Jobs To Go With Nice No Vote

gandalf

Originally posted by bertiebowl


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

So why are we having this vote then. Well that shows the EU for what is becoming undemocratic and disrepecting of the sovreignty of this country. By the way I doubt very much that they will do this. By voting No to Nice we will force the EU to take a proper look at the democratic deficite that exists within its institutions.

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.

So the EU again will ignore the democratic wishes of some of their citizens. Your making a really strong arguement here

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.

So your saying that even if we vote No the EU will enlarge. Hang on earlier in this thread you said otherwise. Again really good arguement keep going

By the way I disagree totally with your opinion that the treaty cannot be renegotiated. If its rejected they will have to renegotiate this time. Otherwise they will give people who say they are not democrat ammunition to prove it.

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

Again you are putting up a opinion I disagree with. Some of the more Xenophobic could also argue that a Yes would have capital and jobs flowing out of this country to the new member states as well (not my personal opinion just showing how yours can be countered).

Gandalf.

G

This uncertainty will mean reduced investment

Bertiebowl there's no proof of that. I run a business and if I was seeking to expand operations yes I would look for a balance of cheap labour, educated workforce, modern infrastructure, tax incentives etc. But I certainly would not exclude a country because they happened to vote no to Nice.

I know it's been said a lot but you are scaremongering. There's far more cons then pros in Nice for Ireland, and your yes vote is based primarily on the reprocusions of a no vote i.e. "political and investment uncertainty" which is speculation anyway.

I'm voting no.

G.

What's your occupation Bertie?

bertiebowl

Gandalf

Each argument you quoted was an opinion expressed by a commentator - not a fact.

My opinion on the matter (as I have said before) is that the one way or the other enlargement will go ahead (but lets be clear nobody is sure if enlargement will ever go ahead if Ireland rejects Nice).

Now if Ireland rejects the Nice Treaty and enlargement goes ahead with more than 5 countries, this will force the EU to utilise a "plan B" to enlarge.

Ireland will have no influence over this "plan B" as the plan B is designed to get around the Irish rejection of the Nice Treaty.

You will lose your power, your money and your freedom - too right!

That's why I'm voting YES

Typedef

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

Thus proving the point that Ireland is not a participant in the European Union, but a subject of it, marginalised with the attitude of Europeans being, "Do as we say or get yourselves gone!". Do you think the esteemed Gistaig D'Estaing would have this to say had France rejected the Nice treaty? If not then how can you argue that Ireland is a participant in Europe, when the attitude of Eurocrats is one of a colonial master?

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.

Yet again, the attitude of the Eurocrat and his dictat, do as we say or leave, is this how little Irish input into the makeup of a fledgling Federal Union you want us to participate in is to be? Either the Irish electorate agrees with the dictats of the Eurocrat gentry or Ireland leaves the Union? What sort of 'Europe of equals' is that?

Furthermore you are actually contradicting yourself by saying on the one hand that if Ireland doesn't ratify Nice we will get a worse deal that can't be voted on your own words "There won't be a treaty. " and on the other hand you are saying that Qualified Majority Voting poses no threat as a Referendum must be held in Ireland for further integration to take place. Well which is it?

With Qualified Majority Voting Ireland will no longer be able to veto measures introduced within the mechanisms of Europe and what's worse is that Ireland has already rejected Nice via Referendum and our 'European Partners' are threatening to expell Ireland unless we backtrack, bugger our own democratic process and bandy up the result the Eurocrats want.
Well errm excuse me while I don't care a fiddle what our would be Eurotrash masters want me to do.

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

Not Ireland's problem then is it?

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

Excuse me but as it stands right now Enhanced co-operation is much more difficult without Nice being implemented.

http://www.cec.org.uk/info/pubs/bbriefs/bb29.htm
The rules for enhanced cooperation – some EU countries, but not all, acting within the EU structures – have been altered to make such initiatives easier. Enhanced cooperation can be used in foreign and security policy, but only for the implementation of policies already agreed under unanimity.

With Nice and Qualified Majority Voting it is so much easier for 'core' European countries to forge ahead with integration and then pressure Ireland and others to follow their lead and I don't really believe that Federal Union is what the Irish people want.

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

Speculation.

In fact high inflation caused by the Euro is doing damage to the Irish economy as we speak.

dathi1

em...no Bertie.. Like the majority of ordinary Citizens against a Nice re-run I'm not a member of youth defence or Combat 18 but keep it up... as long as the "Run the Nice treaty again or else" crowd stoop to this level we're sure to win this one again hands down. Cheers, Daithi.

Ruari Quinn on the Nice Treaty negotiations:


Cowens letter to Kitt on euro expansion.

No2Nice A SECOND CHANCE TO LOSE POWER, MONEY AND INFLUENCE

sceptre

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.

