Jobs To Go With Nice No Vote

swiss

Just when one thinks that we've exhausted the Nice debate, another thread comes up.

Frankly, I'm unsurprised by the reaction that the DCoC have drawn from the No to Nice camp. It seems that any argument for Nice is an anathemia to the vociferous campaign being pursued by the No camp.

The decision to re-run the Nice treaty was bound to upset those who were steadfastly against it. When the news first broke that another rerun was taking place, a poster on another discussion site described it as "almost Stalinesque, in it's beauty". This point has already been discussed in this board, but here we go again.

Originally posted by Typedef:


Besides it is not the place of this country's government to dictate to the electorate either.

Quite right. That form of governance called a dictatorship. In a dictatorship, there is no democratic voting, either for representatives of the state or laws that materially affect the state. In a democracy such as in Ireland, the government can try to argue the merits of a particular vote, but it is up to the people in the end to make up their own minds.

That is exactly what is happening here. The fact that the referendum is the same as before - while it may not be in the best interests of democracy - is perfectly legal. People are perfectly entitled to vote no for whatever reason they see fit. Some will be annoyed that they will have to vote again for something they felt was already dealt with. While I understand this annoyance, people have a responsibility to vote. People have died so that we may have this right. It is not something that we are asked to exercise every day of the week, so it is somewhat disingenuous for a person to complain about 'having to vote on something already voted on'. I would simply say that there is nothing stopping these people from voting again (and to get up off their lazy arses and vote ).

Last time about 37.4% of the electorate voted. This was one of the lowest turnouts in any referendum. This time we should get a larger turnout, so that one way or the other we can finally get a result that is indicative of the wishes of the electorate.

Originally posted by Typedef:

Clearly it is evident that Ireland is going to be coreced into some kind of Federal Union, a Union the people of Ireland don't want

As I have just demonstrated, we are not being coerced into doing anything. The treaty of Nice has nothing to do with a Federal Union. This is, as you are fond of saying, a fallacy of logic, the same fallacy that I see when anti-Nice campaigners argue that if I vote yes I'm a mindless automoton blindly following the government (as opposed to voting no?).

I just love the accusations of the EU being an imperialist body, and Ireland painted as the underdog battling against the odds for democracy. A country of just 3 million pitted against the juggernaut of the European Union. We'll just conveniently ignore the fact that every other country voted for nice. I know people are going to lambast me for this, but a veto is in itself a massively undemocratic tool. It is not right or fair that we should stop the development of a continent based on our concerns. Our own fate, we may decide for ourselves, but not that of other countries, who have made up their minds.

gandalf

Originally posted by swiss
We'll just conveniently ignore the fact that every other country voted for nice.

Like your conveniently ignoring the fact that the voters in those others countries did not get a chance to vote on this issue. It was decided for them undemocratically by their governments.

Creating a 2 tier Europe and diluting a nations soveignty is something that every EU citizen should be allowed make a decision on. But Europe is already showing its undemocratic nature in the fact that we are the only electorate voting on this important issue.

Gandalf.

bertiebowl

Hmm a lot of people to answer to!

To Gandalf who thinks not all Eastern European infrastructure is crumbling;

Did you read about that Czech chemical factory that was flooded near Prague?

It seems that a good portion of the factory would have been de-commissioned many years ago in Westarn countries.

Indeed some of the factory is covered in Chernobyl style concrete sarcophaguses.

Now I'm sure that's not typical of all the infrastructure, but my point is Ireland can compete against countries with lower costs and wages - provided we keep our productivity high and our cost per unit low.


To those who think the EU is dictating to Ireland (ha ha). Bertie and nobody else chose to have a second referendum. I mean wasn't that an argument of the no side, "that Bertie didn't have the spine to go back to Europe and seek a renegotiation of the Nice treaty?"

Regarding Switzerland, Switzerland is a wealthy country for two reasons:

1) High productivity

2) Massive financial services industry that acts as a centre for money laudering based on the banking secrecy code.

The UN / US are cracking down on point 2) above given the laundering/financing of drugs and terrorism through Switzerland and other offshore financial centres.

In terms of sovereignity, true sovereignity comes from co-operating with other countries to achieve your goals, rather than a GWB style retreat into "the Kyoto Treaty [insert issue of choice]will affect American [insert country of choice] so we're saying No"

The most laughable argument is that since other European countries don't get to vote on the Nice Treaty we should vote no.

