Jobs To Go With Nice No Vote

Typedef

Originally posted by bonkey

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.

Specifically yes it is jc, because if I so choose to vote for the monster raving looney party, that is my choice and the monster raving looney party may convince me to do so by just about any means other than by threat of physical violence.

To re-run a plebiscite on the grounds that the loosing side 'who happen to be in power' cannot accept the results of a plebiscite is not Democratic Republicanism, it is, in my opinion something far more sinister, it is in the case of Ireland authoritarian governance dressed up as democracy, perhaps that sounds harsher then I mean for it to sound, but in many ways re-running a plebiscite because ostensibly one can't deal with the results of the last one is the vestage of the despot,dictator and draconian governance.

I agree the No side are concerned that they will loose a second plebiscite on Nice. Fundamentally though if the Referendum is passed in the second showing, I for one think that Ireland will have lost not only it's right to free and fair democracy, by having continuous re-runs of plebiscites until such time as Ireland's government is satisfied with the result, but Ireland will also have been coralled into an embryonic Federalist Superstate, where large and pro-Federalist European countries can annex themselves ever greater say in a two-tiered integration process, where said pro-Federalist countries pressurise perihperal states like Ireland into this emergant pax-Europa and Ireland becomes nothing more than a fairly powerless, peripheral member state as opposed to a partner nation. I believe Ireland will have become a subject of the European Union, not a participant of it.

shotamoose

Originally posted by bonkey

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".

Confusion and misinformation were not just characteristics of the Nice debate, they were arguably the very core of the debate.

If an Irish voter was in two minds or honestly confused by the substance and implications of the Treaty, they had two options. They could take the benign view and assume that there was no way for governments to avoid including so many important, complex and contentious issues in one Treaty; that there was nothing to worry about in the fact that Ireland was the only country to hold a referendum on Nice; and that their own confusion was their own fault or the result of an honest failure of communication on the Government's part.

Or they could decide that governments included all these issues at once because they wanted to move forward on all these issues at once whether citizens grasped the whole package or not; that the lack of other referenda implied an unwillingness or an inability to contemplate a popular rejection; and that they were confused because the Government did not care whether they understood the Treaty or not as long as they accepted it. They could decide, then, that the European project now proceeded on the basis of citizen confusion rather than citizen consent, and choose on these grounds to vote no, to call a halt to this drift.

So if you ask me there WAS a valid argument for 'if you don't know, vote no'.

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
Specifically yes it is jc, because if I so choose to vote for the monster raving looney party, that is my choice and the monster raving looney party may convince me to do so by just about any means other than by threat of physical violence.

Why stop short of physical violence?

Seriously - from what I can tell, you see democracy as some form of right bestowed on the individual to useas they see fit, but those who are actually dependant on the outcomes (i.e. the politically involved) should treat it as sacrosanct.

Personally, I think its a two-way thing. Just as there should be an onus on the political to abide by democracy, there should be an onus on the individual / the voter to treat democracy with the respect it deserves.

You can choose to vote for who you like in an issue, but your reasoning should be related to the issue. Otherwise you're talking about democracy being nothing more than a popularity contest. While it may be that at times, I'm sure you would be one of the first people complaining if thats all it was. I know I would be.

Similarly, those who we expect to abide by democratic decisions should equally be expected to respect the entire democratic process. And again, because I believe that the core of democracy is voting about an issue, then it should be reasons related to the issue and nothing else which are used in canvassing.

Clearly, this is somewhat utopian, but given that we're talking about the "spirit" of democracy (as we are agreed that no laws were broken) then I see no point in stopping at some convenient point of condemning certain abuses, but happily accepting the ones we perpetrate ourselves.

I believe Ireland will have become a subject of the European Union, not a participant of it.

Do the math. Ireland is already a subject of the EU. What your are worried about is that we will become more of a subject. Of course, this is a valid concern. However, in such a situation, it is not the Nice treaty which is the problem - it is the existence of the EU and our membership of it.

When the EC became the EU, it ceased to be the economic affiliation which you seem keen on (I'm not sure if I preferred it myself). The EU itself is incompatible with your existing views. Surely it would be more correct to call for our nation to rescind its membership, rather than saying that you are against the Nice treaty?

Originally posted by shotamoose
They could decide, then, that the European project now proceeded on the basis of citizen confusion rather than citizen consent, and choose on these grounds to vote no, to call a halt to this drift.

So if you ask me there WAS a valid argument for 'if you don't know, vote no'.

