Some questions for the No to Nice people

Biffa Bacon

1. What is the minimum amount of time that must elapse from the holding of a referendum before it can be considered to be democratic to hold a second referendum on the same question? How was this figure arrived at?

2. Should the frequency with which referenda can be held be regulated by the Constitution, or should it remain at the discretion of the government of the day?

3. Is the distribution of seats in the European Parliament as set down in the Nice Treaty unfair to any member or applicant state, particularly Ireland? If so, what would be considered a fair distribution?

4. Is the weighting of votes in the Council of Ministers as set down in the Nice Treaty unfair to any member or applicant state, particularly Ireland? If so, what would be considered a fair weighting?

5. Do the revised provisions set out in the Nice Treaty for determining the composition of the Commission represent an unacceptable loss of power and/or influence for member states? If so, what would be a more desirable means of determining the composition of the Commission?

6. Which of the thirty areas to which the use of QMV in the Council of Ministers has been extended should remain subject to national veto? Why?

7. Are the revised provisions for enhanced cooperation contained in the Nice Treaty less desirable than those already enshrined in the Treaty establishing the European Community and the Treaty on European Union? If so, why?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by daveirl
Well let's just say that the results are reversed this time. Does that mean that in another 18 months we'll vote on it again?

Of course not. The decision to hold a referendum is the prerogative of the government. If the people don't like the government's actions in rerunning the Nice referendum, then we vote them out of office.

Typedef

Of course I can't speak for an entire 'side'.

I can only speak for myself as an of age voter.

1. What is the minimum amount of time that must elapse from the holding of a referendum before it can be considered to be democratic to hold a second referendum on the same question? How was this figure arrived at?

I think the point is that the wording of the second Referendum is 'exactly' the same as it was the first time around. Look at the abortion Referenda, each one was a progression from the last one. Or to address the question the difference between the two divorce Referenda was nine years, it wasn't simply a case as it was with the Nice Referendum of the vote being rejected and the government saying within days of the rejection that another vote would have to be held.

Do you really regard the government of this country calling for another Referendum on an issue that was defeated 'within days' of that issue's defeat as an apt example of the government accepting the democratic outcome of a plebiscite? Why does it matter what 'side' you are on? Can you not see how Ramano Prodi effectively ordering the government of Ireland to have another Referendum on the Nice treaty literally within five days of the Treaty's rejection by the voters of Ireland, is an abrogation of democracy and makes a nonesense of the process of Referendum?

2. Should the frequency with which referenda can be held be regulated by the Constitution, or should it remain at the discretion of the government of the day?

So Biffa Bacon do you think that announcing your intent to hold another Referendum without a single word of the proposal being changed is an example of the government accepting the will of the people and acting accordingly?

Of course you don't, how could you when it is so obviously not.

3. Is the distribution of seats in the European Parliament as set down in the Nice Treaty unfair to any member or applicant state, particularly Ireland? If so, what would be considered a fair distribution?

4. Is the weighting of votes in the Council of Ministers as set down in the Nice Treaty unfair to any member or applicant state, particularly Ireland? If so, what would be considered a fair weighting?

It is the loss of an automatic right to a Commissioner and the spectre of Qualified Majority Voting that I personally object to. Qualified Majority Voting in my view poses a real threat to the interests of Ireland as a nation, and in this matter I regard Ireland as a nation, not as a state. I differenciate between for example Texas being a state in the USA and Ireland being a member of the EU. I think that Ireland has national interests now and in the future that supercede Ireland participating in Europe as a 'state', Ireland does and will have interests consistent with a nation, not a state or couty or region and that is why Qualified Majority Voting can be so damaging to the National Interest.

5. Do the revised provisions set out in the Nice Treaty for determining the composition of the Commission represent an unacceptable loss of power and/or influence for member states? If so, what would be a more desirable means of determining the composition of the Commission?

What is so wrong with every nation having an automatic right to a Commissioner? Why must there be 'some magic number' that is too great for each nation in the EU to have a Commissioner?

6. Which of the thirty areas to which the use of QMV in the Council of Ministers has been extended should remain subject to national veto? Why?

By far and away the most sinister of the main provisions is enhanced co-operation. This will allow ardent Federalist countries to enact an inner sanctum or what has been described as an Avant Garde of integration. With this two tiered integration process Ireland will most likely find itself in the same position the UK is in as regards the Euro, namely inexorably pulled further and further into enhanced cooperation ostensibly against our own ideal, but unable to resist for the sheer weight of 'peer pressure' to use the analogy.

http://www.bmdf.co.uk/nicekey.html

7. Are the revised provisions for enhanced cooperation contained in the Nice Treaty less desirable than those already enshrined in the Treaty establishing the European Community and the Treaty on European Union? If so, why?

Precisely because the two tiered process will create a bloc of countries who are quite powerful, ardently Federalist and in a position to pressurise less pro-Federalist nations into this embryonic Pax Europa.

Borzoi

The funny thing is that the EU parliament recogniizes that part of the image problem that the EU has is the so called 'democratic deficit', yet when the only country in the community who gets an opportunity to democratically vote on the Nice treaty rejects it. Another arm of officialdom of the community starts with the bullying.

But to answer your questions Biffa:

1) Minimum time between Referanda. Could I suggest 4 years (similar to the turnaround between electons), especially when the question has not changed at all.

