Jobs To Go With Nice No Vote

bertiebowl

The Dublin Chamber of Commerce has warned again that a no vote to Nice could damage the Irish economy for years to come

gurramok

That sounds like alot of scare-mongering !!
Trying to force people to vote one way or the other and they could lose their jobs because of the way votes go...insane talk:)

sceptre

Originally posted by bertiebowl
The Dublin Chamber of Commerce has warned again that a no vote to Nice could damage the Irish economy for years to come

Whoopee, they must be right then. I suppose they didn't follow up that statement with a "why this will happen"?

bertiebowl

I think the Dublin Chamber of Commerce thinks a Nice no vote will shag the economy because of the following reasons:

1) Sean Dorgan of the IDA said a no vote would make his job of attracting inwards investment to Ireland all the more difficult.

2) Our trade and diplomatic relations with the applicant countries will be badly affected - and seeing as we are an export dependent economy - well that could have side effects.

3) Voting no will deny us the ability to become a "gateway" to an enlarged single market of 500 million as Forfas pointed out in their submission to the national forum on europe.

sceptre

Originally posted by bertiebowl
I think the Dublin Chamber of Commerce thinks a Nice no vote will shag the economy because of the following reasons:

I'm sure the reasons you've listed are entirely valid, or at least debatable.

What I asked though, was: while the Dublin Chamber of Commerce were making sweeping statements on what Ireland would be like in a post "No (again) to Nice" world, did they themselves make any followup statements on why they thought this would be the case, or did they just say that and leave reasons or explanation unsaid?

bertiebowl

The Dublin Chamber of Commerce said jobs would go with a Nice No vote as political uncertainty would be introduced into Ireland.

This political uncertainty would be viewed as political risk by foreign investors who would then take their money to other countries

RicardoSmith

So if we vote yes, the high inflation, poor transport infrastructure, poor internet connectivity and the global downturn generally are suddenly not going to be a problem? I dunno must be the noise of all these brown envelopes opening but I can't hear the voting public at all either...

article6

Saying jobs will be lost because of a No to Nice is scaremongering.

Why?

It didn't happen last time, did it? And surely in these tough times, if a company was going to move out of Ireland, they would have done so as quickly as possible?

We might lose jobs if we voted Yes, but I doubt it. In any case, if we vote Yes, we will be allowing "enhanced co-operation", which lets eight countries over-ride all the others, and "qualified majority voting", which only requires a "majority" of 5 (I think) countries out of 15 (at the moment) to make important decisions, which we should be allowed to veto regardless.

If it was really about enlargement only, they would have made a Treaty about enlargement only in Seville, instead of a close to meaningless declaration about neutrality.

Meh

Originally posted by article6
In any case, if we vote Yes, we will be allowing "enhanced co-operation", which lets eight countries over-ride all the others, and "qualified majority voting", which only requires a "majority" of 5 (I think) countries out of 15 (at the moment) to make important decisions,

Incorrect. QMV requires

1. a majority of the votes on the Commission
2. a majority of member states
3. at least 62% of the EU population

before any decision can be made.

Also, Nice does not introduce QMV (it merely extends it to some areas) and enhanced cooperation does not let 8 countries override the rest of the Union.

thegills

1) Sean Dorgan of the IDA said a no vote would make his job of attracting inwards investment to Ireland all the more difficult.

If we vote YES than there would be numerous other countries better positioned to attract inwards investment than Ireland - cheaper labour, more central in Europe. Perhaps the opposite will apply.

2) Our trade and diplomatic relations with the applicant countries will be badly affected - and seeing as we are an export dependent economy - well that could have side effects.

Do we care considering these applicant countries will no doubt be competing directly with us by targetting the very countries that we export to.

3) Voting no will deny us the ability to become a "gateway" to an enlarged single market of 500 million as Forfas pointed out in their submission to the national forum on europe.

We have been a gateway already to 350 million for years now so why would this change. From what I have read these applicant countries can join the EU regardless of Nice. Joining the Euro however is a different kettle of fish I would imagine.

It this is the sort of response coming from the Dublin Chamber of Commerce what hope has our country of standing tall in a new enlarged Europe.

article6

Incorrect. QMV requires
a majority of the votes on the Commission
a majority of member states
at least 62% of the EU population
before any decision can be made.

Okay, thanks, I wasn't sure for a while. Now, six countries comprise 55% of the Commission.

Eight countries comprise a majority of the member states.

And how do you judge the population? If it's by MEPs, then the five countries with two Commissioners will have enough, but I don't think that's how it works.

If it's by pure population, then the five countries have more than enough to push it through.

So, the number to push through potentially damaging laws is eight, just like for the enhanced military co-operation.

QMV is introduced to certain areas, I agree it's been around for a while. I didn't try to delude anyone. Please don't nitpick on grammar to increase your number of points.

On the other hand, enhanced co-operation lets eight countries use EU institutions, even though other countries may disagree. By this I mean it lets them override the other countries.

Meh

Originally posted by article6
And how do you judge the population?

Uh, you judge the population by the number of people that live in each country. How else would you do it?

just like for the enhanced military co-operation.

Article 1.6.2 of the Nice Treaty

Enhanced cooperation pursuant to this Title shall relate to implementation of a joint action or a common position. It shall not relate to matters having military or defence implications.

article6

Uh, you judge the population by the number of people that live in each country. How else would you do it?

I offered a number of alternatives so I wouldn't be called an idiot for only thinking of the most obvious one. When it comes to the EU, I'm inclined to suspect maximum confusion.

It shall not relate to matters having military or defence implications.

Alright, I take it back. They'll only use enhanced "non-military" co-operation for expensive projects useful only to the eight countries that the rest of us will have to fund as well, like... bridges. Bad for the economy, and the poor applicant countries.

At least we wouldn't have to fund a war... until (and if) they amend the Treaty to allow military co-operation, that is. I wouldn't be surprised if they could do that, I must admit, these governments seem to go against the people's will all the time. To think of a recent example... Nice II.

Meh

Originally posted by article6
Alright, I take it back. They'll only use enhanced "non-military" co-operation for expensive projects useful only to the eight countries that the rest of us will have to fund as well, like... bridges.

No, the countries not in participating in enhanced cooperation won't have to fund it (unless they want to):

Article 1.13.2, page 12
Expenditure resulting from implementation of enhanced cooperation, other than administrative costs entailed for the institutions, shall be borne by the participating Member States, unless all members of the Council, acting unanimously after consulting the European Parliament, decide otherwise.