So what you're saying is:

Nice isn't too hot, but if we vote no we might end up with something worse

In other words: we must vote for something in case something worse gets forced upon us. This is something. Let's vote for it.

If you do truly believe in the goodness of the Nice Treaty for Irish and all Europeans, stop making statements like that (and the other Bertie could do well to do likewise). If you do, you're a liability to the campaign.

sceptre

Originally posted by bertiebowl

Now if Ireland rejects the Nice Treaty and enlargement goes ahead with more than 5 countries, this will force the EU to utilise a "plan B" to enlarge.

Ireland will have no influence over this "plan B" as the plan B is designed to get around the Irish rejection of the Nice Treaty.

Scaremongering at its best. See my last post.

dathi1

"This claim is simply not true. . . . The countries which are more likely to receive Eastern European immigrants are those such as Germany and Austria that border the new member states, and those where larger numbers of citizens from candidate countries already reside," he said.

Bertie Ahern today on the immigration issue re euro expansion.
http://home.eircom.net/news/Breaking/story.asp?id=65

I think someone better call him and tell him that these countries have made themselves excempt from foreign workers on jan 1st 2004.

Cowens letter on the above


Goverment re-run Yes campaigner Dick Roche on the No victory last year.

Typedef

That's a classic dathi1.

gandalf

Originally posted by bertiebowl
Gandalf

Each argument you quoted was an opinion expressed by a commentator - not a fact.

Well your presenting them like they are facts. Misleading us like your namesake eh

My opinion on the matter (as I have said before) is that the one way or the other enlargement will go ahead (but lets be clear nobody is sure if enlargement will ever go ahead if Ireland rejects Nice).

Now if Ireland rejects the Nice Treaty and enlargement goes ahead with more than 5 countries, this will force the EU to utilise a "plan B" to enlarge.

Ireland will have no influence over this "plan B" as the plan B is designed to get around the Irish rejection of the Nice Treaty.

You will lose your power, your money and your freedom - too right!

That's why I'm voting YES

Oh for god sake stop with the scaremongering.

It is obvious to the most unintelligent person that they will have to renegotiate the treaty but would you admit this if you were trying to get a YES vote of course not.

Yeah your right about the "You will lose your power, your money and your freedom" if people like you vote Yes!.

The only vote that will benefit Ireland, the ordinary citizens of the EU & the potential new members of the EU is a No vote. The only people it will hurt are the manderins in Brussels and some of our politicians.

Gandalf.

swiss

Originally posted by Gandalf:


The only vote that will benefit Ireland, the ordinary citizens of the EU & the potential new members of the EU is a No vote. The only people it will hurt are the manderins in Brussels and some of our politicians.

I'm afraid I can't agree with that. The general consensus amongst no campaigners is that the present Nice treaty isn't equitable towards the smaller countries, such as Ireland and the applicant countries. Thus by forcing it out by voting 'no' we can force a renegotiation and (hopefully) a better deal for each country.

It's an interesting prospect, I must admit. I'll cede that Nice is far from perfect. Some countries would be over represented at European level (such as Germany, France and Ireland) whereas in terms of population the applicant countries would be largely under-represented. This, needless to say is not pure democratic representation, despite the fact that large countries are yielding some power (and hence the disparity is narrowing).

That is certainly a powerful argument if you wish to see all countries having equal and fair representation. However, many Nice campaigners bemoan the fact that Ireland will lose some of it's (over) representation and our loss of an automatic right to a commissioner. We did not have a right to this level of representation in the first place. In order to have a more equitable Europe of couse we would have to relinquish some power.

Under Nice we are still over represented in per capita terms. For a fairer treaty to emerge we would have to accept even less representation along with the larger countries like Germany and France. To paraphrase Typedef, there would be a fat chance that we would ratify this kind of treaty. It is therefore hypocritical to argue for a treaty with a fairer level of representation for all countries and begrudge the ensuing loss of Irish power/representation.

The applicant countries accept Nice in its current form. True it was not ratified by a referendum in these counties. Again, many see this as a reason to vote against Nice, to force reform at a democratic, rather than an institutional level. Again while I understand the argument I cannot agree with it. Governments are elected to carry out the wishes of the people. True they do not always get things right, but (if for no other reason than political survival) they do typically try their best to judge the wishes of the people and act accordingly. It is not always feasible to run a referendum on every issue that might affect a country.

Secondly, many are against the Nice in a stand for the 'rights' of the peoples of the applicant countries. However, I am unaware of large scale dissent against Nice in these countries. Obviously there are groups who are against Nice in each country, but are these representative of a people? If anyone can prove me wrong, please post a URL here, but IMO many people in the applicant countries are happy to sign up to Nice. Are we, therefore trying to make the decisions for these peoples? Does it not seem a little hypocritical to lambast the counties governments for making the decision to join Nice without holding a vote on the issue - when we are doing exactly the same thing (forcing our opinions upon the respective countries without giving them an opportunity to vote)?