This really covers item 2. as well.

3) 4) Actually the division of seat in the parliament and council of miister favours small countries and will continue to do so. Though I suspect you know that

5) Other people may have a problem with the fact that Ireland will no longer have a permanent commisioner, I don't. Though I would suggest that a more equitable approach would be to reduce the sphere of influence of commosioners and make more of them so that every country would still have a permanent one.

6) QMV is another area I don't have a particular problem with. Though the veto is there for good reason, it has been quite a while since it's been used, it has more use as a bargaining chip for the 'national interes'

7) Here's where I get off the yes to Nice train. Enhanced cooperation allows some member ststes to use the EU facilities to promote closer harmony between some states. This goes agaist the whole ethos of the COMMUNITY. If individual states want closer cooperation, fine, ourselves and the UK have open borders foe example. but this is a private deal that does not involve the EU in any way. But the EU is there to drive us ALL forward collectively, and my fear is that enhabnced cooperation will only lead to a two tier Europe, and will in fact disadvantage the new members more then anybody.

That is why I voted no to Nice, because I fel it would disadvantge the new guys on the block, and I reject out of hand the notion that if you voted no, that you're anti european. I very pro europe, frankly the less power the Irish Govt has the better as far as I'm concerned..

However in the upcoming referendum, I think I will vote yes, because the EU (and Irish govt) has made it abundantly clear that:
1) we'll keep voting till we get it right
2) if we don't vote the right way the economy will suffer, so the sooner we get it over with the better.

And on a closing note I'd just like to say that I find to tone of your post objectionable Biffa, querying everybody who doesn't agree with you while not giving any of your own reasons/motivations.

Or maybe I'm too sensitive

Typedef

1) we'll keep voting till we get it right
2) if we don't vote the right way the economy will suffer, so the sooner we get it over with the better.

Funny that you are effectively saying you have been bullied into voting yes.

I abhore bullying. Why should the electorate of this country allow itself to be intimidated as this poster seems to be?

Is the entire democratic process not negated as soon as scaremongering and bullying come into play, let alone the fact that the result was effectively set aside within days of the vote by the announcement that a 're-run' would be taking place.

So is this the democratic Republic that has been bult in Ireland?

What a farce!

Meh

Originally posted by Borzoi
1) Minimum time between Referanda. Could I suggest 4 years (similar to the turnaround between electons), especially when the question has not changed at all.

Probably a good choice of interval as any, but what do we define as "a change in the question"? Can I replace the word "and" with "also" and hold the same referendum again tomorrow? Or are we going to forbid any referendum on a given subject for four years? Seems to me that a constitutional limit on the frequency of referendums would cause more problems than it solves. It would be a legal nightmare. While the current referendum situation isn't ideal, it's better than the legalistic wrangling a referendum limit would cause. The constitution provides that the Dail decides when referendums should be held, and I think this is better than leaving it to the Supreme Court to decide if a proposed amendment is sufficiently different from the last proposal.

Enhanced cooperation allows some member ststes to use the EU facilities to promote closer harmony between some states. This goes agaist the whole ethos of the COMMUNITY. If individual states want closer cooperation, fine, ourselves and the UK have open borders foe example. but this is a private deal that does not involve the EU in any way.

Enhanced cooperation is already in effect in the EU -- the Schengen agreement, the Euro itself...All Nice does is recognize it and regulate it.

Biffa Bacon

I think the point is that the wording of the second Referendum is 'exactly' the same as it was the first time around. Look at the abortion Referenda, each one was a progression from the last one. Or to address the question the difference between the two divorce Referenda was nine years, it wasn't simply a case as it was with the Nice Referendum of the vote being rejected and the government saying within days of the rejection that another vote would have to be held.

So after what period of time will it be permissible to hold the referendum again? If you agree that any time limit you put forward will be essentially arbitrary, then you would really have to enshrine it in the Constitution for it to have any relevance.

Do you really regard the government of this country calling for another Referendum on an issue that was defeated 'within days' of that issue's defeat as an apt example of the government accepting the democratic outcome of a plebiscite?

They haven’t accepted the outcome in terms of seeing the issue closed now and forever and I don’t see why they should. We elected the government to run the country to the best of their ability, and if they believe that ratifying the Nice Treaty is in the best interests of the nation then they’re only doing their job by holding another referendum on the question.

Qualified Majority Voting in my view poses a real threat to the interests of Ireland as a nation, and in this matter I regard Ireland as a nation, not as a state.

I don’t know if you realise this, but QMV has been in use since the EEC was founded. The only relevant question here is whether you object to the extension of QMV to areas where previously member states had a veto. The government White Paper on Nice outlines all of them if you want to check them out.

What is so wrong with every nation having an automatic right to a Commissioner? Why must there be 'some magic number' that is too great for each nation in the EU to have a Commissioner?

All member states agreed that in a union of 27, if every state had the right to nominate a Commissioner, the Commission would just become unworkable. Given that the Commission is supposed to be an impartial body, the loss of the automatic right to nominate a Commissioner should not even be seen as a loss of national influence. In fact, the larger states recognised this by surrendering their right to nominate a second Commissioner.

By far and away the most sinister of the main provisions is enhanced co-operation.

