Why should we vote yes?

DeVore

The Gov is trying to scare us into voting yes by mentioning "Ireland's Future" and "Jobs" etc...

Exactly how would voting "NO" affect us in these ways?
(I would have thought it would be Business as Usual... No Change... right?)

So, whats in this treaty for me? I'm a turkey and you are asking me to vote for Christmas... wheres the REASON to vote yes?

What... Europe will be all pissed with us? Prodi wont like us any more? They'll take their ball back?

Seriously, show me ONE good thing from this treaty... (something that ISNT a threat about "dire things" happening after we exercise our democratic rights...)

Right now all I see are dark warnings about "Retribution" if we vote No and I dont react well to threats...

DeV.

Typedef

Basically I don't think we should vote yes.

I personally don't find much logic in the enunciation from the likes of IBEC that inward investment will suddenly stop because the Irish electorate votes No to the Nice Treaty. What's more I don't really accept the notion that a wave of recrimination and sanctions awaits Ireland on another rejection of the Treaty.

The Yes campaign seems to come back to the suggestion that the Nice Treaty is "democratising" Europe by installing Qualified Majority Voting on a number of issues throughout the European Union. My argument against such "democratisation" is that Ireland is more then a bloc of voters, it is a nation and has interests consistent with a nation that can not be subservient to the sheer weight of Ireland's voting numbers. An analogy I use is to contrast Cork and Iceland both of which have roughly similar populations, but Iceland is a nation and has interests consistent with a nation and as a nation can act in it's own national interest. Arguably Iceland has much more influence over matters important to Iceland globally then the voters of Cork have in terms of the entire EU.

Since the treaty of Nice provides for enhanced co-operation and makes enhanced co-operation subservient to Qualified Majority Voting, I believe that Ireland may well find itself in a position where it cannot stop the indoctrination of a Federal European Union, with the military, tax and soveringty issues that such a Union would entail. Whats more I believe Ireland will be powerless to resist joining such a Union as Ireland will for want of a better analogy, be up to our necks in the EU.

I fundamentally believe that the re-run itself is an anthema to Democracy and the very core principals of Republicanism in Ireland, that said re-run is an edict imposed onto Ireland and that Irish politicians have been effectively forced into re-running the Referendum by Brussels. The scary part of that is that in setting up a Europe where enhanced co-operation is so much more permissable, there is a real threat to the soveringty of this Republic and it is precisely when the real threat to soveringty is being posed that a re-run of a Referendum is being used as a device for further prorouging of Irish soveringty.

Just my €0.10 feel free to rain abuse from a great height at your discression

Bateman

Anathema to democracy? What about Bertie going to Brussels and having the cheek to apologise for the Irish people? Pretty low.

PH01

We've discussed the reasons why we would want to vote 'No' (and there isn't any plausible reasons for voting 'No'), it's only fitting that we should now discuss the what are the reasons for voting 'Yes'.

Here's one of many (I would write more but I have to get back to work)...

The Nice Treaty will enable enlargement more effectively and efficiently.

Ivan

As far as I know one of the main reasons they are pushing the yes vote is because they feel it will result in an economic downturn as most investors or other countries will see Ireland as moving away from the EU.

I'm told my vote wont be registered in time enough to be able to vote, but I'd probably vote yes. The neutrality dealy seemed to be the biggest aspect most people had problems with, but even that wouldnt bother me too much.

All in all, if you vote no their probably going to keep pushing it and pushing it till people says yes, it allows further expansion of the EU but it also centralises alot of the policy making for european countries...

Tbh, I'm glad I dont get to vote...

Ivan

dathi1

The Nice Treaty will enable enlargement more effectively and efficiently.

or you could say:

The Nice Treaty will enable the large states to control the rest of us more effectively and efficiently.

or you could also say:

Charlie Mc Creevy says vote yes. Good idea?



no 2 nice
More power and influence for them less for us.

