How will you be voting in the upcoming Nice treaty ?

magner

Im voting no for one reason,,,,,
A positive vote will result in the Goverment changing Article 5 of the Constution
Which states among other things that Ireland is a Soverign State,,,
The Nice Treaty says we are not,,,,,
I want Ireland to remain a Soverign state,i do not want someone oin Brussels deciding what is best for my Country
Im all for free borders,im all for free trade,,,but i stop at any kind of Federal Europe,,,and the Nice treaty is leading us down this path,,I submit with respect

Cork

However, the facts are that all the big EU States, Britain, Germany,France, etc. have indicated that, because of fear of distabilization oftheir labour markets, they will operate a transition period of up to 7years. Are they guilty of "xenophobia" for this?

Ireland is the only country whose Foreign Minister, Mr Brian Cowen, has written personally to each Applicant State government stating that their citizens will have the
right to live and work in Ireland without work permits from the day their Accession Treaties come into force, expected to be January 2004

I know that some No to Nice people disagree with me on immigration

It is the people who urge for a YES vote who agree with the stance Britain, Germany,France, etc are taking.

I am voting NO - because this treaty is a mess - As such it should not be included in our constitution.

Meh

Originally posted by dathi1
[My best friend is a Malaysian Doctor. Most of my friends are immigrants living and working here. I am a purveyor of ethnic and world music. I am against deportation but in favour of strict immigration control. I'm sorry but I cant fit neatly into your stupid stereotypes.

xen·o·phobe Pronunciation Key (zn-fb, zn-)
n.
A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples.

ster·e·o·type Pronunciation Key (str--tp, stîr-)
n.
A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image.

I'd say that scaremongering about all foreign immigrants "sleeping 20 to a room" is definitely covered by these definitions.

we cannot afford to have the current illegal immigration influx of 10,000 a year from outside the EU at a cost to us of €450,000,000 a year and on top of that the EXCLUSIVE UNRESTRICTIVE ACCESS by workers of new member states on 01/01/04.

http://www.oasis.gov.ie/employment/working_in_ireland/coming_from_EU_to_work.html

If you are unemployed, you should claim unemployment benefit in the country you are leaving and then asked for it to be transferred to Ireland. You must, of course, comply with the rules for getting benefit in the country that you are leaving. Your benefit may be transferred after you have been receiving it for four weeks. When you arrive in Ireland, you should sign on at your nearest employment exchange. You will then receive your benefit for 13 weeks; you get the same benefit as you would get if you stayed in the country you have left.

After 13 weeks have expired, you return to the normal Irish social welfare system. In order to qualify for benefits in Ireland, you need to get a job and pay at least one Class A PRSI contribution.

We are not going to be overrun by a tidal wave of unskilled Latvians looking to get on the "generous" Irish social welfare system. We are not going to have thousands of illiterate Czechs walking off the boat straight into the dole office. The dole is barely enough to live on as it is; nobody is going to leave their home and family and travel thousands of miles for the Irish dole.

Originally posted by Cork:
However, the facts are that all the big EU States, Britain, Germany,France, etc. have indicated that, because of fear of distabilization oftheir labour markets, they will operate a transition period of up to 7years. Are they guilty of "xenophobia" for this?

Yes. All of those countries have sizeable right wing anti-immigration parties.

dathi1

I'd say that scaremongering about all foreign immigrants "sleeping 20 to a room" is definitely covered by these definitions.

its getting ridiculous at this stage....its funny my immigrant mate serge form Lithuania working for a IT re-work company warned me about the 20 to a bed situation....now the Dublin 4 heads are calling the immigrants xenophobic too.......gob****e!

dathi1

http://www.oasis.gov.ie/employment/...EU_to_work.html

Has absolulty no bearing on 10.000 illegal immigrants a year costing us €450 million.

We are not going to be overrun by a tidal wave of unskilled Latvians looking to get on the "generous" Irish social welfare system. We are not going to have thousands of illiterate Czechs walking off the boat straight into the dole office. The dole is barely enough to live on as it is; nobody is going to leave their home and family and travel thousands of miles for the Irish dole.

Weekly income eastern Europe €45-€79 a week
Ireland : €340 - €400
I'd travel!

Meh

Originally posted by dathi1
Weekly income eastern Europe €45-€79 a week
Ireland : €340 - €400
I'd travel!

Wow, where is this magic dole office that pays €340 a week in social welfare? If someone earns €340 a week in this country, they work hard for it.