Enhanced cooperation is already provided for in the Treaty of Amsterdam. The only relevant question here is whether the changes to the rules make things better or worse. The main changes are that a minimum of 8 member states must participate for any enhanced cooperation project to be allowed to proceed, and the abolition of the “emergency break” veto, with all decisions now being taken by QMV. The government White Paper explains the rest of the changes in full.

Borzoi

Originally posted by Typedef


Funny that you are effectively saying you have been bullied into voting yes.

What a farce!

Yes, that is what I'm saying, and it's not funny at all, in fact it's somewhat sinister, especially considering what the EU parliament's attitude that they want democracy extended.

Farcical it is for sure.

Meh, I was just putting an idea for what 'I' would consider a reasonable time frame. Let the lawyers draft it up! Though with reasonable people this should never have become an issue.

Finally quoting Meh:

Enhanced cooperation is already in effect in the EU -- the Schengen agreement, the Euro itself...All Nice does is recognize it and regulate it.

Wrong, wrong, wrong - Both Schengen and Amsterdam (the Euro treaty, i think) allow opt outs. That is; everybodies in unless you don't want to be. Enhanced cooperation allows any states to proceed with any project with less than the full complement of states. You see the difference between taking the initial position of being included unless you want out, to arbitary deciding who can join an enhcanced cooperation project?

Meh

Originally posted by Borzoi
Enhanced cooperation allows any states to proceed with any project with less than the full complement of states. You see the difference between taking the initial position of being included unless you want out, to arbitary deciding who can join an enhcanced cooperation project?

But the Nice treaty does provide safeguards against a "two-speed Europe". Article 11 of the treaty:

Member States which intend to establish enhanced cooperation between themselves may make use
of the institutions, procedures and mechanisms laid down by this Treaty and by the Treaty establishing the European Community provided that the proposed cooperation:
(a) is aimed at furthering the objectives of the Union and of the Community, at protecting and serving their interests and at reinforcing their process of integration;
(b) respects the said Treaties and the single institutional framework of the Union;
(c) respects the acquis communautaire and the measures adopted under the other provisions of the said Treaties;
(d) remains within the limits of the powers of the Union or of the Community and does not concern the areas which fall within the exclusive competence of the Community;
(e) does not undermine the internal market as defined in Article 14(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, or the economic and social cohesion established in accordance with Title
XVII of that Treaty;
(f) does not constitute a barrier to or discrimination in trade between the Member States and does not distort competition between them;
(g) involves a minimum of eight Member States;
(h) respects the competences, rights and obligations of those Member States which do not participate therein;
(i) does not affect the provisions of the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union;
(j) is open to all the Member States, in accordance with Article 43b.
Enhanced cooperation may be undertaken only as a last resort, when it has been established within the Council that the objectives of such cooperation cannot be attained within a reasonable period by applying the relevant provisions of the Treaties.
Article 43b
When enhanced cooperation is being established, it shall be open to all Member States. It shall also be open to them at any time, in accordance with Articles 27e and 40b of this Treaty and with Article 11a of the Treaty establishing the European Community, subject to compliance with the basic decision and with the decisions taken within that framework. The Commission and the Member States participating in enhanced cooperation shall ensure that as many Member States as possible are encouraged to take part.

(Apologies for the long quote, but it's all relevant.) Personally, I'm more than happy with this. Are there any specific safeguards you would like to see added here?

Biffa Bacon

1) Minimum time between Referanda. Could I suggest 4 years (similar to the turnaround between electons), especially when the question has not changed at all.

Fair enough, but would you accept that it’s pretty much an arbitrary figure and so would have to be written into the Constitution for it to have any relevance? This could raise difficulties as Meh has pointed out.

And on a closing note I'd just like to say that I find to tone of your post objectionable Biffa, querying everybody who doesn't agree with you while not giving any of your own reasons/motivations.

Well, the reason I wrote my post as I did is because there has been so much bullshït said about Nice, both on this board and in society in general, and I really wanted to try to cut right to the heart of the arguments. (And yes, much of the bullshït has been on the Yes side. All this talk about the economy suffering and us losing influence is just an attempt to scare people into voting Yes, because the politicians haven’t the intellect to defend the treaty on its own merits).

Borzoi

Originally posted by Meh
But the Nice treaty does provide safeguards against a "two-speed Europe". Article 11 of the treaty:(Apologies for the long quote, but it's all relevant.) Personally, I'm more than happy with this. Are there any specific safeguards you would like to see added here?

futhermore to quto 43b [qoute]
subject to compliance with the basic decision and with the decisions taken within that framework. [/quote]


Which allow those states setting up enhanced coop. to set prerequisites on joining, ie leels of GDP, balance of payments, (something similar as for EURO zone membership) which can of course be abused.

BTW nice to have an intelligent and researched discussion.

Meh

Originally posted by Borzoi
Which allow those states setting up enhanced coop. to set prerequisites on joining, ie leels of GDP, balance of payments, (something similar as for EURO zone membership) which can of course be abused.

Well obviously your country can't join the Euro if you're not willing to balance your budget. Or join Schengen if you're not willing to have proper external border controls. There is the potential for abuse, but the Nice treaty actually makes it more difficult for countries to be unfairly excluded from the "inner core" of the EU.

The Commission and the Member States participating in enhanced cooperation shall ensure that as many Member States as possible are encouraged to take part.