Nobody put forward that argument during Maastrict for two reasons:

1) Six billion squids on the table

2) the fact that the other countries are democracies. IF their citizens are unhappy with the policies pursued by the government, well they just vote 'em out.

gandalf

Bertie I am not talking about Chemical Factories etc ( I don't believe thats a major part of our industrial infrastructure) I am talking about Telecommunications infrastructure aimed at High Technology Industries which Ireland is very reliant on.

The Czechs have a far more developed and liberal communications system (lower costs) than we have in Ireland. Also corporations like Microsoft have set up an advanced office in the Czech republic with the expectation to expand massively when they eventually join the EU, maybe at our cost. If they are doing it you can be guaranteed that others are as well.

Hang on Bertie you haven't answered my main point about Switzerland, they are doing fine without Europe etc. so having them as an example is not really proving your point on Nice.

Gandalf.

Typedef

Originally posted by swiss
Quite right. That form of governance called a dictatorship. In a dictatorship, there is no democratic voting, either for representatives of the state or laws that materially affect the state. In a democracy such as in Ireland, the government can try to argue the merits of a particular vote, but it is up to the people in the end to make up their own minds.

How many times do the Irish people have to reject the treaty via Referendum before that outcome can be accepted? Perhaps you regard a re-run of a Referendum within one year of the last without a single word of it's content being changed as democracy, I think that you are wrong if you do.
There can be little doubt that if the government had gotten the result it wanted the electorate would not be voting on it again, so perhaps you think being forced to vote again and again before your government accepts to do it's job and carry out the democratic wishes of the people as democracy, but if you do then you and I have radically differing views on what that word means.

Exhaustive 're-runs' as the buzz word for this kind of electoral manipulation and corecion goes may be argued as democracy, but the simple fact is that, re-runs enforced by the gentry of society who are meant to represent the will of democracy, not try to pervert it are in fact one of the greatest surreptitious anthema to democracy there is.

That is exactly what is happening here. The fact that the referendum is the same as before - while it may not be in the best interests of democracy - is perfectly legal.

So a government may pass any law it chooses, perhaps pertaining to the colour of your skin and how that pertains to your right to sit at the front of a bus and that law would be deemed to be legal, but what that law would not be is a constituant part of a free and fair pluralist democracy. So you may legislate till the cows come home about a whole miasma of things, hell why not outlaw all parties in the Dial bar Fianna Fail, then when the next election rolls around Fianna Fial would legally be the ruling party, but it would hardly be democratic now would it.

What sort of state is Ireland meant to be, top heavy legislative quadmire where the gentry decide what votes stick and what votes don't or a democracy, where the government represents the electorate instead of trying to impose it's will onto them?

People are perfectly entitled to vote no for whatever reason they see fit.

No doubt you would find that an anthema though hmm?

Some will be annoyed that they will have to vote again for something they felt was already dealt with. While I understand this annoyance, people have a responsibility to vote.

Where does it stop swiss? Who is to say which votes should stick and which votes should be re-run? The leaders of this country? The thought that Bertie Ahern and his government are so arrogant that they seek to prorouge my democratic will is not just repugnant, it is quite frankly scary. It's scary because it shows just how superficially the politicians in this country flirt with democracy only when it suits them. Why the hell does the Dial even bother having elections, if the leadership can decide that 'some' votes are so important, the leadership of this country can decide to re-run it's plebiscites ad infinitum?

People have died so that we may have this right.

Exactly the right of sufferage, this right is being abused right now by Bertie Ahern, it may be legal, it may even be legal to re-run elections for the Dial. Perhaps if Bertie Ahern had lost his seat that is just what would happen. A right, what a jip, for the right to mean anything it has to be respected and acted upon, not used as an instrument for the advancement of the political agenda of European Federalists who have not been elected by the people of Ireland and ultimately do not represent those people.

It is not something that we are asked to exercise every day of the week, so it is somewhat disingenuous for a person to complain about 'having to vote on something already voted on'.

