Some questions for the No to Nice people

Bateman

>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?


At the discretion of the Government, seemingly. Although its a small matter in the bigger picture.

Biffa Bacon

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.

Under Nice, no member state will be guaranteed a Commissioner. Compare this with the current situation where the larger states have two Commissioners and the smaller states have one. Which setup do you prefer?

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.

Typedef, do you ever actually read other people’s posts? I’ve already tried to address these issues and you gave no response.

European Rapid Reaction Force.

There is nothing in the Nice Treaty about a Rapid Reaction Force.

Typedef

Originally posted by bonkey
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.

Right now I'm thinking Australia or the US, mostly because I can never see the Americans for all of their flaws to ever allow such a mockery to be made of the democracy they decry to hold so dear.

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.

Jc, you are asking what I think should be sacrosanct and to put it simply democracy should and if it were the democratic will of the people of Ireland to have the Nice Treaty and it's contents inunciated in the constitution and in law, I would accept it, though not particularly like it.

It is my view as a democrat who has already cast his vote as a not unintelligent voter, that the provisios of the Nice Treaty will not serve the national interests of Ireland and to lay claim to enacting a 'greater' structure of democracy within Europe by removing Ireland's right to a Commissioner and eroding Ireland's voting powers seems to me debateably 'democratic' and certainly not in the interests of this Republic.
You could argue that Qualified Majority Voting is 'greater' democracy and I will concede in a way it is, however in my opinion what it is not is an acceptable arrangement in the context of enhanced co-operation where that pertains to military co-operation or further Federal integration, because I think, not unreasonably probably that with such a fast track to an Embryonic Superstate that Ireland will not reasonably be able to resist getting sucked in. Arguably Ireland is already in that situation and I for one don't subscribe to the lay on the ground and concede defeat philosophy, so I do not want to see Ireland dragged any further into this Federal Union, unless that is genuinely what the Irish people want.

I don't think that is what the Irish people want, and the rejection of the Nice treaty seems to my mind to cooberate that hypothesis. Thus I propose that the re-run of the Treaty is in fact contrary to the wishes of the people and thus contrary to the very definition of what the word Republic means.

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.

And you know one thing that really does tick me off about living in Ireland is that the government really does seem prone to having endless Referenda on issues it regards as important, or worse still minority interest groups forcing meaningless Referenda on totally obscure issues. I am of course talking about the last abortion Referendum, which was arguably a farce as nothing important actually changed, although it did seem to be a good distraction for the public in the run up to the election so if that was the intent of the government you have to admire it's Machiavellianism.

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.

As I have said, I do not believe that Ireland being part of a Pan European Superstate no matter how democratic it is, will infact be beneficial to this country as being a nation of four million people in a Superstate of five hundred million, Ireland and the Irish will have virtually no say over how this nation is governed, and it is precisely for a say or rather control over our own governance that this country broke away from the British.

To put it simply, I don't think that Irish people will be best represented as a drop in the ocean in a Federal Europe, but rather as an independant nation state participating economically in the EU. Ostensibly I believe that the national differences that exist across Europe will work to the detrament of this country if we aquiescence to joining a Federal Pax-Europa, Ireland will not have sufficient representation as a nation to prevent advantage being taken by other more populous nations in the Union. Unfortunately it is naive to think that Europe can just turn around and suddenly act as a nation, set aside inter-European national strife and act for the good of the entire Union, just look at the French and Irish (mostly the French) filibustering reform of the CAP for evidence of this. Thus Ireland will be in a position where we will not be able to defend our interests adequately. Make no mistake if it were Ireland alone opposing reform of the CAP, or military action against country (n) or 'reform' of the voting structures of the Union, there would be little procrastination about tertly telling the Irish where to get off from the rest of the Europeans.

I don't mean to shout "J'Accuse", of course the citizens of the EU are people just like the Irish, but in reality when it comes down to it, so outnumbered in such a Federal Union would the Irish be that we may as well not have any votes, for all the good our actual voting numbers would actually do Ireland. Think of it four million voters who have a vested, national interest in something versus five hundred million other voters, where in practice France,Germany,Italy & the UK will have sufficient votes to carry any amendement via Qualified Majority Voting.