Remember that "enhanced cooperation" already takes place in an ad hoc manner; the Nice treaty formally regulates it for the first time. Under the existing pre-Nice treaties, there is no obligation to "ensure that as many Member States as possible are encouraged to take part".

Borzoi

But the ad hoc cooperation is something I don't have a problem with. It's using the elements of the EU to facilitate this. As far as I am concerned the EU is supposed to be a community of (near) equal states, and I fear that Nice may ruin this.

Either way I get the feeling that we're flogging a dead horse here - it will pass, eventually.

Typedef

Originally posted by Borzoi
Either way I get the feeling that we're flogging a dead horse here - it will pass, eventually.

I think that if the Treaty of Nice is passed without a single word of the ammendment being put before the people changed I for one would no longer wish to live in this country.

I've been giving it some thought, and a Referendum passed under such circumstances would make a mockery of any pretences of a valid representative democracy, that Ireland would pretend to have.

Borzoi

When you get to utopia, send me a postcard. (And directions)

johnKarma

Originally posted by Typedef


What is so wrong with every nation having an automatic right to a Commissioner? Why must there be 'some magic number' that is too great for each nation in the EU to have a Commissioner?

The European Commission is often explained by analogy with Cabinet Government. Each Commissioner is given a certain portfolio, like Health & Consumer Protection (David Byrne) or External Relations (Chris Patten). Just like our Ministers.

If we were to have a Commissioner representing each member State in a 37-Member Union, each of the 37 would have to be allocated a portfolio. Obviously this would be an unsatisfactory, pointless situation resulting in the creation of needless Commissionerships and expanding the Euro-Bureaucracy much criticised by many in the No camp.

For this very reason, we have the following:

Article 28 of the Constitution of Ireland:
The Government shall consist of not less than seven and not more than fifteen members who shall be appointed by the President in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.

A line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere. If this limitation were not in the Constitution, the Taoiseach might well feel tempted to create sinecures for his political buddies by dreaming up gratuitous Ministerial Portfolios, thus imposing an unnecessary burden on the Taxpayer. It is worth noting that in almost all of the Governments since the enactment of the constitution, all 15 available places have been filled.

This is why we need a "magic number".

I appreciate that the European context is different. Despite the fact that commissioners are sworn not to serve their respective national interests and act toward the benefit of the Union at large, I realise that we do not live in a United States of Europe, and that national identities are a more potent force here than State identites are in the U.S.. Therefore it is not inconceivable to me that we might see rogue commissioners in the future.

However I have yet to hear of such accusations being levelled against any Commissioner in the past. (Have I missed out? Please, someone point me in the right direction if I have.) And I don't think that ensuring that each member has a commissioner would be viable, for the reasons stated above.

I'm still undecided on Nice. There may well be good reasons to vote against it, and I'm still trying to inform myself. But I don't think the removal of an automatic right to a commissioner is one of them.

swiss

Originally posted by Borzoi:

However in the upcoming referendum, I think I will vote yes, because the EU (and Irish govt) has made it abundantly clear that:
1) we'll keep voting till we get it right
2) if we don't vote the right way the economy will suffer, so the sooner we get it over with the better.

I disagree with your reasoning here. In relation to your first point, as I have pointed out in another thread, the idea of holding this treaty again would be tantamount to political suicide for the Government. That, plus Nice has to be implemented on a timetable, to which we cannot adhere should this treaty be rejected.

In relation to your second point, I remain unconvinced that the economy will suffer terribly. Perhaps there will be adverse effects, but from what I hear the economy is slowing down anyway. I am not an economist however (and I don't think that economics for the Leaving Cert counts) so I can't be authoritive when I say this.

I would advocate a yes vote, but not for the reasons you mentioned. Like Typedef, I abhore bullying, and I'm sorry that you feel that you are being bullied into voting yes. As I have said on several occasions, I do not see this rerun of the treaty as exhaustive, or that anyone is being forced into voting yes. If you disagree with nice, vote no. If you agree vote yes. The majority voice will still carry the day. That is the nature of democracy, and no amount of reruns will change that.

bonkey

Originally posted by johnKarma
If we were to have a Commissioner representing each member State in a 37-Member Union, each of the 37 would have to be allocated a portfolio. Obviously this would be an unsatisfactory, pointless situation resulting in the creation of needless Commissionerships and expanding the Euro-Bureaucracy much criticised by many in the No camp.

Yeah - I've been wondering why all the No Camp havent been spending their previous years complaining about the undemocratic situation which perpetuates itself in Ireland, whereby every county or constituency isnt automatically guaranteed a Minister.

Its scandalous I tell you. Undemocratic. Deliberately manufactured imbalance of power. I mean - in any given election, constituencies which favour the opposition in terms of elected candidates will end up being deliberately discriminated against.

We must campaign now to oppose this situation. Its an atrociously undemocratic situation.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
I think that if the Treaty of Nice is passed without a single word of the ammendment being put before the people changed I for one would no longer wish to live in this country.

And where would you go?

Would you live in Europe, with all those nations who seem desperate to destroy our nationality with their federalism? Or maybe the US, with your obvious love of the country?

Actually, I'm finding ti hard to come up with a nation who would live up to your democratic ideals.