It is anti-democratic to make those people do the same. Why is it you are prepared to set aside democracy just so you can get the result you want?
It is commonplace that when democracy fails, that people are forced to use means outside of democracy to advance their political agenda. Where I have a problem with this is when the elected representatives of a society the elite, the gentry, abuse the very mechanism that has put them in power. These people derive their influence from the machisma of democracy and are going outside of it's framework to advance their own political agenda, the same people who denounce terrorists world wide as undemocratic. What hypocrits.

Last time about 37.4% of the electorate voted. This was one of the lowest turnouts in any referendum. This time we should get a larger turnout, so that one way or the other we can finally get a result that is indicative of the wishes of the electorate.

People were free to go and vote, they choose not to, that abstenance was their vote. If this were an election to parliment and you attempted to suggest that the election should be declared void because of low voter turnout, I doubt you would get very far. What sort of nonesense is this?

As I have just demonstrated, we are not being coerced into doing anything. The treaty of Nice has nothing to do with a Federal Union.

I have already voted on this treaty. Why should I be fored or (coreced) into revoting because my elected representatives didn't like the way I voted.

Each treaty is a sucessive step further along the path to Federal Union and to dispute this fact is to delude oneself. The French and Germans are commited Federalists and this treaty seeks to lessen Irish sway in Europe, the treaty has been rejected and is being forced onto Ireland anyway, so in a way you are quite right the EU is not about Federal Union, it is an Imperium.

This is, as you are fond of saying, a fallacy of logic, the same fallacy that I see when anti-Nice campaigners argue that if I vote yes I'm a mindless automoton blindly following the government (as opposed to voting no?).

The choice is yours, I don't pretend to know you well enough to derive whether you are automaton or not.

I just love the accusations of the EU being an imperialist body, and Ireland painted as the underdog battling against the odds for democracy.

We are battling for our interests, democracy is ancillary.

A country of just 3 million pitted against the juggernaut of the European Union.

Actually I believe the population is quite close to breaching the 4 million mark, get your facts straight.

We'll just conveniently ignore the fact that every other country voted for nice.

Actually that's where you are wrong. Ireland was the only country to put the Treaty to a Referendum. Left to the national parliment as it was in all the other participant countys I'm quite sure the Dial would have played ball, but the beauty of this Republic is that it is designed to reflect the will of the people and to ammend this Republic's constitution as the Treaty of Nice requires a Referendum is required, so in effect Ireland is the only country in Europe where the people have been given the choice. So in this regard yes, Ireland is standing up for the principals of democracy.

bertiebowl

Gandalf,

Regarding Switzerland,

They are doing economically very well because they have a tradition of superior heavy industry, high productivity and a gigantic financial services industry that acts as a laundromat for "hot money".

Neither are relevant factors to Ireland. We do not have a tradition of superiour heavy industry

We do not act as a bank for third world dictators to steal money from the starving populations and stash the dosh with us (nor should we).

I would agree that telecommunications infrastructure is superior in Czech Republic (for which we can only blame the useless "government" ) and that this could influence some investment.

But voting no to Nice won't change that fact. What voting no to Nice will do is to introduce political uncertainty into our country.

gInvestors will question,

"Are we for Europe or against it? Do we wish to keep foreigners out or do we feel confident we can compete against the rest of the world"

This uncertainty will have a very negative influence on potential investors and in the long run cost us jobs.

bertiebowl

Like your conveniently ignoring the fact that the voters in those others countries did not get a chance to vote on this issue [the Nice Treaty]. It was decided for them undemocratically by their governments.

That post comes from Gandolf.

Come on my man, do you not expect the goverment to make some decisions on behalf of their peoples?

That's what governments are for, to make decisions on behalf of the people they represent........otherwise there would be chaos.

Lemming

Originally posted by bertiebowl


Come on my man, do you not expect the goverment to make some decisions on behalf of their peoples?

That's what governments are for, to make decisions on behalf of the people they represent........otherwise there would be chaos.

For issues that will change the VERY nature of how a country operates, I think that the electorate whom a government was ELECTED to REPRESENT should be given the right to choose.

gandalf

No I expect the government to make decisions to manage the country and make sure that their policies are addressing the citizens needs (something that has been forgotten long ago here in Ireland). I do not expect a government to dilute a countries Sovereignty without allowing its citizens a say.

The Treaty of Nice is making the move to a Federal Europe dominated by a Franco-German axis a reality and quickly too.