On another note, I've noticed an increasing tide of Euro-skepticism creeping in Ireland. I suppose it comes from the increasing bureaucracy that is starting to affect us more and more, and also the fact that we won't be getting as much money as previously. However, I am disappointed that after years of diplomatic, infrastructural and economic aid, when Europe asks us to ratify a treaty to which our government has signed up - we brand Europe an Imporium, and accuse it of 'sneaking Federalism upon us'.

Typedef

Originally posted by swiss
That is certainly a powerful argument if you wish to see all countries having equal and fair representation. However, many Nice campaigners bemoan the fact that Ireland will lose some of it's (over) representation and our loss of an automatic right to a commissioner. We did not have a right to this level of representation in the first place. In order to have a more equitable Europe of couse we would have to relinquish some power.

Again and again the Yes side keeps reiterating this mantra. In reality Nice seeks to restructure the auspices Ireland aceeded to the Union or the Community as it then was, serrupticously, by filibustering and prorouging Irish democracy, in the name of what 'enhanced democracy'? Tell me, how is this so called move towards democracy to be achieved? Why by forcing yet another plebiscite on the issue of Nice, when the people of Ireland have spoken, those who chose to vote, did and just because the outcome does not suit the Yes campaign or the Government, does not endow that side (if side is even the correct word) with the right right to nullify the result of a Referendum. The yes 'side' is grasping at straws by saying 'not enough people voted', when what it really means is 'any result other then Yes to Nice is unacceptable', so don't try and justify the negation of Irish and ultimately European democracy for grandeous Federalist ideology, by telling me I didn't understand Nice or that not enough people voted for the Referendum to count. The result doesn't suit the Yes side and the Yes side is in a position to set aside the last result, nothing more, there is no wrong done to democracy by a low voter turnout, that is the beauty of a free and fair pluralist society, you have the power to vote or not vote, if you so wish, and who is anyone to say that doing either or neither invalidates a plebiscite?

Under Nice we are still over represented in per capita terms.

What is your point? Ireland looses it's automatic right to a Commissioner, this is a big loss and what's worse is that a re-run if it takes place will be the biggest blow to Irish democracy since the inception of the state, because Ireland's already authoritarian government will have taken the step into the relm of the non-democrat, of the anti-democrat, the democrat who uses democracy only so long as it suits them, only to turn on the very people who infuse the democratic process i.e. the voters.
The debacle surrounding the re-run of the Treaty of Nice reminds me of the saying that was bandied about for the Ford model T. "You can buy it in every shade of black". The same with the Referendum, "The only answer acceptable to the government is Yes". When what this government is supposed to do is represent the views of the people of Ireland, not try to dictate what those views should be.

I ask you imagine the government in the USA attempted to re-run a plebiscite like the government of Ireland is trying to do right now, it would never happen, because American's value their democracy too much, true some elections may be rigged as elections are no doubtly rigged in Ireland too, but the thought that Americans would ever stand for such blatant perversion of democracy is laughable. So I propose Irish people in a similar fashion fight for our democratic rights.
The people have spoken and no one be he King or Kaiser has the right to pervert, cast aspersions or sully that result or that voice.

For a fairer treaty to emerge we would have to accept even less representation along with the larger countries like Germany and France.

You see this is where the Irish government should represent the people of Ireland, because that is what they were elected to do, not to dictate from Dail Eireann, take backhanders from the like of Denis O'Brien, Larry Goodman, you name him. Since Ireland hasn't accepted Nice, there is no way another Treaty apportioning less power to Ireland would ever be passed by the people of Ireland, our democratic voice is our best protection and our greatest power and to suggest that somehow Ireland would be coerced into a lesser offering is nonesense and scaremongering, the only way to coerce Ireland into a lesser Treaty apart from electoral manipulation by the government of course is military action and military action will 'never' happen.

To paraphrase Typedef, there would be a fat chance that we would ratify this kind of treaty.

Correct.

It is therefore hypocritical to argue for a treaty with a fairer level of representation for all countries and begrudge the ensuing loss of Irish power/representation.

I'm not really following your logic here. No one is arguing for a fair level of representation as the only beneficiaries to that are country's like France and Germany, and being blunt the last thing Ireland needs is less say in a Federal Europe, considering how seemingly unable to stop the Nice Treaty Ireland was to begin with, similar treaties damaging to the Irish national interest would be even more difficult to resist.
Clearly Ireland had no say in the drafting of Nice, and Ireland is not 'allowed', by our 'European partners' to return any result other than 'Yes' on this treaty, a treaty our government attempted to resist every step of the way during drafting, a treaty that European friendly politicains like Mary Banotti and Dana RoseMarie Scallon initially refused to support. And what if Ireland were to reject the next treaty, would there be yet another re-run and if so why even maintain the pretence of living in a democratic state which is a participant of the EU, when under such circumstances Ireland would be a colonly of the EU, a perhipheral state dictated to by a conglomeration of four or five countries who would be annexing still more power to their two-tiered elistist axis? An axis that regards itself as the avant garde of the Supra-Nationalist European Federal Union.