Make your mind up -- either the eastern europeans are coming here to cost us €450 million a year by sitting on their arse on the dole, or they're going to put us all out of our jobs by being too hard-working. You can't argue for both.

gandalf

Firstly I think we are all getting hung up on this immigration issue. We are all aware of the fact that the big countries are opting out of allowing workers migrating from the applicant countries for 7 years.

However this article appeared in the Sunday Business Post yesterday casting doubt over the governments NO will spell economic disaster (scaremongering).

'No' vote on Nice will make 'no difference' to investment


By Michael Murray
Dublin, Ireland, 22 September, 2002


A leading European fund manager has dismissed claims by government ministers that a `No' vote in the Nice referendum would damage Ireland in the eyes of overseas investors.


Andrew Koch, senior European equity fund manager at HSBC Asset Management and former director of European Equities at Phillips & Drew, said that while a No vote on Nice might result in a "knee jerk" reaction from investors, it was unlikely to have any long-term impact on international investors' perceptions of the Irish stock market.

Koch manages the multibillion euro HSBC European fund, and was speaking to Irish brokers last week on the outlook for European and global equities.

Koch manages €180 million of funds from Irish clients of Acorn Life. HSBC has substantial shareholdings in several bluechip Irish companies including the main banks -- AIB and Bank of Ireland -- as well as CRH, Jefferson Smurfit, Fyffes, IAWS, Kingspan and Ryanair.

Hobbes

I ask for one thing and no one does it.


For people voting Yes/No - How about reading the treaty and then when you say something like

"Voting yes will allow hoards of freeloaders to come into Ireland" you can add (Page 14, Point 3). So I can see how out of context or actually correct a person is (in this case it would be incorrect).

G

This talk about immigration is straying slightly OT but it's still very important (split the thread maybe?). Good quote from the Business post Gandalf.

Originally posted by Meh
Wow, where is this magic dole office that pays €340 a week in social welfare? If someone earns €340 a week in this country, they work hard for it.

He means the €340 is the 'incentive' for lower income europeans to come to Ireland you tit. Then if (when) they don't find work they end up on welfare, which I'd say is a tad higher than €79/week in total.

Yes the euro buys you less in Ireland than everywhere else but regardless, do you want to pay for other peoples welfare when they can't get jobs? Do you want to pay higher taxes as a result? I don't.

dathi1

ok...agreed lets veer away from the immigration slightly and concentrate on the other big issues affecting peoples decision to vote No or Yes. As a matter of interest is there anybody out there who is undecided on which way to vote and if so what's bugging you? lack of info? don't want to vote on something you're sure of etc..

Meh

Originally posted by G
He means the €340 is the 'incentive' for lower income europeans to come to Ireland you tit. Then if (when) they don't find work they end up on welfare, which I'd say is a tad higher than €79/week in total..

See my post from the governemnt information website above:

In order to qualify for benefits in Ireland, you need to get a job and pay at least one Class A PRSI contribution.

gandalf

Originally posted by Hobbes
I ask for one thing and no one does it.


For people voting Yes/No - How about reading the treaty and then when you say something like

"Voting yes will allow hoards of freeloaders to come into Ireland" you can add (Page 14, Point 3). So I can see how out of context or actually correct a person is (in this case it would be incorrect).

Yep Hobbes I plan to do this but I need time to.

In work I guerrila post, ie I sneak onto boards (using the alternative address) for a few minutes every now and then throughout the day (got complaints from the overseers over my non-business related net access). Recently I've actually been busy over the evenings and weekends as well but I will try and do it by the end of this week.

BTW I have read the treaty just not memorised it yet

Gandalf.

Hobbes

Originally posted by G
He means the €340 is the 'incentive' for lower income europeans to come to Ireland you tit. Then if (when) they don't find work they end up on welfare, which I'd say is a tad higher than €79/week in total.

Even with the minimum wage going up to €6.35 an hour your looking at over 53 hours a week to get that before tax.

Are the getting a special one time bonus or something? Do you have a link? Because they wouldn't get that if they qualified for unemployment.

Also if all these people are coming over will screw up the jobs, why the hell would they come over then? They will just be swapping one poverty for another, and while I don't know the living rates in those countries I'll take a good bet it's a heck of a lot lower then it is here.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
If the Irish people are bullied and deceived into voting Yes in October to exactly the same Nice Treaty as they rejected in June last year, it will devalue referendums not only in Ireland but in every European country.