Gandalf.

bertiebowl

Gandolf,

The Treaty of Nice stops Franco-German axis of power (which is fading anyway due to poorish relations between the countries)on a number of counts

1) Under Amsterdam you need FOUR countries to forge ahead with enhanced co-operation

2) Under Nice you need EIGHT countries to forge ahead with enhanced co-operation.

ergo Enhanced co-operation is more difficult under Nice

3) Under Nice QMV you need a MAJORITY [potentially 14 countries] of the nations and at least 62.5% of the population in favour of a decesion for it to pass

Now you have said you wish to applicant countries to join the EU under the same conditions as we did.

I don't see how the Nice Treaty stops them from joining as we did.

However a No vote will definetely delay if not derail the applicant countries joining.

Could you explain your logic Gandolf, instead of making statements?

gandalf

Bertie the name is Gandalf not Gandolf.

I am basing my opinions and statements on my recollection of reading the treaty & other documents from the last vote.

I disagree with you strongly that German & French influence will diminish with the treaty of Nice the very fact that QMV comes in will enhance the voting powers of the larger population bases within the EU. Now thats fine if you want a Federal Europe buts its not good if you want to have some form of control over your own affairs taxes etc.

I am in work at the moment so I cannot answer in detail but I will later.

One question for you bertie are you in favour of a Federal Europe?

Gandalf.

bertiebowl

Sorry Gandalf,

Under QMV as a majority of countries as well as 62.5% population are needed for passing legislation and there are more small countries than large (Poland, Germany, France, Spain, UK, Italy), power transfers to the smaller countries!!!!

So there is no Franco/Germany axis under Nice.

Regarding a Federal Europe. Yep I'm a fan of Federalism as it is practised in the United States, with local states having their own police forces, education, social provisions, taxes etc,

Some say that if the Nice Treaty is defeated we will get a true Federal replacement for it......maybe it won't be all bad.

swiss

Originally posted by Typedef:

How many times do the Irish people have to reject the treaty via Referendum before that outcome can be accepted?

This is an interesting point. Bertie Ahern seemed to me to be cagey when posed this question (but then, when does a politician not seem cagey). In reality, should the treaty of Nice be rejected this time it is likely that the deadline for it's ratification will have passed before it is feasible to put it again. Even were it not, even the thought of putting it before an electorate again would be tantamount to political suicide. The Irish Government are taking a great deal of flak (as demonstrated in this and other threads) over their decision to rerun the treaty. It is already seen by many to be a blatant attempt to coerce people into voting yes.

I don't agree with this at all. While (as I said) I don't think it is in the best interests of democracy the government is entitled to rerun the treaty. Yes, of course this right is also a responsibility and as such must be treated with respect and humility. Abortion and divorce referenda were placed before the Irish people several times before they were ratified. Essentially all that changed was the wording between the referenda. Hence there is a precedent for this.

You call one rerun of a referendum "exhaustive"? Until we have evidence that reruns are imminent should a defeat ensue (and should this be the case I would take a dim view of the governments actions) then I think this is wild speculation.

So a government may pass any law it chooses, perhaps pertaining to the colour of your skin and how that pertains to your right to sit at the front of a bus and that law would be deemed to be legal, but what that law would not be is a constituant part of a free and fair pluralist democracy. So you may legislate till the cows come home about a whole miasma of things, hell why not outlaw all parties in the Dial bar Fianna Fail, then when the next election rolls around Fianna Fial would legally be the ruling party, but it would hardly be democratic now would it.

There is a distinction between legality and consitutionality. If the treaty of nice had not required a change in our constitution then I fully believe that the Irish government would have ratified it without holding a referendum on the issue. If it wasn't for the consititution to keep the government in check, they can (and might) do all the nasty things you mention. But the constitution is there, and they can't do that .

Who is to say which votes should stick and which votes should be re-run?

Right. There are a lot of reasons cited as to why this referendum in particular should be rerun. For example it allows a greater turnout, it allows people to become aware of the issues involved. While I (to an extent) agree with these, I think it's a smokescreen for the real reason - European and local lobby groups pressurised the government. Whether this was the deciding factor is moot. The very fact that it was applied is ominous. This leads to another question. If Nice was rerun, what else can be (something I might actually disagree with). It is a concerning thought. Is this reason enough to reject the treaty? The answer is of course it isn't.