The applicant countries accept Nice in its current form.

Be serious, you are talking about countries who were dictated to for years by Moscow, countries who's economy is battered and who's people have unempolyment rates in the mid 20 %, those counties would jump through hoops to get free access to core European markets, CAP subsidies and a perception to be leaving behind fifty years of Russian misrule.

True it was not ratified by a referendum in these counties.

Then how can you say the people accept the treaty? They don't , the people's government accepts the treaty, just like the Irish government does, but the Irish people have already spoken and defeated this treaty. Is Supra Nationalist European Federalism important enough to end any pretences to democracy Ireland claims to have? I most certainly don't think so.

Again, many see this as a reason to vote against Nice, to force reform at a democratic, rather than an institutional level. Again while I understand the argument I cannot agree with it. Governments are elected to carry out the wishes of the people.

Exactly and the Irish government is refusing to do that, it has instead taken it upon itself to 'educate' the electorate in the 'proper' way to vote.
Strangely General Musharaf in Pakistan, you know the military dictator has a similar view. In Pakistan, yes there will be a vote in the future on the governance of Pakistan, but it won't be a free and fair multi-party election, no, that election will be to determine whether or not the Military Dictatorship should continue. It could be argued that after such an election General Musharaf could claim to represent the views of his people also. Now I'm not suggesting that Fianna Fail is a similar body to a Military Dictatorship, however, just because a government is elected does not make every word that government utters the life's breath of it's nation's sentiment.

True they do not always get things right, but (if for no other reason than political survival) they do typically try their best to judge the wishes of the people and act accordingly. It is not always feasible to run a referendum on every issue that might affect a country.

The Referendum has been run just like the election and to cast that result aside is to cast aside democracy and supplant it with 'something else', something that vaugely resembles democracy, but when analysed is found to be quite anti-democratic as 'rerunning' the Referendum as the euphamism goes is.

Typedef

Secondly, many are against the Nice in a stand for the 'rights' of the peoples of the applicant countries. However, I am unaware of large scale dissent against Nice in these countries.

No I am in this one for the good of this country, not for the good of France,Germany, Poland or others, let them sort out their own country's and leave Ireland to the Irish. I am firmly against Nice because the Treaty itself erodes Ireland's influence in an ever increasingly Federal Union, whilst annexing still more power to the largest countries and the process of 'rerun' is an anthema to the very fabric of what this Republic was founded on. A Republic is governance by the people for the people, who speak via Referendum and when the government seeks to negate the voice of the people you no longer have a Republic, so once a rerun of the 'exact same treaty' is put in place the very notion of Ireland being a Republic is quashed utterly.

Obviously there are groups who are against Nice in each country, but are these representative of a people?

The Referendum result in this country was, that is what a Referendum is all about and allegedly what a Republic (which is what Ireland is meant to be) is all about. The only question now for any other Referendum should be a progression of the last vote, that is what the abortion Referenda were about, clarifying such that the least ambituity could exist, what the express wishes of the people of Ireland were, and not once, was the exact same issue put to the people, because that is an anthema to Democracy and Republicansim.

If anyone can prove me wrong, please post a URL here, but IMO many people in the applicant countries are happy to sign up to Nice.

How is that relevant? No amount of rationalisation about how other countries want Nice and so Irish democracy should be sidelined will convice me on this one, no amount of it. Let those countries decide for themselves what they want, Ireland has already decided what it wants and to allow the politicains in Ireland to sercuitously prorouge the process of democracy and Referenda to suit their own political agenda, by using reactive progaganda to achieve their aims and destroying the meaning of the word Republic in this country is to destroy the very crux of and pinnacle of Irish democracy as it has been developing since the foundation of the Mayo Land league, the Land League, the Irish Parlimentary Party, right up to the drafting of the Constitution. I firmly believe that.

Are we, therefore trying to make the decisions for these peoples?

No but, apparently according to you Ireland should make the so-called 'right' decision in lieu of those applicant countries hmm?

Does it not seem a little hypocritical to lambast the counties governments for making the decision to join Nice without holding a vote on the issue - when we are doing exactly the same thing (forcing our opinions upon the respective countries without giving them an opportunity to vote)?