Fair point - the government did a poor job the last time round. Perhaps they deliberately sought the keep the public unniformed. Perhaps they deliberately sought to misinform the public. Perhaps they just judged public sentiment wrongly and didnt realise that they were shooting themselves in the foot. I wont make (or accept) any claims that they did one of these rather than the other because we simply dont know which it was.

So, on the face of it, yes. If you choose to believe that the government was deliberately negligent or misleading, voting no was a good option. On the other hand, from what I recall the "dont know, vote No" campaign was not put in those terms.

However, carrying on from my belief (expressed above) about the responsibilities on everyone when it comes to democracy, I do not believe that it was "in the spirit of democracy" to run a campaign on this issue. You could just as easily run a campaign saying "feel the government hasnt told you enough? Here's the truth...." only it doesnt have a nice catchy phrase.

So why wasnt this done? Simple - "dont know, Vote No" was simple, catchy and contentless. It required nothing more than preying on fears or uncertainties. This, to me, is poor democracy.

Then again, I rarely see "good democracy", which is why I am not as condeming of the government rerunning this campaign.

I notice, incidentally, that the Nice treaty is not the first one where the government's position has failed to carry the day. If our government is so dirty and underhanded that they refuse to accept decisions that dont go their way, then exactly why is this the first case, but not the first opportunity? All the evidence tends to indicate its a one-off anomaly....yet we still cant get away from the unfounded hints and allegations that this second referndum is ushering in a new era of non-democracy that we will somehow be powerless to stop. Last time I checked, we still elected out government. If theyre not in power, they cant abuse it. I dont feel all that powerless.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
To re-run a plebiscite on the grounds that the loosing side 'who happen to be in power' cannot accept the results of a plebiscite is not Democratic Republicanism, it is, in my opinion something far more

I just couldnt resist one last comment.

The purpose of an elected government is to act in the best interest of the public. Sometimes this involves doing unpopular things, such as raising taxes, which the public would probably disagree with.

It is not inconceivable that the government felt it is in the best interest of the nation to ask the question a second time. It sure as hell isnt a move that will win them any support - quite the opposite.

So - ask yourself - what does FF stand to gain by their actions? They could put themselves out of government. They could lose a huge amount of power.

There are only two possibilities - personal gain, or they actually believe they are acting in the public's best interest.

Given that its FF, and I have such a low opinion of them, Im willing to consider either option. What I am not willing to believe is that they are doing this for some sinister purpose that cannot be identified, and which ignores the fact that unless they remove democracy from Ireland completely, they must face the backlash of their actions.

In short, recalling the referendum has seriously damaged the government. I've yet to see a single credible explanation as to why they would willingly do this. Fear of EU recriminations? Horse - they could turn around to the public and say "this is a result of your choices, not ours". At worst, theyd be no better off.

So maybe someone could explain it to me, and I can stop challenging all the people who believe it is the death of democracy or something.

jc

p.s. Type - your opinion is as valid as mine - I just dont see the point in not challenging it when I know we can disagree like sensible adults

smiles

Originally posted by bonkey

So - ask yourself - what does FF stand to gain by their actions? They could put themselves out of government. They could lose a huge amount of power.

There are only two possibilities - personal gain, or they actually believe they are acting in the public's best interest.

You see this is where I have the major disagreements with most of the people here - most people are so content to slate off a political party without actually examining things they do.

Yes, I disagree with somethings, but unlike a lot of others I can actually see the validity of the majority of their actions.

I honestly believe they;re acting in the publics best interests in this case.

<< Fio >>

bonkey

Originally posted by smiles
I honestly believe they;re acting in the publics best interests in this case.

Well, I wouldnt go that far. I'd say that I would be willing to believe that they believe they're acting in the public's best interests.


jc

Lemming

Originally posted by bonkey

There are only two possibilities - personal gain, or they actually believe they are acting in the public's best interest.

<snip>

I've yet to see a single credible explanation as to why they would willingly do this. Fear of EU recriminations? Horse - they could turn around to the public and say "this is a result of your choices, not ours". At worst, theyd be no better off.

Option #3:

---

We all know that Berrrrrrrtie likes to be the man about town with his finger on the pulse. I think that fear of the EU, or rather the prospect of having to sit uncomfortably amongst peers in the EU and take a boll*cking constantly, is what is making them re-run this referendum.