Certainly. However, no-one has shown convincingly that Yes vote actually means the people were bullied and/or deceived.

Its like maths. "a implies b" does not necessarily equate to "b implies a".

Prove they're being bullied, and you have a point. From what I can see, there is a wealth of information, misinformation and all the rest coming from both sides.

At best, with a Yes result, you could say that the Yes bullying and deceiving turned out to be more efficient than its No counterpart, but that kinda invalidates the entire argument about what it spells for democracy.....

jc

PH01

I've read and re-read your posts and I'm not convinced, or do I accept your argument.

Typedef

Originally posted by bonkey


Certainly. However, no-one has shown convincingly that Yes vote actually means the people were bullied and/or deceived.

Its like maths. "a implies b" does not necessarily equate to "b implies a".

There has been no conclusive proof from IBEC for example that a rejection of the Treaty will in fact be detramental to investment or job creation in Ireland. Thus if one were to vote for the Treaty in fear of what IBEC has proported (without proof i.e. scaremongering), you would reasonably prove that eletor(x) has been decieved into voting Yes.

If this voter has switched sides then that voter has been bullied into voting yes.

I would submit that deciding that another 're-run' is in the best interests of the country (arbitrarily and co-incidentially in accordance with the government's own view) is in fact a heavy handed tactic akin to bullying.

Bonkey has argued in the past that a government is supposed to act in the best interests of the country and that 'best interests' should include re-running a Referendum, because that is one of the functions of government.

I would infer that a set aside is in fact an abuse of power and thus is akin to bullying because clearly the government has already lied to the electorate about the state of the public finances which is an abuse of power. I don't care that Canines in the street knew the government was lying, the government said things that turned out within three months to be an utter lie. Thus the government was acting in self interest by lying and can't be trusted.

Assuming the government have been proved to have been untrustworthy at least once and has acted in self interest as opposed to national interest the government cannot be trusted to act in the national interest before self interest ever! The exception invalidates the rule.

Lying and misinformation is akin to scaremongering and scaremongering is effectively bullying.

Perhaps the corollary is true for the "No side", however if the government is as I believe proved to be bullying the public and the decision on Nice is reversed, you could say that the government had bullied the public into voting Yes.

Q.E.D.

G

Originally posted by Hobbes
Even with the minimum wage going up to €6.35 an hour your looking at over 53 hours a week to get that before tax.

Are the getting a special one time bonus or something? Do you have a link? Because they wouldn't get that if they qualified for unemployment.

The €340 figure is not mine, I was just highlighting daithi's point to Meh.

Also if all these people are coming over will screw up the jobs, why the hell would they come over then? They will just be swapping one poverty for another, and while I don't know the living rates in those countries I'll take a good bet it's a heck of a lot lower then it is here.

The cost of living is comparitively low in those countries for obvious reasons; because they have such high unemployment rates and those that do have jobs earn FA.

The cost of living in Ireland is so high largely because the government didn't do enough to hold down inflation. Dispite this I'll bet they'll come flocking here anyway.

The government must fear that big-business will shift to the new EU member states after enlargement so to counteract this an influx of workers from those states would stabilise wage demands (increased labour market).

According to this article "tens of thousands" of immigrants are expected to move to Ireland from the EU in search of work. That is not good news.

Meh

Originally posted by Typedef
There has been no conclusive proof from IBEC for example that a rejection of the Treaty will in fact be detramental to investment or job creation in Ireland. Thus if one were to vote for the Treaty in fear of what IBEC has proported (without proof i.e. scaremongering), you would reasonably prove that eletor(x) has been decieved into voting Yes.

I agree that IBEC are scaremongering here. I'm voting Yes despite them, rather than because of them.

Lying and misinformation is akin to scaremongering and scaremongering is effectively bullying.

No it isn't.

scare·mon·ger Pronunciation Key (skârmnggr, -mng-)
n/
One who spreads frightening rumors; an alarmist.

bul·lied, bul·ly·ing, bul·lies
v. tr.
To treat in an overbearing or intimidating manner. See Synonyms at intimidate.
To make (one's way) aggressively.

Completely different meanings.

Perhaps the corollary is true for the "No side", however if the government is as I believe proved to be bullying the public and the decision on Nice is reversed, you could say that the government had bullied the public into voting Yes.

Only if you took an opinion poll which showed that the Yes majority was due to people being afraid of the government.