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

Funny that is exactly what I say about this government and it's supposed 'democracy'.

Typedef

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Typedef, do you ever actually read other people’s posts? I’ve already tried to address these issues and you gave no response.

Kind of a stupid thing to ask that, I mean how could I ever participate in a discussion unless I read the other posts, that would be a bit pointless really wouldn't it?

Just on the commissioner.

We'll lets put it this way. All the "big" countries are immediately and permanently sacrificing one of their two commissioners,post Nice and are agreeing to equal rotation of commissioners post the 27th country joining.

This is a quote from a pro Nice site.
http://yestonice.com/why.htm

If I'm misinterpreting what that says please illucidate me.
To me that says that Ireland will be without a commissioner sometime in the future and there will be rewieghting of voting powers.

If you had read my posts you would realise that I am contending that Qualified Majority Voting in key areas will create a two tiered integration process of which this country 'might' not participate, but will be unable to resist!

There is nothing in the Nice Treaty about a Rapid Reaction Force.

The term Rapid Reaction Force is not used, however there is an element that allows enhanced co-operation in the area of military co-operation, and it is this area that a Rapid Reaction Force has been proposed by 'some' member states.

Meh

Originally posted by Typedef
Right now I'm thinking Australia or the US, mostly because I can never see the Americans for all of their flaws to ever allow such a mockery to be made of the democracy they decry to hold so dear.

You mean the Australia that keeps refugees in internment camps? Or the America that made a mockery of their democratic elections with dimpled chads in 2000?

in practice France,Germany,Italy & the UK will have sufficient votes to carry any amendement via Qualified Majority Voting.

No they won't. I refer you to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/europe/euro-glossary/1054052.stm.

To reach a qualified majority 255 votes will be required, as well as a majority of member states. As an added control, the votes cast will have to represent 62% of the EU population.

Population per vote (in millions):

Germany 2.83
UK 2.04
France 2.03
Italy 1.99
Ireland 0.53

Seems to me that Ireland does very well out of this treaty. As an Irish citizen, I have five times as much influence over the EU as a German citizen.

johnKarma

Originally posted by Typedef


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'.

Yes, I know there’s a diversity of opinion in what I termed the “No” camp. Between Sinn Féin, the Greens, Dana, the Socialists, the Socialist Workers, the National Platform, and God knows who else, the one unifying characteristic is that they all want us to vote a particular way in the upcoming referendum. When we’re discussing a referendum it’s only natural that we divide the two sides into “Yes” and “No”.

I qualified my statement by saying that “many” in the No Camp expressed an opinion about an expanding European Bureaucracy. I’m not trying to tar the whole group with the same brush. So your criticism here is unwarranted.

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.

The flaw in your logic is that the commissioners are SWORN not to act in their own national interests. I asked for evidence of any commissioner acting in this way in the past. I have yet to hear of any. But I have an open mind on the matter.

Besides, you are factually incorrect. First of all, under Nice, the big countries would immediately reduce their representation on the commission by one, thus equalising themselves with the small states. After the 27th member has joined, NOT EVEN the big countries would be guaranteed a place at the “cabinet table”. There would be equal rotation between all member states.

This is a remarkable display of faith in the EU institutions by the large countries. They are willing (even with their MASSIVE populations compared to Ireland and the other small states) to subject themselves to a risk of being “ruled by a foreign power” similar to what you’re warning against here in the Irish context.

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
Right now I'm thinking Australia or the US, mostly because I can never see the Americans for all of their flaws to ever allow such a mockery to be made of the democracy they decry to hold so dear.

Fair enough, but I'll remember this the next time you launch into a tirade about the oppressiveness of the great evil US Empire, or about the intolerable human rights situations perpetuated by internment of refugees in Australia

Jc, you are asking what I think should be sacrosanct and to put it simply democracy should and if it were the democratic will of the people of Ireland to have the Nice Treaty and it's contents inunciated in the constitution and in law, I would accept it, though not particularly like it.

First of all, you think that your view of democracy should be sacrosanct Yet you also admit (as later in the post I'm referring to) that the most democratic solution is not necessarily the most advantageous to Ireland, and therefore not desireable to you.

How then can it be sacrosanct?