Berrrrrtie /REALLY/ doesn't like to look stupid or be unpopular

Typedef

Seriously - from what I can tell, you see democracy as some form of right bestowed on the individual to useas they see fit, but those who are actually dependant on the outcomes (i.e. the politically involved) should treat it as sacrosanct.

Personally, I think its a two-way thing.

Really, I don't think there should be any dicotomy here, the political establishment should always abide by democratic outcomes and there should be no ambiguity about when, if, or where the political establishment does that.

You can choose to vote for who you like in an issue, but your reasoning should be related to the issue. Otherwise you're talking about democracy being nothing more than a popularity contest. While it may be that at times, I'm sure you would be one of the first people complaining if thats all it was. I know I would be.

In many ways the electoral process is nothing more than a media event, with the party who gets the best exposure, winning the day. Certainly there is a large element of that allegedly in American elections and also in Ireland too. I get the feeling that you are saying that because the slogan "If you don't know vote no" was used that it's ok for the government to decide that it is acting in the best interests of the public by prorouging the Referendum result, by having another Referendum on the exact same issue. I could similarly turn around and say that the government has lied when it said it would increase spending on health and education and that such claims were merely election slogans and so in the interests of the public the election should be re-run.
I hope you wouldn't consider such a turn of events an example of free and fair pluralist democracy, because I know I wouldn't. Yet the scenario I have just described is almost exactly what the government is doing with Nice, except the re-run is not really about the validity of the slogans used by one side or the other, it's about the government's basic inability to accept a Referendum result. Like I say the process of Referendum means nothing, and all pretences to a Republic are essentially negated when a government cherry picks which Referendum results count more than others as most certainly a re-run of the Nice treaty with 'the right result' would.

Similarly, those who we expect to abide by democratic decisions should equally be expected to respect the entire democratic process. And again, because I believe that the core of democracy is voting about an issue, then it should be reasons related to the issue and nothing else which are used in canvassing.

A fair point which I agree with and in a similar vein I would point out that even the title of this thread has nothing to do with the reality of a rejection of the treaty of Nice. There is no economic provisio in the Treaty of Nice and with another rejection Ireland will/would still be within the Euro and the Free Trade area, thus the concept of jobs 'going' with a rejection of an ostensibly political Treaty not an economic one is an irrelevant amendum.

Clearly, this is somewhat utopian, but given that we're talking about the "spirit" of democracy (as we are agreed that no laws were broken) then I see no point in stopping at some convenient point of condemning certain abuses, but happily accepting the ones we perpetrate ourselves.

In my view however, the difference between an at worst 'questionable' slogan which you don't happen to agree with and the government effectively ignoring a Referendum result is a few orders of magnitude.

Do the math. Ireland is already a subject of the EU. What your are worried about is that we will become more of a subject. Of course, this is a valid concern. However, in such a situation, it is not the Nice treaty which is the problem - it is the existence of the EU and our membership of it.

I don't agree totally with that. I think the EU can exist just fine without Ireland becoming part of a Supra Nationalist European superstate. I don't necessarily see why it is Ireland needs to participate in political Union, when all Ireland really needs from the Union is access to core European markets unhindered by importation tariffs and the like.

Surely it would be more correct to call for our nation to rescind its membership, rather than saying that you are against the Nice treaty?

I will not deny I would rather Ireland participated only in the economic areas of the EU that were of benefit to Ireland, because for a small country like Ireland a Federal European Union will be little more than yet another foreign power dictating then when the why and the how of Irish governance, with little to no actual interest in what is ultimately good for such a small and isolated corner of said Union. Precisely because Ireland has a small population and because Ireland is a perhipheral country, Ireland must retain it's independance. For the eighty million or so Germans, it is so much easier to safe guard German interests in a Federal European Union and the same for sixty five million French, however for four million Irish, in a Federalist Union based on 'one man one vote' as opposed to an Economic Area of cooperating nations Ireland will be a subject and Ireland will not be able to protect what is vital to this nation in the European decission making process.

So why wasnt this done? Simple - "dont know, Vote No" was simple, catchy and contentless. It required nothing more than preying on fears or uncertainties. This, to me, is poor democracy.

This seems like a rationalisation of the re-run for reason (n), correct me if I'm wrong, but in and of it self an election slogan in a sea of election slogans has 'never' been a reason to negate a Referendum. For example when George Bush Senior and Bill Clinton were throwing election ads at the American public some ten years ago, there was a Republican ad that portrayed prisoners entering a prison which was simply a relvolving door and the ad accused the Democrats of attempting to make the American prison service like a revolving door system. Hardly a 'fair' election campaign slogan in the strictest sense, but not in my view reason enough to set aside the election of Bill Clinton as President.