It is not a question of acession, it is question of what Nice does in Ireland as the treaty must be ratified by all the participants and this country has rejected that treaty, via plebiscite, that plebiscite was a question on whether or not the Irish electorate agreed with the provisio of the treaty and that provisio was rejected. To re-run the Refendum to extract the 'right result' is forcing of pan-European opinion on to Ireland. That opinion is diverse, the applicant countries are desperate to get into the EU, because those countries see acession as a means to repair their collapsed post-Soviet economies and the large countries like France,Germany,Britian and Italy, well now, they most certainly see it as an opportunity to create a boys club in Europe and control the EU from within, without having to give credo to the concerns of small nations like Ireland. So fine if Poland wants to join under those circumstances then good for Poland, Ireland did not join under that kind of framework and Ireland has rejected the revised framework and whats more the very fabric of what a Republic is would be destroyed by attempting to remake the Nice result in the image of the Spra-nationalist Eurocrat ideal.

However, I am disappointed that after years of diplomatic, infrastructural and economic aid, when Europe asks us to ratify a treaty to which our government has signed up - we brand Europe an Imporium, and accuse it of 'sneaking Federalism upon us'.

Nonesene, this notion of Ireland as the hand out suck is a nonesense, any economic success Ireland enjoys comes from delibrate work and Macro economic management, I'm sure I don't have to tell you that you get nothing for nothing in this life. By 2006 Ireland will be a net contributor to EU funding. Each year between €250 million and €1 billion (depending on your sources of information) of fish are extracted from Irish waters, by 'other' European countries and that has been going on since 1973, of course this figure is not included in the evalutaion of Irish 'net contribution'. The CAP, actually inhibits the development of Irish Agricultural Industry, by paying Irish farmers not to produce when if you consider the miracle high technology economy that has emerged in Ireland, it is quite clear that a non-CAP inhibited industry if even half as successful as the Irish technology sector who be massive and most likely much more profitable.

gandalf

Well Swiss I can see where you are coming from. Yes if you want a Federal Europe as you and many of the Yes campaigners seem to want then basing the number of votes etc by population makes sense. However if like me you see the EU as a partnership of sovreign states co-operating in the areas of trade etc then the Nice treaty is a threat to that very sovreignty and totally unacceptable.

We in Ireland have worked so hard to achieve our own democracy and we have paid a high price to do so, to let it slip away with a flawed agreement like this is criminal.

Gandalf.

swiss

Phew, I don't think I'm going to stretch this to two posts (I guess I don't have the stamina ) but I'll try to explain my reasoning.

Firstly, and no offence Typedef, I don't quite think that you got where I was going with my argument about the attitude no campaigners often have in relation to applicant countries.

Whats your point?

My logic is

1) Many arguments against Nice are based on the inequality of the system.

2) Many proposed alternatives to Nice are also inequitable (except that Ireland is favoured more).

3) This is hypocritical

I guess I did go on a bit. As you've demonstrated, some people don't really care about this. However, I'll assume some ppl will see the logic and validity behind my arguments (otherwise it's a waste of keystroke energy ).

I am beginning to understand more as to why people are so vociferously against Nice. During the first referendum on the issue the No camp highlighted our loss of representation, our loss of money etc. I didn't (and still don't) see things that way. Now people are not only concerned about this, but about the re-run of what is essentially the same treaty. Now people are concerned about being co-erced into accepting a treaty, something which runs contrary to democracy. Again, as I pointed out several times, while I don't necessarily think that it is the best tradition of democracy I don't believe that it is as insidious development as many people make it out to be.

Gandalf, I would describe myself as a pro - europe, and I am proud to call myself European as well as Irish. That does not necessarily mean that I endorse any Federal European state. An Irish soverign state is still our birthright, and one that is worth keeping. Closer economic and cultural ties is still the remit of the European Union, and any policies that breach the boundaries of this remit merits close consideration.

I'll expand later on my opinions (I just don't have the energy now ).

Sand

Right

Ive seen debates like this for quite some time - Type who has seemingly taken the high moral nationalist/capitalist ground in a surprising move is missing one important point - both me and him are irish ( I assume? ) and we dont agree on the colour of snow from what I know. Hence using "irishness" as basis point for political planning is particularly ****ed up imo.

The whole point of european integration is that whether you were born on Oslo or Dundalk that you could consider yourself European. The whole problem with Europe and the EU has been that for the last two decades or so many of Typedefs idealogical buddies have taken power and have come with the attitude "What can my country get out of this?" - greater democracy in Europe by defintion means that Ireland as a political concept is as relevant as Munster is to Dail Eireann ( a geographical region with x amount of voters) - Germany and France ( who love each other as much as England and Ireland, theyre hardly a loving alliance) will have a larger say because there are far far far more germans and french people than there are Irish . This is only fair unless Type wants to argue that Germans and French people dont deserve to have an equal say/ vote because theyre French/German and thus from a big country and thus out to rule the (very) English speaking world. Its only even relevant if Type wants to argue that there are no French socialists or right wingers and the same for Germany - its not like they vote along nationalist lines.