Secondly, we must accept that the democratic will of the people changes. If it didnt, we wouldnt have governmental elections every so often, would we

OK - that was a bit (a lot) facetious, but on a similar vein, the democratic wishes of the people will be enunciated on the next referendum, just as they were in the last. Until the public deign to decide "yes" to the issue, there can be no change to the law. Should they decide yes, there is nothing to stop someone seeking a referendum to reverse the change once more. Granted it would take longer to bring about, but it can be done - just as a referendum which would require Ireland to remove itself from the EU.

How can this be undemocratic. The people are asked, they answer, the law reflects that answer.

Just referring back to your basic argument of the undemocratic nature of having the same question asked more than once in such a short timeframe. Am I not correct in saying that for a Bill to pass in England, it must be read, and passed, by the House of Commons THREE times.

Surely this would be the height of undemocratic behaviour as well, under your auspices, and yet an entire nation is ruled by it....one which is generally regarded as being democratic by the rest of the world.

Yes, your view and mine of what forms democracy differs. I wont even claim that mine is correct. What I will say is that it carries no less weight.

We differ. We can stop arguing. Because its reasonable to assume anyone interested in the discussion will read the thread, neither of us should feel the need to bemoan the lack of democracy or support its existence any further. Yes?

jc

Biffa Bacon

If I'm misinterpreting what that says please illucidate me.
To me that says that Ireland will be without a commissioner sometime in the future and there will be rewieghting of voting powers.

What the treaty says is:

On 1 January 2005 and with effect from when the first Commission following that date takes up its duties…The Commission shall include one national of each of the Member States…

When the Union consists of 27 Member States…The number of Members of the Commission shall be less than the number of Member States. The Members of the Commission shall be chosen according to a rotation system based on the principle of equality…Member States shall be treated on a strictly equal footing as regards determination of the sequence of, and the time spent by, their nationals as Members of the Commission; consequently, the difference between the total number of terms of office held by nationals of any given pair of Member States may never be more than one…

In other words, from 2005, regardless of whether there has been enlargement or not, the five largest states will lose their right to nominate a second Commissioner. Once the EU has enlarged to 27, the right to nominate a Commissioner will be rotated equally among member states. Is this really worse than the current setup?

If you had read my posts you would realise that I am contending that Qualified Majority Voting in key areas will create a two tiered integration process of which this country 'might' not participate, but will be unable to resist!

It seems you don’t understand the difference between QMV and enhanced cooperation. QMV is a voting system by which the Council of Ministers can make decisions in certain areas, and has been around since the foundation of the EEC in 1957. Enhanced cooperation refers to the right of a subgroup of member states to proceed with a given project among themselves without the participation of all member states. It is already provided for under the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997). The link between the two is that the Council of Ministers uses QMV to decide whether or not to permit an enhanced cooperation project to go ahead. The other thing to point out about enhanced cooperation is that there are safeguards to prevent non-participating member states being coerced into any enhanced cooperation project. No one, as far as I know, is arguing that these safeguards will not be sufficient.

The term Rapid Reaction Force is not used, however there is an element that allows enhanced co-operation in the area of military co-operation, and it is this area that a Rapid Reaction Force has been proposed by 'some' member states.

The treaty explicitly states that enhanced cooperation “shall not relate to matters having military or defence implications.”

JustHalf

Originally posted by Typedef
As I have said, I do not believe that Ireland being part of a Pan European Superstate no matter how democratic it is, will infact be beneficial to this country as being a nation of four million people in a Superstate of five hundred million, Ireland and the Irish will have virtually no say over how this nation is governed, and it is precisely for a say or rather control over our own governance that this country broke away from the British.

So what you're saying is that 60 million European citizens will have more of a say in how Europe develops than 4 million, and that this is a bad thing.

Nice democracy.

Originally posted by Typedef
I don't mean to shout "J'Accuse", of course the citizens of the EU are people just like the Irish, but in reality when it comes down to it, so outnumbered in such a Federal Union would the Irish be that we may as well not have any votes, for all the good our actual voting numbers would actually do Ireland. Think of it four million voters who have a vested, national interest in something versus five hundred million other voters, where in practice France,Germany,Italy & the UK will have sufficient votes to carry any amendement via Qualified Majority Voting.