Then again, I rarely see "good democracy", which is why I am not as condeming of the government rerunning this campaign.

I can't resist. You are saying "If you lay with dogs, you get fleas".
Classic.

I notice, incidentally, that the Nice treaty is not the first one where the government's position has failed to carry the day. If our government is so dirty and underhanded that they refuse to accept decisions that dont go their way, then exactly why is this the first case, but not the first opportunity?

I think the re-run sets a dangerous precident and whats more a re-run of a Referendum totally negates what a Referendum based on a plebiscite is supposed to be.

All the evidence tends to indicate its a one-off anomaly....yet we still cant get away from the unfounded hints and allegations that this second referndum is ushering in a new era of non-democracy that we will somehow be powerless to stop.

The second Referendum is undemocratic, of that I think we agree, and the measures contained in the Treaty erode Ireland's voting powers in the European Union. So in effect undemocratic means are being used to force through a measure that removes some of Ireland's democratic say in Europe and what's more Qualified Majority Voting will put this country in a position where as a nation Ireland's democratic voice can be ignored, because a majority of our European partners want a measure to be passed. So in my view what that makes this country is a subjugated nation, who is being corraled into subjugation by the negation of democracy within that nation.

Cork

The second Referendum is undemocratic, of that I think we agree, and the measures contained in the Treaty erode Ireland's voting powers in the European Union. So in effect undemocratic means are being used to force through a measure that removes some of Ireland's democratic say in Europe and what's more Qualified Majority Voting will put this country in a position where as a nation Ireland's democratic voice can be ignored, because a majority of our European partners want a measure to be passed. So in my view what that makes this country is a subjugated nation, who is being corraled into subjugation by the negation of democracy within that nation.

You hit the nail on the head. I think that the Irish people made their decision. It needs to be respected.

Maybe Bertie & Co are under pressure. If this was the case, I would be very afraid for the future of the EU.

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
The second Referendum is undemocratic, of that I think we agree, and the measures contained in the Treaty erode Ireland's voting powers in the European Union. So in effect undemocratic means are being used to force through a measure that removes some of Ireland's democratic say in Europe and what's more Qualified Majority Voting will put this country in a position where as a nation Ireland's democratic voice can be ignored,

We're not quite agreed.

I agree that the re-run is not in the best spirit of democracy, but as I've pointed out, very little of real-world democracy is in the best spirit of democracy.

I do not agree that the referendum is undemocratic, nor with your continued assertions that the government have chosen to ignore the first referendum, or not abide by it.

Prior to the first referendum, Ireland could not sign up to the Nice treaty. Ireland still cannot sign up. Ergo, the result of the first referendum has been honoured. If the country make the same decision in a second democratically run referendum, then the nation still cannot sign up. I am at a loss to how this behaviour is somehow "ignoring" or "not abiding by" the referendum result.

The government has refused to accept that the result accurately reflects the wishes of the people, but they have still abided fully by the decision.

I know what you're trying to say, but your terminology is wrong. Given your more-than-adequate grasp of the English language, I can only assume that this is a deliberate wording on your part. You are aware that its inaccurate, but it carries far more weight as an emotive argument.

As for the changes which are being proposed in Europe, I see them as creating a more democratic Europe, not a less democratic one. It does mean an abrogation of Irish influence, but thats got SFA to do with the question of democracy....except that it is generally considered that representation should be balanced on some criteria. One vote per nation, or (effectively) one vote per person would be balanced. Nice heads towards one of those from where we are today - ergo it is heading towards a more democratic Europe.

It may be a democratic Europe you dont want to be part of, but dont claim that its somehow undemocratic.

I really do find it hard to understand how you can argue against what you perceive as undemocratic practices on one aspect of this, and then oppose a change towards a more democratic situation in anther.

I would agree to a "one-nation, one vote" configuration. Of course, despite your claims that it would be preferable, I'm pretty sure your oft-voiced anti-German sentiment wouldnt be assuaged by this, because you see much of mainland Europe as essentially "Germanic". Surely this would give those Germans even more power than they currently have, perhaps even more than they will have post-Nice.

The simple fact is that we are a small island on the side of a largish continent. If we ever want to do anything but stand alone, we will be subservient in some refards. If we stand alone, we will still be subservient, as we will no longer be in any position to make a stance about anything.