I have a pretty dim view of the current administration. I believe that they are in 'auto-drive' and do not like to take "rock the boat" initiatives unless some powerful lobby group or other demand it. However, Nice is an issue that extends beyond these shores. It affects Europe as a whole, so no matter in what way it might be presented, it still behoves me to examine it carefully, without prejudice to the government.

Actually I believe the population is quite close to breaching the 4 million mark, get your facts straight

I couldn't help but smile at this. I could imagine a strange chanting in the background "Gerry, gerry, gerry". It's not often that I get to tell people not to be pedantic. The figure is around 3.8 mill IIRC.

Ultimately we are looking at two sides of the same coin. For the No camp, if they are so certain of a rejection of a treaty I would have imagined that they would relish the chance to show the Irish Government the resolve of the electorate. It would certainly silence me and any notion I might have about the Irish people being in favour of Nice. Instead they denounce the fact that it is being put again before the people. I have a hypothetical question. Should the treaty have been accepted the first time around and (for whatever reason) the decision was taken to re-run it, would the no campaign still be as vociferous in it's condemnation?

Ireland was the only country to put the Treaty to a Referendum

I am aware of this, thank you. I never stated to the contrary. I merely said that the other countries voted yes to Nice - this was in the parliments of the respective counties. Unless we accuse each of them of pandering to the wishes of the European Union, we must also accept that they were acting according to what they felt was best for their peoples. Now we are threatening to effectively reverse that decision. This may be in our interests, and as such we are entitled to do so. But what's that word that is applicable when one person acts in his own interest to the detriment of others. Oh yes, that's right it's selfish.

As for Federalism, well as yet I'm unsure. I can imagine it can bring economic benefits as well as the advantages of having a more open, multicultural society. On the other hand, well I appreciate the soverignty that we possess, national self determination is still our birthright, and Federalism could erode that unless such a time comes when we decide to break completely with the European Union.

bertiebowl

Did anyone the letter in the about the Nice Treaty yesterday Irish Times yesterday?

It was by some geezer Luke someone or other, for all those no voters who feel that the Nice Treaty should be put to a referendum in other EU countries that:

A) its ironic that in a union of soveign states some in Ireland wish to enforce their views as to how other countries should be run

Referendums in Germany are illegal

C) Britain has no constitution to write the Nice Treaty into!!!!

dathi1

Referendums in Germany are illegal

thats their problem.


NO2NICE MORE POWER FOR THEM LESS FOR US!

sceptre

Originally posted by bertiebowl
C) Britain has no constitution to write the Nice Treaty into!!!!

Oh, this old nugget again.

Let's get this one straightened a little.

Britain does not have a single document written constitution.

That's not the same thing as saying "Britain has no constitution" Yes, it bloody does. It's just not written down in one document. Most of UK constitutional law stems from the 1689 Bill of Rights and case law/Acts since. While occasional references are even now made to pre-1689 cases, that's not too odd as we do it with pre-1937 cases ourselves.

Having a referendum in Britain isn't impossible. It was done in 1975. It's possible that it'll be done before they join euroland

bertiebowl

Daithi

two points really

1) Regarding criticism by John Brutal, ho chi quinn etc. they have gone on record as saying that while they are not happy with all aspects of the Nice treaty they are supporting the Nice treaty on two basis:

a) Its the only deal in town that will enlarge the EU

b) The forum on the future of the EU is dealing with the future of the EU in a more satisfactory way than the IGCs. As such the outstanding issues that Brutal/ Ho chi are not happy with the Nice Treaty are currently being dealt with by the EU

2) Are you a no to nice supporter/member of Youth Defense?

Perhaps you could enlighted us on this point

Justin Barrett said last year in an interview with Magill magazine that Youth Defense's true problem with the Nice Treaty was that they feared abortion rules from Europe would be introduced in Ireland.

If so why are they campaigning on a xenophobic/Combat 18 basis of "keep 'em out"?

gandalf

Sorry Bertie there are already provisions in place from previous treaties to allow 5 more nations into the EU. So your "Its the only deal in town" is false and misleading. If your talking about allowing more nations in then yes, but there is room for 5 more.