Funny that is exactly what I say about this government and it's supposed 'democracy'.

There. You're off again.

Nice democracy.

Typedef

JustHalf
So what you're saying is that 60 million European citizens will have more of a say in how Europe develops than 4 million, and that this is a bad thing.

Perhaps you are actually missing the point of what I am saying.

I will quote myself to save repitition.

Originally posted by Me

As I have said, I do not believe that Ireland being part of a Pan European Superstate no matter how democratic it is, will infact be beneficial to this country as being a nation of four million people in a Superstate of five hundred million, Ireland and the Irish will have virtually no say over how this nation is governed, and it is precisely for a say or rather control over our own governance that this country broke away from the British.

dathi1

no2nice.org

Cork

FF, FG and IBEC are treating the Irish people like mushrooms.

Keep them in the dark.

OH give them lots of spin.

Nice is a bad treaty. It is flawed. Mutton dresses as lamb.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Cork
FF, FG and IBEC are treating the Irish people like mushrooms.

Keep them in the dark.

OH give them lots of spin.

Nice is a bad treaty. It is flawed. Mutton dresses as lamb.

God forbid you let us know why it's a flawed treaty.

Look it, no one who is opposed to Nice on this board has been able to rationally defend their position. Why is this?

swiss

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon:

Look it, no one who is opposed to Nice on this board has been able to rationally defend their position.

I wouldn't say that tbh. There are arguments against Nice, but they are based on premises that I for one do not agree with. It has been described as many things by several no campaigners, an affront to democracy, an unacceptable loss of soverignty, creating a two tier Europe that effectively allows a 'creeping federalism' to emerge that has the potential to allow smaller nations to be effectively ruled by the larger ones.

It depends largely on a persons outlook, as does many things. I can't say I agree with any of the arguments presented to back up the premises listed above. In fact I think the Nice treaty will ensconce the lauded ideals of democracy and of a fair and equal union of soverign states. However, I (and others) have to be open to other views, which are as valid as my own. (Even if they are patently wrong )

Meh

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Look it, no one who is opposed to Nice on this board has been able to rationally defend their position. Why is this?

I'd also like to point out that the only people who have quoted from the Nice Treaty itself to support their position are the Yes people.

The No crowd just seem to be parroting phrases like "pan-European federal undemocratic superstate", "two-tier Europe" and "nuclear-armed military alliance" without any understanding of what the treaty actually says.

Sure, a two-speed EU in which the large states dictate to the small states would be bad. But Nice won't lead to that, as anyone who has read it will tell you. Read the provisions on QMV voting, which prevent the larger states making any decisions on their own even in the limited areas where QMV applies. Read the safeguards on enhanced cooperation which I quoted above.

Typedef

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

Look it, no one who is opposed to Nice on this board has been able to rationally defend their position. Why is this?

Nothing like a sweeping unsubstanciated statement to prove your point hmm?

Typedef

Originally posted by Meh
The No crowd just seem to be parroting phrases like "pan-European federal undemocratic superstate", "two-tier Europe" and "nuclear-armed military alliance" without any understanding of what the treaty actually says.

Funny that, I was under the (perhaps spurious) impression that I was an of age voter, who had attended CTYI aged 14 and thus had adequate mental capacity to understand the Treaty when I read it. I mean I understand that the Eurocrats believe Irish voters, stupid and or misinformed, but until such time as they can actually prove that their beliefs in the mental capacity of the Irish voter is in fact grounds for a re-run or even grounds to vote Yes to Nice, I will not be changing my views on either just because someone calls those views or even myself stupid.

However I will concede that your claim that only people who vote Yes have the capacity to understand the issues may be true, even though you haven't actually proved that in any way, shape or form.

Sure, a two-speed EU in which the large states dictate to the small states would be bad. But Nice won't lead to that

Which presumably only you can see, being a Yes voter? Funny I'm wondering where you get your crystal ball that lets you know these things better than I?

As anyone who has read it will tell you. Read the provisions on QMV voting, which prevent the larger states making any decisions on their own even in the limited areas where QMV applies. Read the safeguards on enhanced cooperation which I quoted above.