Except maybe Switzerland. Maybe you should come live here m8 Youd love it. Oh - except for the constant referenda about getting rid of the mandatory military service. Interestingly - these come from the people. As soon as one gets refused, they start a movement to collect signatures for the next. As a result, they engineer a constant stream of referenda on the same issue, and will continue to do so until they win.

The government, indcidentally, are doing more or less the same with "join the EU" motions. Next one is going through the motions of getting to a vote. I expect it in about 2 years.

So you wouldnt like it here. Despite having referenda on pretty much everything, to allow the people make th real decisions about the country, it still makes a mockery of democracy, because on major issues, neither side is willing to accept a result when its not the one they wanted.

So I'm wondering.....where do you want to live - and I'm talking about in the real world, not for your vision of an ideal Ireland.

I've been giving it some thought, and a Referendum passed under such circumstances would make a mockery of any pretences of a valid representative democracy, that Ireland would pretend to have.

Its beginning to sound like a broken record Type.

On one hand, the principles of democracy appear sacrosanct to you. No laws are being broken, but because the ideals of how you perceive democracy are being ignored, you are outraged.

In short, you believe that the government has no right to judge the ideals of democracy as being less important than what they see as "the right thing" for the country.

Not an unreasonable stance.

On the other hand, when you leave this issue aside, and start talking about why you were opposed to Nice in the first vote, it is because you disagree that a more democratic EU is the right way to go for Ireland.

In short, you voted against the original referendum because you believed that the ideals of democracy are less important than what you see as "the right thing" for the country.

Also not an unreasonable stance. Except that its exactly what you have a problem with in the governments case.

Which is it? Either democracy should be sacrosanct, or what is best for the nation is more important.

Or is it that democracy is only somewhat sacrosanct? That its okay to bang it about a bit, as long as you dont step over some arbitrary line of abusiveness which you get to set conveniently to fit your arguments?

Ideals are all well and good, but if they only apply when its convenient, then they're not really ideals.

jc

bonkey

(Ive put this in a seperate post, cause its no specifically aimed at Typedef, nor intended as part of a reply to his last post....although he did raise this issue most recently).


I'm curious.

If the wording of the forthcoming referendum is not identical to the previous one, would those complaining about asking the same question twice have a problem?

If not, then I would ask if anyone has actually verified that the identical text will be used?

If you would still have a problem, then how different does something have to be before its not "the same thing again" any more?

Why am I asking? Because I'm sure that the government could find an alternate amendment to the constitution which would permit the ratification of the Nice Treaty, but in a different manner - a different wording.

What would this achieve? You'd no longer be asked the same question, so democracy would surely be served, but youd still be deciding the same issue. Yet the previous times we had multiple referenda, we were being asked different questions to decide the same issue.

I dont think this would satisfy anyone who is against the re-running of the referendum, because it is no more democratic (in the purest sense), but you then get back to answering the thorny question of how different something needs to be from its predecessor before its actually different. Is it the wording, or the effective resulting change?

If its only the effective resulting change, then our democracy is already shredded beyond repair through previous re-runs on issues such as divorce. And yet, there has never been such an outcry before, so that cant be the case.

If its only the wording used - the actual amendment made - then there is a blindinly simple solution : change the wording for the rerun - just slightly, but not enough to change the resulting change.

If its neither of these, then it can only be the timescale? Is that the only issue? Not that we're being asked the question again, but that we're being asked the question again so soon? Are we to set a timescale on this type of event - the re-asking of a question. And we then must also get back to addressing in law what constitutes asking the same question......

jc

dathi1

Actually, I'm finding ti hard to come up with a nation who would live up to your democratic ideals.

Biel/Bern (Switzerland) ?

bonkey

Did you miss the next 3 paragraphs where I explained why Switzerland wouldnt be suitable?

jc

dathi1

sounds fairly "democratic" to me

Cork

We live in a democracy.

Bertie stated after the previous vote that:

"They (i.e. the other EU States) are fully entitled to continue their own
ratification procedures and IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WRONG FOR ME to go to
Gothenburg and try to press them to stop."

Reference: - Taoiseach Bertie Ahern TD, Dail Debates, 21 June 2001, Vol.358, Col. 1011

That single revealing sentence shows precisely where Taoiseach Ahern failed
to do his constitutional duty by respecting last year's democratic
decision of the Irish people on the Nice Treaty. If he had respected the
Irish people's vote, he would have abided by it. He would not just have
asked, but would have insisted if need be, that the other EU States should
not go ahead with ratifying the Nice Treaty as it stood, and that at least
some changes would have to be made to it before it could be put to the
Irish people again.

His Minister for Europe Dick Roche, acknowledged this as a backbencher when
he told the Dail on 21 June 2001: "It is foolhardy to talk about another
referendum at this stage unless something fundamental changes. To attempt
to rerun a referendum as a means of reversing the democratic decision taken
by the people would be rightly regarded as an affront. Something
fundamental will have to be changed in the Nice treaty before we can even
contemplate putting it before the people again."


If Taoiseach Ahern and Foreign Minister Cowen had told their EU partners
that Ireland could not ratify Nice because of the Irish people's democratic
decision in rejecting it last year, the other EU Members would not have
gone ahead with ratifying the treaty in their national parliaments.