While I don't personally like or have the same views as some of the No to Nice campaign there is no mention of any anti-abortion agenda on their website www.no2nice.org. Infact I am pro-choice so the very fact that I am singing from the same hymn sheet as people whose views I would normally condemn says a awful lot. Please stick to the facts Bertie and don't resort to the scaremongering and finger pointing as your namesake and his lapdog Biffo Cowan are doing at the moment.

Gandalf.

gurramok

Originally posted by bertiebowl
two points really

1) Regarding criticism by John Brutal, ho chi quinn etc. they have gone on record as saying that while they are not happy with all aspects of the Nice treaty they are supporting the Nice treaty on two basis:

Proof that politicians are hypocrites

What the heck has a tiny group such as youth defence have to do with the discussion about Nice ?....LOL

Bertiebowl, a vote for nice means less power/influence for this country, bigger countries get bigger slice of power than the smaller countries. Just look at the stats for the make-up of the next european body.

Reason treaty was not put to referendum in any other country because the political establishment of those countries were afraid of rejection.
Smaller countries would have also voted no and there would be a chance of rejection in the bigger countries because of apathy.
Most foreign people i know(alot of foreign people work where i am, they are EU citizens not immigrants) would vote no anyway.

bertiebowl

Gurramok,

I believe that enlargement is going ahead in the EU one way or the other.

I think the Nice Treaty is an excellent deal to allow enlargement.

Nice preserves a 200% (by population) over representation for Ireland at MEP and Council of Ministers level.

Everybody gets equal access to a commissioner

I also believe that if we vote no to Nice we will end with a worse deal, where we will have less power than under Nice, under whatever proposals are put in place to allow 10 countries join the EU without Nice.

Also I believe our relations with the EU and the applicant countries will be badly damaged.

And I believe Sean Dorgan of the IDA when he says a no vote to Nice will [effectively] destroy Irish jobs, through introducing political uncertainty and political risk for investors into the country.

Typedef

Originally posted by bertiebowl
I also believe that if we vote no to Nice we will end with a worse deal, where we will have less power than under Nice, under whatever proposals are put in place to allow 10 countries join the EU without Nice.

That really would be a misnomer of a treaty then wouldn't it? Clearly if Irish people won't vote for Nice (again) then the same voters will never vote for a treaty that apportions 'less' power to this country then Nice already does.

What are you suggesting the Europeans will coerce Ireland into a lesser treaty unless Nice is accepted?

I'd like to see them try.

bertiebowl

Gandalf - sorry didn't see your post there.

I'm just saying that last year Justin Barrett gave an interview in which he said his organistion was opposing Nice as they felt it would lead to the long term introduction of abortion into Ireland.

Clever fellows that they are the no to nice crowd know that campaigning against Nice on an anti-abortion basis would be doomed to failure.

So they've come up with a load of other rubbish instead - but make no mistake a no vote to Nice is a boost to the Christian Taliban in Ireland and will encourage them to campaign further on their raison d'etre - stopping abortion in Ireland.

Today Nice, tomorrow abortion, the day after who knows what they'll want

Also Nice is the only currently the only game in town to allow more than 5 countries into the EU

Now regarding the other post, I believe that if Ireland votes no to Nice again, the best legal minds in the EU will try to figure out how to allow the applicant countries in despite the Irish no vote.

And if that means Irelands influence/power be that effective or actual diminishes the Eurocrats won't give a stuff.

That's why I'm voting YES to Nice. Its the best deal in town that maintains Ireland's overinfluence relative to its population while allowing enlargment to proceed.

bertiebowl

What are you suggesting the Europeans will coerce Ireland into a lesser treaty unless Nice is accepted?

There won't be a treaty.

The Eurocrats know ireland would vote no anyway so they will make the changes in such a way that Ireland cannot effectively veto the project via a referendum.

And if that means ireland loses power, money and influence, well a few eurocrats in Brussels aren't going to lose any sleep.

Typedef

Actually bertiebowl what you are doing now is scaremongering.

There is no way the voting powers of Ireland can be changed, nor it's right to a Comissioner changed except by treaty and a treaty will have to be put to a vote.

