys in the EU can have yet more say over how the union is run. Excuse me while I don't shed any tears for the big four on this one.

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.

However, Ireland did not join the then EEC under the auspices that the Nice treaty seeks to impose upon this Republic. The Nice treaty reminds me of the Loyalists up north who bang on about "renegotiating the Good Friday Agreement", where for me the bottom line is that the voters of this country have already for right or for wrong rejected the Nice treaty.
Furthermore it is an anthema, an abrogation of the supposed principals of democracy and Republicanism that this country is meant to enshrine to put the treaty of Nice a plebiscite again without changing a single word of the Treaty's content. True there have been a plethora of referenda on a miasma of subjects that have addressed various issues over the years from abortion to divorce and so on. An important distinction to make between these referenda and the re-run of the referendum on Nice is that the gaps between the former are somewhere in the region of nine years each, not one year as is the case with Nice. Furthermore the wording of the referenda was changed each time, in the Divorce and Abortion referenda, those referenda were not a simple rehash of the previous.

Is this country that we are citizens or residents of simply a show democracy? Frequently it's citizens can become quite vocal on the so called "show democracy" in Russia or the lack of rights afforded to prisoners in Camp X-Ray in the USA, so is it a case of the pot calling the kettle black? If democracy, and self determination are such vaunted principles of governance in Ireland, with the very cornerstone of a Republic being self determination by it's people, then how can the thought of a re-run to extrapolate the 'right' decision, the 'informed' decision even be contemplated?
That is not democracy, that is not Republicanism, that is show democracy and quasi dictatorial rule from people who are supposed to represent the views of the people of this Republic, not dictate what those views should be, not sully and cast aspersions on the results of a plebiscite no matter how the so-called democrats who run this country may not want to accept it, or have pressure brought to bear upon them by the representatives of a foreign government.

They were having their power "weakened" by this process, but this was done because they had no proportional or democratic right to that power.

So effectively you contend that there was 'small print' in Ireland's ascession to the EU, small print that effectively said that after a while Ireland would have to negate it's sovereignty, in favour of a more 'proportional' say being afforded to larger countrys? Perhaps at the time of ascession when the debate was taking place in Ireland that small print should have been spelled out. In fact I was under the impression that I was an informed and empowered member of society and that I had already understood the issues at stake in the Nice referendum and had made my decision and voted accordingly against the proposal. According to EU representatives though, I am misinformed and or stupid, because of the way I voted and fortunately for me, the EU may be able to force a re-run of the Nice referendum citing the stupidity of the Irish electorate, but as far as I am aware it cannot stop you voting in it because the EU regards your socio-political views too retarded to be given credo.