The EU is a law-governed Community. It would have been pointless for the
others to continue with the treaty ratification processes, in face of
Ireland's No, because the treaty could not come into force if Ireland had
stuck to its position. That revealing sentence above of Taoiseach Ahern's,
therefore, encapsulates his mind-set as he flouted his constitutional duty
and LINED UP WITH THE OTHER EU GOVERNMENTS AGAINST THE IRISH PEOPLE in
order to overthrow last year's democratic referendum result.

EU Commission President Romano Prodi said on RTE on the Monday after the
Irish No vote on Thursday 7 June 2001: "But the Irish Government has not
asked for the ratification process to stop."

Precisely. The Government had decided to ignore the people's decision from
the first moment it was announced, and to re-run the referendum. Niall
Andrews MEP was heard at the count in the RDS, Dublin, on Friday 8 June as
saying that there would have to be a re-run BEFORE the vote was even
counted, as he watched the tallies.

For the Government to claim that it received a mandate for re-running Nice
in the recent general election is ludicrous, for Nice was scarcely
mentioned publicly during that contest, even if it was referred to in the
party manifestos.

When Ireland voted No to Nice last year, only one other EU Member, Denmark,
had ratified the treaty. Taoiseach Ahern and Foreign Minister Cowen told
the other EU States in Gothenburg to go ahead and use their parliamentary time to ratify Nice as if the Irish people had never voted - on theassumption that they would reverse that vote in a second referendum.

This is why the Government and its allies are planning to use fear,
scaremongering, misrepresentation and abuse of their opponents, in anunexampled attempt to bully the Irish people into changing their already delivered judgement on the Nice Treaty. All the other EU States, exceptBelgium, have now ratified Nice. If Ireland should vote No again, they havewasted their parliamentary time on Messrs Ahern's and Cowen's say-so. Butthat is because the Taoiseach and Foreign Minister failed to abide by theirown people's democratic decision, and instead set out from the first momentto overturn it. This situation is the fault of Ireland's politicians, not
its people.


In the Nice Referendum Re-run the Irish Government is lining up with the
other EU States against its own people. That makes this a truly awesome
moment in our constitutional history. It is something that has never
happened before. It is why the most fundamental issue of the Nice Treaty
Re-run is: Do the Irish people control the Government or does the
Government control the people?

That is why democratically minded citizens everywhere should rise in outrage against what the Government is up to - whether they were Yes-side or No-side voters on Nice last year, or belonged to the many that did not vote at all. For the Government is insulting them all by its undemocratic
actions.

Yes-side voters are being implicitly insulted because last year the
Government told them that it was important that they turn out and vote Yes,but they need not have done so, for the Government really was saying: "YourYes to Nice was really not that important after all, for if the Yeses donot win, we have in mind to re-run the referendum anywa." True democrats on
the Yes-side will regard this as an insult. Unlike Taoiseach Ahern andForeign Minister Cowen, they will respect a democratic vote.

If Irish voters are bullied and bamboozled into reversing in October the No
they gave to Nice last year, they will be devaluing referendums everywhere.
All over Europe people will say of the supposedly politically sophisticated
Irish: "How can they say Yes this year to exactly the same Treaty they
voted No to last year?"

The Government will have thrown away, for absolutely nothing, the
bargaining card to secure a better Treaty that it was handed by the Irish
people's vote. Everywhere people will say: It is useless to try to stand
in the way of the EU juggernaut - the politicians and Euro-bureaucrats
will always overthrow the people's will.

Depoliticisation, cynicism and a weakening of democracy will be the result
of a Yes vote to Nice. Irish referendums will never be the same again, for
an Irish Government will have got away with abusing fundamentally the
constitutional referendum process. On the other hand people all over
Europe will cheer us if we reaffirm last year's No. A second No will not
only show that it is the Irish people who control their Government, rather
than the Government controlling the people, but we will be keeping the EU
together as a partnership of legal equals and preventing the Big States
from hijacking its institutions for their own State-power purposes,
negating thereby the best elements of the European ideal.

Reaffirming last year's No to Nice will be a signal that people want a more
democratic, slimmed-down European Union, not the ever more centralised and
undemocratic superpower-in-the-making which the EU is currently turning
into under the hegemony of the Big States,in particular Germany and France.


As responsible Europeans, the only people who are privileged to be able tovote on this important treaty, which is such a bad Treaty for the EU andfor the Applicant countries, we owe it to our fellow European citizens
everywere to vote No. Commission President Romano Prodi admitted afterthe Irish No vote last year that if Nice were put to popular referendum inother EU countries, it would be rejected in several of them.

Cork

On the three occasions in the past when there were related constitutional referendums in Ireland - on abortion, divorce and ProportionalRepresentation - there was some change in the constitutional proposition the second time around compared to the first, and nearly 10 years had
passed between the first and second referendums. (N.B. In the two PR
referendums, in 1959 and 1968, the commission to draw up single member
constituencies was different in character the second time around, as was
the role of the President).

The Nice Re-run, by contrast, is part of a seamless Nice Treaty
ratification process. Not a comma has been changed in the Treaty of Nice.
The people are being asked to ratify this year exactly the same Treaty as
they rejected last year. The two clauses that it is proposed to add to the
Constitution to ratify it are identical - as they necessarily must be - to
the two clauses the people chose to reject last year.