What exactly is your point anyway? Are you saying that I should vote No, not because of the shortcomings of the Treaty itself, but because the government is trying to get me to vote Yes? That seems to be a rather poor argument for No vote to me...

Typedef

Bah!

a·kin Pronunciation Key (-kn)
adj.

Of the same kin; related by blood.
Having a similar quality or character; analogous.
Linguistics. Sharing a common origin or an ancestral form.

Originally posted by Meh
What exactly is your point anyway? Are you saying that I should vote No, not because of the shortcomings of the Treaty itself, but because the government is trying to get me to vote Yes?

Nope I was rubuffing bonkey (that's why I quoted him).

I am voting No for my own reasons, but I was making a salient point that since bonkey believes that a government should act in the national interest always, even if that means re-run of a Referenda, that once the government can be shown to have acted in something other than the national interest that logically, it ceases to be an entity that can make judgements pertaining to the national interest.

Meh

Originally posted by Typedef
akin definition

I'm afraid I'm going to have to refer you back to your own post:

scaremongering is effectively bullying.

I am voting No for my own reasons, but I was making a salient point that since bonkey believes that a government should act in the national interest always, even if that means re-run of a Referenda, that once the government can be shown to have acted in something other than the national interest that logically, it ceases to be an entity that can make judgements pertaining to the national interest.

I would infer that a set aside is in fact an abuse of power and thus is akin to bullying because clearly the government has already lied to the electorate about the state of the public finances which is an abuse of power

So your argument as I understand it is:

1. The government abused its power by deceiving the electorate over the economy during the election campaign
2. Therefore, the rerun of the Nice referendum is also an abuse of government power

I think there's a step or two missing in your logic there -- could you fill it in please? Do the broken election promises mean that everything the government does is now an abuse of power?

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
Lying and misinformation is akin to scaremongering and scaremongering is effectively bullying.

Yes, but unfortunately you are in no position to say that there is anything wrong with this, having previously stood on a point saying that any tactic to win a vote, short of physical violence is perfectly acceptable in your view of democracy.

Also, there is a difference between some indivuals changing their vote through these tactics and the result differing as a result of these tactics.

Lets hypothesize that there is a 30% increase in turnout. Lets hypothesize that of this 30% there is a significant majority of ppl who would have voted yes last time round but didnt get off their backsides and decide to this time. Lets assume that of those who did vote last time, there is a net 1% change of their vote from No to Yes as a result of what you term bullying (but which you previously argued was a perfectly acceptable tactic).

When you do the maths, you discover that here is a perfectly plausible situation where the bullying happened, but which was not responsible for the shift in results.

In other words...a Yes result does not automatically imply that the government bullied the people into voting yes....which is exactly what I stated. Which I stated because too many people in the No camp seem to have turned "dont let the government bully you into voting yes" into "a yes vote will only come about through bullying". There is a subtle, yet significant difference here.

You claim the re-run is a form of bullying in and of itself, but acknowledge that we differ on this issue. We have argued it up and down these threads, and I think I can safely say that at the end of the day neither one of us can prove our position beyond doubt. Ergo, the re-run of the election does not prove anything. I cannot prove that it is a democratically valid move, nor can you prove your stance.

You use QED, and terms like "prove". You're not proving anything. You're making possibly-valid assertions which can easily be disagreed with. This is not proof. If it were, then there could be no disagreeing with it.

The only reason that I made the point in the first place is because I'd love to see a bit less hyperbole and a bit more rational discussion. Guess I was hopelessly optimistic....

jc

Cork

The government abused its power by deceiving the electorate over the economy during the election campaign

I know the government was not 100% honest during the election campaign. But - the Nice treaty deserves to be defeated because it would be disasterous economically for Ireland.

netwhizkid

Hi,
Just a few words about Nice,

Consequences of a No Vote ?

What will happen if we vote No ?

Enlargement will go ahead on schedule, although the deal with the Applicant Countries will be considerably better for them and and us.

European politicians will be forced into an open and honest debate about the undemocratic principles underpinning the E.U.

Citizens of every member state will applaud us for our courage in standing up to the elite's in Brussels and putting a halt to the headlong rush to the so-called "integration" of Europe.


What will NOT happen if we vote No ?

Ireland will not be expelled from the E.U .


Consequences of a Yes Vote ?

What will happen if we vote Yes ?

Holding a second referendum on the very same Treaty is an insult tothe principle of democracy. Irish and E.U politicians are apparently saying that Your Vote doesn't count unless you vote the "right way" their way

The Nice treaty itself is undemocratic. It will make Ireland a second-class state in Europe and will break-up the current E.U partnership of legal equals.