Actually I have read the treaty and I wouldn't say that. A concatonation of states may push through measures under Qualified Majority Voting persuant to these rules.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/europe/euro-glossary/1054052.stm

Once all the countries have joined, there will be 345 votes in total.

To reach a qualified majority 255 votes will be required, as well as a majority of member states. As an added control, the votes cast will have to represent 62% of the EU population.

Meh

Originally posted by Typedef
Funny I'm wondering where you get your crystal ball that lets you know these things better than I?

Right here.

Actually I have read the treaty and I wouldn't say that. A concatonation of states may push through measures under Qualified Majority Voting persuant to these rules.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/europe/euro-glossary/1054052.stm

Two points to make here:
1) The large states (France, Germany, UK, Italy) will not be able to make any QMV decisions without the support of a substantial number of small states. So Nice will not lead to a dictatorship of the large states.
2) QMV voting is restricted to specific areas that are not of "critical national importance". For example, taxation and social security will still require unanimity.

dathi1

1) The large states (France, Germany, UK, Italy) will not be able to make any QMV decisions without the support of a substantial number of small states. So Nice will not lead to a dictatorship of the large states.

So bruton's statement above is bull****?

Borzoi

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

God forbid you let us know why it's a flawed treaty.

Look it, no one who is opposed to Nice on this board has been able to rationally defend their position. Why is this?

Or maybe, just like Prodi, you're not listening to our opinions.

I'd go on but you can't be bothered seeing others views why the f@@k should I.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Typedef


Nothing like a sweeping unsubstanciated statement to prove your point hmm?

All you have to do is read back over this thread to see how the No people just ignore arguments or dodge questions they can't respond to.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by dathi1


So bruton's statement above is bull****?

It's true that the larger states have increased their role in decision-making. It's also true that they are still under-represented proportionate to their population. So what's the problem? Nobody on the No side has been able to say what a fair weighting of votes is.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Borzoi


Or maybe, just like Prodi, you're not listening to our opinions.

I'd go on but you can't be bothered seeing others views why the f@@k should I.

Please point out what opinions or arguments I have ignored. Go on, I dare you.

dathi1

It's true that the larger states have increased their role in decision-making. It's also true that they are still under-represented proportionate to their population. So what's the problem? Nobody on the No side has been able to say what a fair weighting of votes is.

Biffo,
You go out and vote Yes to look after the Big States power block.....meanwhile the rest of us who will be victorious once again will vote No for Ireland and the other small states.


Re-Negotiate the Nice Treaty - Let the rest of Europe have its say too.

NO 2 NICE

swiss

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon:

All you have to do is read back over this thread to see how the No people just ignore arguments or dodge questions they can't respond to

Isn't that exactly what you're doing in response to Typedef's question. He did challenge you to substantiate your assertion that noone on who was against the nice treaty was able to rationally defend their position. Are you going to tell us why that is the case?

Saying "I dare you" and such tripe will inevitably lead to "I double dare you" flames. I would ask you to refrain from such posts.

Borzoi you should consider other peoples views because in politics, no answer is inherently right or inherently wrong IMO, but is based largely on opinion (which can be based on historical or statistical fact). Therefore to assume that one's position is correct without taking all views and opinions into consideration is intellectually conceited.

I don't want to see a renegotiation of the treaty personally, because even though it is flawed, I believe it is fair in principle and a renegotiation has no guarantee of a 'better' deal for applicant states or indeed any existing individual state within the EU. Whether the Yes or No vote will carry the day is yet to be decided, and historically attempts to second guess the results of an election have sometimes proved to be ridiculously wrong (so I'm going to say it's going to be a massive yes majority )

bonkey

Originally posted by swiss
I don't want to see a renegotiation of the treaty personally, because even though it is flawed, I believe it is fair in principle and a renegotiation has no guarantee of a 'better' deal for applicant states or indeed any existing individual state within the EU.

This is exactly my sentiment as well.

The current treaty is a good balance (IMHO) between a proper "fair" solution, and one which offers the smaller states some degree of protection.

The essential problem is that many people look at it from what I think is the wrong perspective. The deal is not about benefiting Ireland. Its about benefiting the EU, which should ultimately lead to benefits for every member state.