The extra clause the Government proposes in the Nice Re-run, to the effect
that if the EU should form a mutual defence pact at some time in the
future, there would have to be a referendum in Ireland, is totally
redundant and has nothing to do with the Nice Treaty. If the EU were to go
down the road to a mutual defence pact, there would have to be a
constitutional referendum in Ireland anyway.

There is small likelihood of this happening for the foreseeable future, as
11 of its 15 Member States are already members of a defence pact in NATO.
Nice is rather a pact for mutual offence - for military intervention
outside the EU in certain circumstances - not for mutual defence. Nice
puts the controlling political machinery for such foreign interventions
directly under the EU itself for the first time, rather than working
indirectly through the Western European Union.

johnKarma

Originally posted by bonkey
If its neither of these, then it can only be the timescale? Is that the only issue? Not that we're being asked the question again, but that we're being asked the question again so soon? Are we to set a timescale on this type of event - the re-asking of a question. And we then must also get back to addressing in law what constitutes asking the same question......

I'll take the bait.

I'd be of the opinion that this issue should be kept beyond constitutional prescription. In so far as is possible, I think that highly charged political questions (the re-running of the Nice referendum being a prime example) should be kept out of the hands of the Supreme Court. We need only look to the debacle that was the 2000 US Presidential Election, among countless other examples, to see what horrible results a partisan judiciary can wreak upon a society when dealing with such loaded issues. Thus, I believe that the proposal of referendum questions should remain the sole prerogative of the Oireachtas.

Rather than being dealt with through the law, then, this should remain an issue of political morality. And this is where the No Camp would seem to have the strongest argument.

Announcing within days of a referendum result that the referendum would be re-run, is in my view not treating the electorate with the respect they deserve. It is tantamount to treating the referendum process as a mere formality that must be overcome before the government's, and, in this case, the EU's, goals are to be realised. This is hardly treatment befitting what is considered in our Constitutional order to be a sacred process. In Ireland, the Referendum was introduced because of our historical mistrust of a foreign executive. It is designed to minimise the power of the government and ensure that the people remain at the pinnacle of the constitutional system.

However, here, the government is saved from total damnation because of the intervening General Election. The people knew full well that the outgoing FF Government's stated policy was to repeat the referendum, and they were returned with increased representation.

Personally, I welcome the second vote because I wasn't old enough to vote the first time;)

swiss

Some nice pasting skillz there Cork. A very righteously outraged piece of prose. Obviously the writer feels that a rerun of the referendum makes a mockery of the democratic process. Fine. I think this is unfair, for the reasons I've mentioned. A decision by the government to ratify the treaty without a referendum - now that would have been undemocratic.

Lets put it into perspective

1) People vote against a treaty

2) It is rerun so that people have to vote once more on the issue.

Pretty cut'n'dry one might say. If one has voted against an issue and nothing has changed, then what is to stop them from voting no again - absolutely nothing. This is the case here, with one caviat. Earlier Borzoi claimed that he felt that he was being bullied and threatened into voting yes. This I found worrying.

Frankly, if I feel bullied into voting a certain way, I would say that it would be into voting 'NO'. Certainly judging by this and other threads the no side have been far more vociferous in their opposition to the treaty bolstered by the moral high ground obtained by taking on the stance of the beleagured democrat.

I am being urged to vote No for the sake of democracy, and it has been insinutated (in the verbose article Cork posted for example) that if I vote yes, I am somehow not a democrat. This is patently as obtuse as it is absurd. The whole point of a democracy is that independently of which way one votes, the vote will carry the day. Well, 18 months on and Nice has not been ratified, because we voted against it. We have been asked again to vote on the issue. If the people feel the same way they will vote no again. It will not remain ratified again. The democratic wishes of the people will be respected again, even if the government don't like it.

I have yet to meet a campaigner for a yes vote in 'real-life' (tm). Government literature promoting the yes campaign has suspiciously NOT been forced down my letterbox. Secret agents have not been sent around to my house have not brainwashed me (I guess you'll have to take my word for that ). Perhaps this is just me, but if I felt that I was being coerced into voting a certain way I would feel even more strongly inclined into voting contrary to that coersive force (unless it was something really serious like death threats).


I said it once and i'll say it once more.
If people agree with Nice they should vote yes. If they disagree with Nice they should vote no. I feel that the nature of the rerun is beginning to be used as a smokescreen by those who seem to be afraid of what the result may be following a rerun.

Cork

If people agree with Nice they should vote yes. If they disagree with Nice they should vote no.

I agree that my pasting skills are dire. I also agree that people have to decide on the issue. I did not vote the last time as I was not on the register. This time I will be voting No. I fear - what the EU is becoming.

I am sorry for a big paste (above) but as it makes a few interesting points I decided to paste it. I know the No people will be up aganist Bertie, PJ Meara, Mr Mackan, McDonagh, IBEC & every vested interest in Ireland. But I hope that the campaign will be kept fair & clean.

Typedef

Originally posted by johnKarma
The European Commission is often explained by analogy with Cabinet Government. Each Commissioner is given a certain portfolio, like Health & Consumer Protection (David Byrne) or External Relations (Chris Patten). Just like our Ministers.

If we were to have a Commissioner representing each member State in a 37-Member Union, each of the 37 would have to be allocated a portfolio. Obviously this would be an unsatisfactory, pointless situation resulting in the creation of needless Commissionerships and expanding the Euro-Bureaucracy much criticised by many in the No camp.