Ireland doesnt have an automatic right to a commissoner? Big deal, North Kildare doesnt have an automatic right to a ministerial post - its just McCreevys competence that makes him a first pick , as it should be - merit rather than affirmitive action.

I think its valid to re run Nice because the first time around the No side did their best to try and panic and scaremonger ppl into voting no with ****e abouit NATO - comple crap tbh.

The government now claims that ppl didnt know the issues fuly at the time and the no side claims theyre patronising the voters- maybe, but werent the no side doing the exact same when they went about with the slogans "If you dont know, vote no"?

At the same time I belive the Nice Treaty to be flawed as it continues down the same old tired path of a union of nations rather than an actual union. Hence Im not particularly arsed whether ppl vote yes or no , but Id hope if a no vote resulted that a proper integrating and democratice system would be agreed.

Typedef

Originally posted by Sand
The whole point of european integration is that whether you were born on Oslo or Dundalk that you could consider yourself European. The whole problem with Europe and the EU has been that for the last two decades or so many of Typedefs idealogical buddies have taken power and have come with the attitude "What can my country get out of this?" - greater democracy in Europe by defintion means that Ireland as a political concept is as relevant as Munster is to Dail Eireann ( a geographical region with x amount of voters) - Germany and France ( who love each other as much as England and Ireland, theyre hardly a loving alliance) will have a larger say because there are far far far more germans and french people than there are Irish . This is only fair unless Type wants to argue that Germans and French people dont deserve to have an equal say/ vote because theyre French/German and thus from a big country and thus out to rule the (very) English speaking world. Its only even relevant if Type wants to argue that there are no French socialists or right wingers and the same for Germany - its not like they vote along nationalist lines.

Two things Sand, I think I agree with Dath1 & Gandalf on this one, I want to see a European Union of soverign states, not a Federalist Union. What you are describing is how a country would work and I for one do not want to see Ireland be subsumed into Pax Europa, so essentially you are a European Federalist (if I am wrong please correct me) and I am well a Nationalist I suppose would be the best description, yes Nationalist will suffice

I think its valid to re run Nice because the first time around the No side did their best to try and panic and scaremonger ppl into voting no with ****e abouit NATO - comple crap tbh.

That is where you are quite wrong, you, one cannot decide the tactics used by side (n) in an plebiscite, nullify the results of an election, bar actually preventing voters entering the polling stations via threat of physical force, anything goes in pluralist democracy, hence you may if you choose to vote for Mickey Mouse or the 'Monster raving Looney Party' if you so wish, because bar actually preventing people voting, in a pluralist democracy, you may exercise your vote or campaign for a vote in any manner that you so wish, it's a fundamental freedom that democracy is based upon.

Par example Fianna Fial told the electorate a whole load of lies in the last election about government spending on health and education and the state of the economy, so by your logic, the election result should be thrown out the window because Fianna Fial lied. Are you suggesting the election result be set aside and Ireland has a new election to Dial Eireann because I say Fianna Fial 'lied' about the economy and public spending?

Of course you aren't, so why should the Nice result be set aside because you say the No side lied about Neutrality?

It is fact that if the Supra-Nationalist European Superstate you espouse comes to pass that there will be a European army and since Ireland will be a member of this Federal Superstate, Ireland will be obliged to commit Irish soldiers to this European Army. And like most things in a Federal European Union based on 'fairness' as you call it, the French,Germans, British and Italians will call the shots, literally as well as metaphorically.

nahdoic

Thank you gandalf!

I've been trying for weeks to melt down this nice treaty to the real core issue in my head.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is this not the crux of it?

The Treaty of Nice transcends borders to give an equal percentage of the vote to each EU citizen. Is that not what people on the street should be told?

Do you want the EU to be an equal partnership of sovreign states? - vote no to nice.

Do you want EU to transcend borders and give each EU citizen an equal percentage of the vote? - vote yes to nice

I was confused by the real issues before and I was going to vote yes. I'm voting no now though. I want an equal partnership of sovreign states. To do otherwise I think in itself could actually eventally cause another war within Europe. Larger states imposing their will on smaller ones. We've never had that before ...

gandalf

Originally posted by nahdoic


The Treaty of Nice transcends borders to give an equal percentage of the vote to each EU citizen. Is that not what people on the street should be told?

Well actually yes and no to this.

Ireland still has a higher number of "votes" per capita than Germany, France, Italy & the UK but in reality those states if in agreement can drive legislation thru without our consent. Basically this is the foundation & catlyst for a European Superstate.

Gandalf.

smiles

Originally posted by gandalf

Ireland still has a higher number of "votes" per capita than Germany, France, Italy & the UK but in reality those states if in agreement can drive legislation thru without our consent. Basically this is the foundation & catlyst for a European Superstate.