You see Europe as a great monster just itching to subsume our nation - where we will become pawns to those French and Germans. I see a different Europe, populated with peoples from different nations who have the same fears for their own national identity as you do. Amongst them are the Germans and the French. Funny that - the people you see as effectively taking our freedom in some way are suffering the exact same insecurities, because they realise that when taken as part of the EU, they themselves are also in a vast majority.

I don't necessarily see why it is Ireland needs to participate in political Union, when all Ireland really needs from the Union is access to core European markets unhindered by importation tariffs and the like.

As I said - thats what the EC (or even its predecessor) was about. The very creation of the EU was a deliberate attempt to move beyond having nothing more than "access to core markets, etc". You are still arguing, in effect, that we shouldnt be in the EU - to reduce it back to what you envisage would mean reducing it back to its aims and goals of 10 or more years ago. Which is what I still maintain - your problem is not Nice, its the EUs very existence.

This is the core of your argument - that you dont want Ireland to head any further down a road that it has already made a democratic decision to go down.

That wouldnt be an attempt to not accept a democratic decision, would it?


jc

Typedef

It may be a democratic Europe you dont want to be part of, but dont claim that its somehow undemocratic.

Fundamentally I believe that having another Referendum, with exactly the same wording as the last is effectively a negation or abrogation of the last vote. That is not democracy, that is pseudo democracy, electoral jiggery pokery, which is theoretically democracy, but upon actual examination to me seems to be uncountenancable to what a Republic is meant to be, namely "A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens". The citizens of Ireland have spoken and to re-run the same issue is to negate the very crux of the meaning of what a Republic is.

I really do find it hard to understand how you can argue against what you perceive as undemocratic practices on one aspect of this, and then oppose a change towards a more democratic situation in anther.

Jc. I'm not denying that the Nice treaty moves the European Union as a body closer to the notion of one man one vote. In principal I support that ideal.
I do not think that in such a situation though that Ireland nor the Irish as a nation will have sufficient voting powers to protect the interests of the nation. In my view Ireland is a nation, that has interests consistent with a nation, which supercede the notion of a Pan Euroean one man one vote Superstate.
In context, in such a Superstate, it would 'so happen' that eighty million Germans, Sixty Five million French and so on would effectively dictate by way of voting power policies that directly effect Ireland and with Qualified Majority Voting, Ireland as a nation, who has interests consistent with a nation would have it's power to protect it's national interests permenantly negated.

I don't quite find the analogy or ideal of one man one vote holds true for national interest the same way it would hold true for inter-county interests within Ireland for example. That is one of the main reasons Ireland ceceeded from the UK, not that I have to say it, but because as a nation Ireland was in a minority, issues that effected Ireland as a nation could never be adequetly addressed. Industrial development, Education, Defence and a miasma of other issues. True the English did good things for Ireland too. On a fundamental level self governance and the ability to act as a nation on issues that affect the nation as opposed to a voting block within a Supra Nationalist one who must interface with other nations to perform actions pertinent to this nation or euphamistically speaking the right of self governance is the hard one right of self determination that Qualified Majority Voting as opposed to Pan - National consent seems to pose the greatest threat to Ireland as I see it.

People use the example of Ireland having a population smaller than some big cities in some countries, take London for example, but you could never compare the relationship between London and the UK to Ireland and the EU, because intra national competing interests come between such analogies in my opinion.

I would agree to a "one-nation, one vote" configuration.

Again I would agree so long as it was a case that all nations had to agree to initiate change within the Union, but as I have spelled out above I think that QVM is a threat to Ireland.

Of course, despite your claims that it would be preferable, I'm pretty sure your oft-voiced anti-German sentiment wouldnt be assuaged by this, because you see much of mainland Europe as essentially "Germanic".

Now Jc, come on. It is quite clear that there are quite a few nations who are as ardent Federalists as the Germans, take the French or the Italians for example. I merely point out that the Germans will in a one man one vote European Union, with an economy that is roughly the size of France + (Ireland * 5), be the largest voting bloc and the most economically influential. I don't really see it as a Neo Nazi Superstate. It's Supra Nationalist properties may resemble the Autro-Hungarian Empire. I don't think that I am alone in believing that the EU as a Supra-Nationalist body will largely swallow up Ireland and Irish interests and stick those interests into something far lower then second place.
http://www.savanne.ch/right-left-materials/eurodusnie-marco000410.html

They represent the globally accepted political view, of which the darker side causes immense suffering. In this vision, our future lies with the supra nationalist institutions, such as the EU, the UN and the WTO, precisely those institutions which make society increasingly undemocratic.