First off I think it is quite convienent to criticise people and lump all of their arguments into a 'camp'. Camps just don't work for me, I think there is too much diversity of opinion to simply castigate people to a 'camp'.

Anyway what you are attemtping to suggest is that in a Europe of ever closer Union that Ireland should in effect 'not' have a place at the cabinet table gauranteed, whilst countries like Germany and France do. Now from my perspective that seems like being ruled by a foreign power, but feel free to correct me if you can find flaw in my logic.

A line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere. If this limitation were not in the Constitution, the Taoiseach might well feel tempted to create sinecures for his political buddies by dreaming up gratuitous Ministerial Portfolios, thus imposing an unnecessary burden on the Taxpayer.

That is a bit rich don't you think, since the interests rates set by the European Central Bank are detramental to the Irish economy to the benefit of the French and German economies?

I appreciate that the European context is different. Despite the fact that commissioners are sworn not to serve their respective national interests and act toward the benefit of the Union at large, I realise that we do not live in a United States of Europe, and that national identities are a more potent force here than State identites are in the U.S..

Then you must realise that the Irish national interest is not served by allowing large countries to 'always' have a place at the Cabinet table of a Supra-National Federal Union, whilst not affording the same right to the Irish. In my view that will put this country into a position where the Irish national interest may be negated and marginalised, which is in my view a recipe for disater. It is precisely to control and affect such protection and endemnification of things pertaining to Ireland that this country broke away from the UK

I'm still undecided on Nice. There may well be good reasons to vote against it, and I'm still trying to inform myself. But I don't think the removal of an automatic right to a commissioner is one of them.

My reasons for voting against in no particular order.

Loss of voting powers.
Qualified Majority Voting.
Loss of a right to a Comissioner.
(This is a big one) Two Tiered closer 'enhanced co-operation', will I am quite convinced put Ireland into a position where Ireland will be forced, coralled, coerced basically into a Superstate, a Superstate where Ireland can not reasonably control policies that effect Ireland to any great degree, but where the initiators of said Federal integration can, by sheer force of size, economic clout, voting powers and structures set up within the Union such that big countries can effectively dictate to small countries like Ireland.
European Rapid Reaction Force. Since Ireland is 'not' neutral, neutrality will not be affected. Moreover this Rapid Reaction Force will most likely end up being used to protect Franco-German and perhaps British national interests, not Irish ones, don't fool yourself on that front. I agree with Bertie Ahern, since Ireland isn't really neutral, there is no neutrality to affect with accepting Nice.

The EU has already stated expansion will take place with or without Nice, thus, I firmly believe that Ireland is not only looking out for Irish interests, but, exercising the right to vote on Nice where literally the rest of the people of the EU can not. I don't accept the argument that government's represent the views of their people, that is nonsense since the Irish government point blank refuses to represent the Irish's people's opinion (given via Referendum on Nice) and so somehow I don't really believe that if a plebiscite were held in all fifteen member nations that Ireland would be the only nation to reject the treaty.

Thus I think I am right in saying rejection addresses the democratic defecit in the EU and protects the Irish national interest. Thus I am calling for a No vote, I'm not going to rant too much about this topic, I believe No is the right way to vote, you must make up your own mind as to what is the right decision, but don't be bullied or scaremongered into voting Yes, if you don't believe the treaty on it's merits and it's merits alone is not right for Ireland. Don't be afraid to voice an opinion on how you think Europe should operate, because if Ireland is to be a participant then Europe must reflect Ireland's views as opposed to dictating what those views should be.

Thus a re-run is wrong, as a re-run does not make Ireland participant of Europe, does not ensconce Ireland's views and respect them, but sullies those views and jeopordises this country's right of self expression and self determination and thus the Treaty of Nice must be rejected resoundingly for these reasons and the deficits that are contained in the Treaty itself.

Biffa Bacon

That single revealing sentence shows precisely where Taoiseach Ahern failed
to do his constitutional duty by respecting last year's democratic
decision of the Irish people on the Nice Treaty. If he had respected the
Irish people's vote, he would have abided by it.

He has abided it. If he hadn’t, he would have put the army on the streets, declared the Constitution null and void and ratified the Nice Treaty by decree. What he is doing is holding another referendum to try to get the people to change their mind. This is perfectly democratic. In fact, it would be perfectly democratic, although politically idiotic, to keep re-running the referendum until he gets the result he wants. Our referendum process is free and fair.

For the Government to claim that it received a mandate for re-running Nice
in the recent general election is ludicrous, for Nice was scarcely
mentioned publicly during that contest, even if it was referred to in the
party manifestos.

Agreed, it is ludicrous. Bertie should have the bottle to stand up and say he’s re-running the referendum because he thinks it’s in the country’s best interests.

This is why the Government and its allies are planning to use fear,
scaremongering, misrepresentation and abuse of their opponents, in anunexampled attempt to bully the Irish people into changing their already delivered judgement on the Nice Treaty.

I also agree on this. The government have learnt nothing from the last referendum and are relying on scare tactics over the economy as their contribution to the “debate”. The fact that they’re not defending the Nice Treaty on its own terms gives out the message to people that the treaty is actually not worth defending.