*if* that happened then the entire EU would fall apart.

It's that simple.

Yes, it's a possibilty!

Is there any chance of it? No.

<< Fio >>

gandalf

Sorry Smiles it is happening and Nice is the Green Light to a Federal Superstate. Anyone who doesn't see this is kidding themselves.

By the way are you in favour of a Federal Europe - this is just curiosity from me?

Gandalf.

smiles

Originally posted by gandalf
Sorry Smiles it is happening and Nice is the Green Light to a Federal Superstate. Anyone who doesn't see this is kidding themselves.

By the way are you in favour of a Federal Europe - this is just curiosity from me?

I'm not in favour of a Federal Europe - and I cant honestly think of it happening, I can see the possibilty - but if it does then all other countries would basically pull out.

<< Fio >>

Typedef

Tell me smilies how can we 'pull out' if every time the Irish electorate rejects a proposal on further European integration, the supposedly democratically elected government of Ireland refuses to accept the democratic decision of the Irish people?

The re-run seems quite sinister really, it sets a precedent, that I think when scrutanised, exposes how shaky democracy is in Ireland and how absolutely lacking it is in Europe.

If you read the provisio's of the Nice treaty not only does it apportion Qualified Majority Voting, but it also allows for a two tiered framework of European integration. Now since France, Germany & Italy are comitted Federalists it is obvious that in the not so distant future these countries will try to draft a constitution for the EU. When that happens the EU will for all intents and purposes, be a country, a Supra Nationalist one, but a country all the same. My point? Look at the UK which is being inexorably sucked into the Euro and look at the size of influence of the British both politically and economically at a geo-political level and then ask yourself if a state as powerful as the UK can't keep itself from being sucked into the Euro, then what chance does Ireland have of not being sucked into a Federal Superstate if Irish voters allow Qualified Majority Voting endow the so called Avant Garde of European Federalism a mechanism to create a Federal state on their own and then pressurise countries like Ireland, Denmark the UK and others into following suit?

G

like so many things in life... we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't.

nahdoic

OK, gandalf. Well I already kinda knew that, but didn't want to confuse the issue. So how about

The Treaty of Nice transcends borders to give a far more equal percentage of the vote to each EU citizen.

Originally posted by G
like so many things in life... we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't.

I don't think we're at all damned if we don't. The EU works great as an equal partnership of sovereign states. As it is for the most part at present. It takes all 15 states to agree on something for it go through at present. So I'm voting no.

G

sorry I was being a bit blahzay

I'm still voting no too but, granted this treaty has been presented in an undemocratic manner, you'd wonder what stunt they'll pull if we throw a spanner in the works again.

Typedef

I have my doubts as to whether this government is not above rigging the next Referendum on Nice, considering said government is already prepaired to 'set aside' the last result due to 'confusion' & 'low voter turnout' and 'insert some excuse', I honestly wouldn't put it past the encumbant government to decide that the Treaty of Nice is far too important an issue to be left to plebiscite.

Perhaps that is just paranoia.

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
Perhaps that is just paranoia.

Yes, it is.

The government did not "put aside" the last vote. They have abided by its decision.

The government have also not broken any law in their actions to hold a second referendum on the same issue.

All they have done is act in a manner which is not congruent with the "spirit" of democracy, as opposed to acting in a manner which is against our laws on the subject....which is what you are asserting they may do in the future.

On that issue - I notice that you are very quick to condemn our government for acting in a manner which is not keeping with the spirit of democracy, but I have never heard you once complain about the tactics employed in the last referendum by the No corner - particularly the "if you dont know, vote No" approach.

I mean - how less democratic an approach could anyone encourage - "if you're not sure whether you should vote yes or no, make sure you vote no because, ummm, well, because". Surely a democratic approach would have been "if you arent sure, then dont vote." or "if you arent sure, spoil your vote".

IIRC you also argued in favour of the rights of individuals to vote No "just to spite the government" in a previous thread. Again - a good act in the spirit of democracy - forget expressing your wishes on the subject - just vote against someone to piss them off. Oh - and then give out when they turn around and essentially say that the vote is not representative of people's feelings on the issue.

No - only one side got/get castigated for their lack of democratic "spirit". No-one has broken any laws here - if they had, the opposing side would haul their asses into court so fast it would make your head spin. THere's no better way to sink a campaign than in court. The fact that this hasnt happened should tell us something very very signficant. I'm not sure how often I can say it, but here it is one last time : no laws were broken.

So maybe we could stop with the paranoid scaremongering about having a government willing to essentially disregard the law, or throw it aside in the name of convenience. They never have, and have given no grounds to believe they ever will.