Consider Germany. For decades, the Germans have been funding other states. They have (IIRC) been a net contributor from day one. They have been under-represented from day one. They still will be.

We, the Irish, heve been a net receiver from day one. We hav been over-represented from day one. Should Nice pass, we will still be over-represented....only less so. When the scales turned, and it looked like we would end up being a net contributor, people complained about us "losing out". When the Nice treaty proposed handing over some of our over-representation to balance the scales, we have complained about the loss of power - the loss of our "right" to certain things.

Now, we look at the next step of the EU, and again, all we can look at is "whats in it for us", and only then in terms of direct changes. Its not about fairness - its about Ireland's position.

Who cares about the other countries. We didnt join the EEC/EC/EU for them. We joined it for us.

If thats the way you think, then in all honesty - start campaigning for a succession from the EU. Your argument isnt against Nice - its against an EU which isnt there to serve our best interests, but to serve the EU's best interest.

Of course....I suggest you actually consider the implications of this. WHY would a nation like Germany (or France, or Britain, or numerous others) want an equal partnership with a nation like Ireland?

We were happy enough to screw them, but now we're being asked to play a bit fairer, its a problem.

Call me skeptical, but it still reeks of the "begging bowl" syndrome to me.

Ireland, IMHO, has an exaggerated sense of its own importance. Personally, if we failed to ratify Nice, I would love to see the EU kick us out. I'm guessing it would take a maximum of 5 years before we came crawling back to the EU or went sucking up to someone else, begging to be allowed back to play with the big boys again, because our nation would be gone down the toilet.

I bet most/all the anti-Nice peple cant understand why their parents dont like modern music. They cant understand why they havent moved with the times. Maybe you should consider the concept of nationality in a similar light. It is no longer what you consider it to be, or if it is - you'd damn-well be willing to pay the price for such outdated conceits, because holding on to your nationality may well cripple your nation.

jc

dathi1

JC,
Yes we have been a net receiver and yes we have done well so far from Europe. But why cant we make Europe more representative for the smaller states AND Ireland.? Ok...Some people get all upset when people call themselves Irish Nationalists and people have different views on what it means to be Irish but I think your going over board. There's nothing wrong with being Irish and there's nothing wrong with aspiring to be Irish. Does this make me anti European Union? No way. Anti Euro Federal Super State? Yes.
ps: If the Federal state becomes a reality will you be staying in Switzerland for good?

bonkey

Originally posted by dathi1
Yes we have been a net receiver and yes we have done well so far from Europe. But why cant we make Europe more representative for the smaller states AND Ireland.?

And exactly why would the big 4 want to have anything to do with that? The more representative the smaller nations become, the weaker a position the strongest nations find themselves in.

All you are basically saying is that you want someone else to get screwed more. It doesnt matter if its a small nation or a big one - you want someone to be under-represented so that we can hold an unfair advantage.

There's nothing wrong with being Irish and there's nothing wrong with aspiring to be Irish. Does this make me anti European Union? No way. Anti Euro Federal Super State? Yes.

Show me one abrogation of Irish "power" which seriously undermines your view of nationality which Nice will bring about, but which isnt a problem under the current EU.

Now, explain to me how your "more power to the Irish" does not cause the same undermining of someone elses nationality. Failing that, explain why your nationality is more important.

ps: If the Federal state becomes a reality will you be staying in Switzerland for good?

Huh?

Why does where I live, or why I choose to live there, have anything to do with this discussion?

jc

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by dathi1

Biffo,
You go out and vote Yes to look after the Big States power block.....meanwhile the rest of us who will be victorious once again will vote No for Ireland and the other small states.


Re-Negotiate the Nice Treaty - Let the rest of Europe have its say too.

NO 2 NICE

You see, this is what I'm talking about. No attempt to discuss the topic rationally.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by swiss

Isn't that exactly what you're doing in response to Typedef's question. He did challenge you to substantiate your assertion that noone on who was against the nice treaty was able to rationally defend their position.

You're taking the piss aren't you? Do I really have to go back through the thread to show how the No people simply ignored questions and arguments they couldn't respond to? All anyone has to do is read back through this thread to see that.