If Ireland is condemned to be part of a Supra Nationalist state, this country as a nation may as well never have broken from the UK, as Ireland would have had far more say in a UK of 70 million plus people then it ever would in a Europe of 500 million.

Now I'm not suggesting we apply to rejoin with the English, all I am doing is illustrating a point.

Surely this would give those Germans even more power than they currently have, perhaps even more than they will have post-Nice.

Really though, the EU is heavily influenced by the Germans, I'm not suggesting it is a Gross Deutschland, when clearly it is a Franco-German axis ostensibly that drives European integration, what I am suggesting is that Ireland as a nation does not have sufficient capacity to safe guard it's national interests in the European Union that is being created by this Franco-German axis. The proof of the pudding is in the eating in that one, as Irish negotiators failed to stop the erosion of Irish voting powers within the structures of the European Union and if the Treaty of Nice is passed on the second sitting Ireland will be even less able to resist unpalletable treaties like the treaty of Nice in the future.

If we stand alone, we will still be subservient, as we will no longer be in any position to make a stance about anything.

I have to differ with you here. Iceland is in much the same position. Iceland makes great big noises about whaling, because Iceland can act as a nation. If it were only attempting to influence the policy of the EU for example with a populous numbering roughly 300,000 people (or roughly that of Cork) Iceland would find itself as irrelevant in the scheme of the whaling debate as Cork would when it comes to influencing the policy of the European Union for example. Because Iceland can at as a soverign nation it retains the ability to act as a nation, not as a conglomeration of 'voters' attempting to influence the shape of decision making by weight of it's voting numbers.

I see a different Europe, populated with peoples from different nations who have the same fears for their own national identity as you do. Amongst them are the Germans and the French.

Of course the Fench and Germans are people and it would be wonderful if everyone could just get on as people, bonkey, I'm not trying to patronise you, but in the final analysis, precisely because the French and Germans are people the Irish should be smart enough to realise that, in the histroy of people, humans have never really been nice to each other, so I don't really think that out of the goodness of their souls the French and Germans will aceede to protecting the Irish national interests unless they 'have to'. Unfortunately in my view the only way to gaurantee that Irish interests are protected is to ensure the EU is a partnership of equal nations, co operating in areas where it makes sense to do so, else Ireland will have to in effect take a step back, and before you suggest it, I am quite prepaired to have as many votes as it takes to gain the requisite distance. In the public interest of course.

Funny that - the people you see as effectively taking our freedom in some way are suffering the exact same insecurities, because they realise that when taken as part of the EU, they themselves are also in a vast majority.

I think you meant minority, and yes they will be in a minority, not quite of the same order of magnitude as Ireland, but a minority just the same. However the EU's collective economy has a turnover of roughly €8 trillion, and Germany has a turnover of roughly €2.3 trillion, Ireland has one of maybe €100 billion. So in terms of this gulf in influence I assert that it will be the case that Ireland as a nation will cease to exist as anything other then the fluctuation of the German economy in a one man one vote Europe, where as in a partnership of nations as a nation Ireland has infinitely more influence then it could ever realistically have as a constituent part of a Federal state as I believe I have shown with the anology between Cork and Iceland and Ireland and Germany.

You are still arguing, in effect, that we shouldnt be in the EU - to reduce it back to what you envisage would mean reducing it back to its aims and goals of 10 or more years ago. Which is what I still maintain - your problem is not Nice, its the EUs very existence.

I think I am merely exponenciating the kind of relationship I believe will be the most beneficial to Ireland, the Irish economy, the society I live in and ultimately me.

This is the core of your argument - that you dont want Ireland to head any further down a road that it has already made a democratic decision to go down.

Jc, we may argue till the cows come home that a 're-run' is democratic or no, if you are right then we have little to fear because democracy will prevail, if I am right then it is quite sinister that to facilitate a process of integration and arguably loss of power of the people in this country, that the first instance (perhaps) of electoral abrogation and delibrate malleability has been introduced into the Irish democratic process at this stage of the European Integration process.

Brian O'Donoghue.

Cork

McDonagh, Macken & PJ Meara are ready to sell this Nice Turkey.

The effects of the Nice treaty will be so bad 4 this country down the line. We will have very little influence & if you think CJH was bad - take a look at some of the corruption stories within the EU.