However if the Treaty is accepted then Treaties like Nice could be forced through the Union by Qualified Majority Voting. A Union structured like that is disadvantageous to the Irish national interest, because Ireland looses the power to veto measures that don't suit Ireland. The crux is that the way the Union is being serrupticiously restructured to effectively make Ireland subject to the EU as opposed to a participant in it, was not laid out as the thrust of the Union when Ireland aceeded.

For all of your extollation of the virtues of the European Union, it seems you are not above suggesting Ireland will be coerced into an embryonic Federal state, sadly it is impossible to argue that a Federal Union is good for Ireland, whilst suggesting Ireland will be coerced into the same.

gandalf

Bertie you are resorting to posting scaremongering claptrap. Sure there are Right wing Catholics involved in the No for Nice campaign but in marginising the No campaign to one group of individuals you are engaging in mis-information tactics. I am a Liberal I was brought up a Catholic but I no longer practice and I believe the Church in Ireland is actually a corrupting influence. So how do I fit into to your Christian Taliban imagery. Please stop with the mud slinging.

Infact alot of what is written on the site www.no2nice.org is exactly the opinion I came to after reading the treaty last time and in my opinion it makes sense and rings true.

I see you have recognised the fact that the EU can be enlarged from its current size to accomodiate 5 more nations. So you lied initially about it "been the only game in town for enlargement". It is also not the only game in town to go beyond this. The basic fact is Nice when rejected will have to be renegociated there will be no back door solutions as you suggest, you are still scaremongering.

I love the way you say Ireland won't be able to veto any decision if we vote no, well we defiantely won't be able to veto much if we vote yes now will we

Gandalf.

bertiebowl

First off lets clear up some misinformation:

1) If nice passes future treaties must be approved by ireland in referendums (as a result of a supreme court judgment in Ireland which stated further European Integration must be passed by the people) FUTURE TREATIES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO QMV

2) The no to nice organisation are a subsidiary of the mother and child campaign (formerly known as Youth Defence). They only exist to campaign against abortion.

The no to nice crowd lashed huge amounts of money at the last campaign and this current campaign. Where is this coming from? We don't know but I suspect the bible bashing anti abortion Americans.

They are campaigning against Nice on the basis that they feel (wrongly as it is) Europe = abortion.

bertiebowl

Nice when rejected will have to be renegociated there will be no back door solutions as you suggest, you are still scaremongering.

If you think that's scaremongering consider this;

1) Gistaig D'Estaing said the Nice Treaty anyway could go ahead if 14 out of the 15 countries ratified it

2) Giulio Amato vice president of the EU convention on the future of Europe has said he believes Ireland should be "booted out" of the EU if they reject Nice again.

Sunday Tribune 14th July 2002

3) Some say that even if rejected by Ireland, most of the Nice Treaty will be slotted into accession treaties of the countries joining

There won't be a renegotiation of Nice, enlargement will go ahead anyway only Ireland's influence will have been severly diminished.

Investors will note political uncertainty/risk in Ireland and invest elsewhere causing jobs to go.

bertiebowl

I love the way you say Ireland won't be able to veto any decision if we vote no, well we defiantely won't be able to veto much if we vote yes now will we

Its not about vetos. Its about achieving what we want through negotiations and consensus with our European partners.

No campaigners who keep banging on about vetos remind me of GWB and his "veto" over the Kyoto treaty.

gandalf

Look Bertie look at their site and search for the word abortion, guess what you WILL NOT FIND IT.

As regards funding CAN YOU PROVE what you just said, I doubt it!

Up until your last few posts I reckoned you were someone who was going to argue your point of view in a intelligent manner now you are resorting to scaremongering and mistruths.

Yes I'm sure some of them think they are stopping abortion by their No to Nice stance but the majority of people that I know who are voting no are doing so because they have severe concerns about this undemocratic treaty.

No argue the points and stop with the scaremongering, at the moment your just as bad as the current government that you claim you disagree with.

Gandalf.

bertiebowl

Gandalf - you've read the website

only 3 names are mentioned

Denis O'Riordan
Rory O'Hanlon
Justin Barrett

What have 2 out of the 3 been famous for?

Campaigning against the Amsterdam Treaty or against Abortion?

As I said before the reason no to nice are NOT using abortion to campaign against Nice, is that it would be political suicide - people like yourself might consider voting against the taliban.

Remember

Today - Nice
Tomorrow - Abortion
The day after - who knows