Ireland's Economy will be ruined be ruined by Nice. As Capital investment moves East and as cheaper labour moves East, the Irish people will lose in both ways.

The Nice treaty militarises the E.U by putting an army (Rapid Reaction Force) directly under the E.U's control. The Seville Declarations have no legal basis whatsoever and will not protect Irish Neutrality

Some Proponents of Nice falsely claim that Ireland will be expelled from the E.U, if the Treaty is rejected a second time. At the moment, there is no legal mechanism to expel or sanction Ireland in any way for voting No. However, such sanctions will be possible if Nice is passed.

Some Quotes from famous politicians on the issue.

"Legally, ratification of the Nice Treaty is not necessary for enlargement."
Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission

"Let National interests remain in second place and European interests be the prioity"
Gerhard Schroeder, German Chancellor

"The main outcome of the Treaty was to increase the weight of the four Big Countries....What sense does it make to increase the voting strength of the Big Countries ? Very Little."
John Bruton, Former Taoiseach & Leader of Fine Gael

"It would be an affront to Democracy."
Dick Roche, TD, Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, on the holding of a second referendum.

"We will have to create an avant-garde...We could have a union for the enlarged Europe and a federation for the avant-garde."
Former E.U Commission President Jacques Delors.

Vote No to Nice,
Ireland and Europe deserve better!

Regards netwhizkid

Hobbes

Netwizkid.. for every argument you have just posted can you please post the reference pages/points to the actual treaty to show that your are in fact correct.

Thanks.

dathi1

Well said NetWhiz...I'm out there converting non voters and yes voters by the dozen. Word of mouth works best. Victory to Ireland and the other small states NO TO NICE!

Hobbes

dathi1 your really not helping your cause.. I ask for one thing. How about actually supplying it? Instead of useless pictures?

Cork

The Nice treaty itself is undemocratic. It will make Ireland a second-class state in Europe and will break-up the current E.U partnership of legal equals.

I read yesterday that the Yes people were outspending the No to Nice by a margin of 5 to 1.

I also noted that state companies were contributing to the IBEC campaign.

I think it will be a massive victoory for democracy throughout Europe - If this mess of a treaty is defeated.

Your posting -netwhizkid was most interesting.

No TO Nice!

Meh

Since netwhizkid either won't or can't quote from the Treaty to back himself up, I'll post a few relevant quotes from it myself:

Originally posted by netwhizkid
The Nice treaty militarises the E.U by putting an army (Rapid Reaction Force) directly under the E.U's control.

OK, this is what the Treaty has to say about a common defence:

Article 1.2, page 7:
The common foreign and security policy shall include all questions relating to the security of the Union, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy, which might lead to a common defence, should the European Council so decide. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
The policy of the Union in accordance with this Article shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States and shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), under the North Atlantic Treaty and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework.

Note the bolded part -- in Ireland, the constitution requires a referendum on the adoption of any common defense policy. The treaty does not mention the phrase "Rapid Reaction Force" at all.

Some Proponents of Nice falsely claim that Ireland will be expelled from the E.U, if the Treaty is rejected a second time. At the moment, there is no legal mechanism to expel or sanction Ireland in any way for voting No. However, such sanctions will be possible if Nice is passed.

I presume you're referring to Articles 1.2 and 1.3 (page 6):

2.The Council, meeting in the composition of the Heads of State or Government and acting by unanimity on a proposal by one third of the Member States or by the Commission and after obtaining the assent of the European Parliament, may determine the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of principles mentioned in Article 6(1), after inviting the government of the Member State in question to submit its observations.

3. Where a determination under paragraph 2 has been made, the Council, acting by a qualified
majority, may decide to suspend certain of the rights deriving from the application of this Treaty to the Member State in question, including the voting rights of the representative of the government of that Member State in the Council.

If you read the Article 6(1) in the Treaty on European Union referred to here, it's clear that Ireland can only be suspended from the EU for serious human rights breaches -- we cannot be suspended simply for disagreeing with the rest of the union.

Article 6(1)
The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States.

Hobbes

Someone give Meh a cookie.. that's what I wanted to see.

mayhem#

I find the arguments used here for a NO vote bit rich coming from a country that has been funing the re-building it's economy out of the EU's pocket. Now that it looks like it's payback time everybody seems to be up in arms.
Remember: there's no such thing as a free lunch!