At best, all our government has done is shown that there is a gaping loophole in our legislation which needs to be sorted out ASAP. Of course, I'm sure the No camp will agree with this, and not turn around seeking a third referendum should the second one pass. After all - that would be undemocratic.

jc

jc

Typedef

Originally posted by bonkey
I'm sure the No camp will agree with this, and not turn around seeking a third referendum should the second one pass. After all - that would be undemocratic.

Exactly. That is the nature of democracy, that you don't just surreptitiously manipulate the electoral process such that you can 'legally' side step the results of plebiscites that don't suit you.

While having another parlimentary election because Fianna Fial claim that the opposition has lied or tried to manipulate the voters in Ireland may be legal, what it most certainly is not, is democratic. The legality of the issue is not what I'm disputing, the damage a re-run does to democracy in this country both by setting a precedent of only accepting the results of plebiscites the government wishes to and by the measures actually contained in the Treaty being forced through, is in my view draconian,sinister and quite frankley scarey. I don't want this country to become a show democracy, a place where democracy is a word only used by those who get their way, only to use the word 'legal' when the word 'democracy' doesn't suit.

I would like to see the piece of legislation that endows the Taoiseach with the right,power or intellegence to decide a Referendum result doesn't count, and that he can just have another one to extract the result he wants. I'd like to find the shred of audacity that allows that man to decide that all the people who voted in the last Referendum just don't collectively have the capacity to make decisions for the welfare of this country the way our esteemed, benavolent leader Mr Ahern does.

Whats more the very fundamental precis of a Republic is that it is designed to be a reflection of the wishes of it's people, where the people speak via Referenda and Elections.
The people have spoken on this issue and it is the duty of the government to carry out the wishes of the people, not to try and change their wishes to suit the government's wishes. The government is supposed to 'represent' the views of it's people, not dictate what those views should be, nor cast aspersions on the methods the people arrive at their decisions, like accusing side (n) of using tactic (x) thus invalidating vote (y).

So I contend that forcing the Irish people to vote again on 'exactly' the same measure that has already been defeated in the vain hope that the government might just extract the result that suits it, is in fact the most serious and sinister anthema to the very core concept of a Democratic Republic, that Ireland is supposed to be.

For this reason amongst others, I feel the government must be thoroughly defeated in the second Referendum, so that such sinister and quasi totalitarian manipulation of the process of plebiscite can be nipped in the bud.

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
I would like to see the piece of legislation that endows the Taoiseach with the right,power or intellegence to decide a Referendum result doesn't count, and that he can just have another one to extract the result he wants.

I would like to see exactly where the government decided that the referendum "doesnt count".

They asked the people if the constitution could be changed for a specific reason. The people said no, and the constitution has not been amended.

Ergo, the referendum "counts". There is nothing about it which didnt count.

Now, it is fair to say that the government are not being entirely fair in refusing to accept the decision of the people, but they are abiding by it. Then again - I always thought that this was the basis of democracy - abiding by decisions which you may not agree with - which is exactly what the government have done.

What they are doing now is asking the people to make the same decision again, because no matter how much you would like to dismiss it, the simple fact is that there are significant factors indicating that the result was not actually indicative of the wishes of the people.

You want to know what the biggest indicator of this is? The fear the No camp are expressing at a re-run.

Look at it this way. Lets say we had a referendum in the morning to re-enter the UK. I'm pretty sure that this would be defeated by a massive margin. If the government asked for a re-run, I'd have no problem, because Id still be sure of it being defeated. I'd also smile to myself knowing the damage my government had done to itself for any forthcoming election because it was clearly wasting voters time and money on the issue.

Now take Nice. The result of the last election was a No result. The govt want another run, and those who won the last time are screaming blue murder. Why? Could it possibly be that they're actually not so sure that the public will say no a second time? If they're not so sure, then this alone is sufficient grounds to merit a second run of the issue - the opinion of the public has changed. On the other hand, if they are certain of victory, then there is no problem - the public will say no again, the outcome remains unchanged, except that the government will look like complete chumps and will have weakened their own pro-Nice stance pretty much beyond hope of recovery.

Which leads me to the inescapable conclusion that the complaints against a re-run are one of two things :

1) complete irrationality because there is nothing to fear as the public will say no once again, and the government will be undermined on this issue beyond hope of recovery.

or

2) complete smoke-an-mirrors, because the No camp are afraid that the second outcome will be a Yes vote, and they are desperately trying to convince us that democracy means once a nation has spoken on an issue, it is unacceptable to change your minds.

I'm open to a third option, but I fail to see one. We can scaremonger about the undermining of democracy, but I notice that Type managed to not address the question as to whether or not approaches such as the "if you dont know, vote No" campaign were any more democratic than what the government is doing.

No-one holds the high moral ground on this issue. Both sides have, IMHO, acted equally poorly. Interesting how both sides also tell us how central an issue this is, and how dishonest the other side is being about it. Its about the only time either of them are being completely honest from what I can see.

jc