Meh

Groups of member states will be able to take part in new policies before other members are ready or willing to join up -- "enhanced cooperation". This has already been happening under previous treaties -- the euro, the Schengen agreement -- but the Nice Treaty will regulate it formally under an EU treaty for the first time.

The Nice Treaty will put new safeguards in place to prevent a "two tier" EU developing (see Article 1.11 of the treaty) , and defense/military is specifically excluded from enhanced cooperation (Article 1.6.2).

Terminator

Some good things about Nice :

Enlargement - more people = bigger market

Erosion of power of local government - a great thing considernig the gimps that are running the country

Ivan

Originally posted by dathi1


or you could say:

The Nice Treaty will enable the large states to control the rest of us more effectively and efficiently.

or you could also say:

Charlie Mc Creevy says vote yes. Good idea?



no 2 nice
More power and influence for them less for us.

So basically we want the larger states to pay up for the GAP and other european funded projects but to have equal say with all the countries who are contributing less. So when all the new states join we want them to have equal say to us despite we were here first, have contributed first, and will probably end up funding their GAP and infrastructure projects etc. etc.

And voting no simply because Charlie Mc Creevy says vote yes is no more a good idea than voting yes because he says to.

That said I looked through the first few articles of the nice treaty and it looks painful. The ability to through someone out of the EU if 33% believe they are breaking european policy for example isnt my idea of fair, but some of the other ideas are probably worth sacrificing that much to gain.

Thing is most people want their cake and eat it too, then they want someone else to provide some more cake and eat theirs also.

Also I like what was said about the gimps currently governing us, brussels couldnt possibly do worse...and hey!, you never know, someone might decide to sort out Eircon + DSL/Flatrate etc. etc.

Ivan

swiss

Originally posted by DeVore:

Exactly how would voting "NO" affect us in these ways?

Both sides of the debate have resorted to using threats and warnings to try to scaremonger people into voting their way. The answer to this one is relatively obvious, if we vote no, then the status quo will remain. This has been the root of the (in)famous phrase "if you don't know, vote no".

The European Union has been criticised many times for their political lethargy. Many important decisions have been put on the long finger because of the veto which many countries possess. These include some decisions that would have worked to Irelands benefit. While many people bemoan the loss of this veto under the auspices of the Nice treaty, one must realise that the veto is in itself a massively undemocratic tool, and has been used unfairly as a bartering chip to furthur political agendae of various states.

With the removal of the veto, and the introduction of QMV, we are moving to more democratic principles, meaning that some decisions can be taken without unanimity. While many cite this as the single greatest reason to vote against the Nice treaty, I see it as a means of making the decision making process much smoother and less mired in the bureaucracy of which the EU has been accused in the past. More significantly the veto still remains in matters of "critical national importance", and in matters pertaining to military or defence implications.

In fact, the loss of the veto is only an issue if it is assumed that a qualified majority of states, comprising 62% of the total population of the EU, will make decisions that are contrary to Irish interests (and that are not of "critical national importance"). If we are so worried about Europe damaging Irish interests, one would wonder why we are in the EU in the first place.

Pertaining to economic issues, I do not believe that such a decision will affect us economically, which is founded on sound fundamentals, such as a skilled young workforce, improving infrastructure and a liberal corporate taxation regime. As I've said before however, I am not an economist so that if expert opinion should prove me otherwise, I will retract this point.

However, in a similar vein voting yes will not adversely impact us to any great extent either. Many amongst the no side have pointed to economic factors that may favour a no vote, such as an influx of migrant workers into Ireland or a movement of businesses to counties that have a lower cost base. For the reasons I've outlined, this should not be an issue.

It is not a matter of one side trying to bully and cajole the electorate into voting a particular way, both sides are equally culpable of this. I believe you should vote yes is because it involves necessary (IMO) reform of the European Union. It facilitates enlargement, of which I favour because it allows many former communist block countries access to European markets, with all the associated societal and cultural advantages that that will bring both to the countries in question and the EU as a whole.

Meh

Originally posted by Ivan
That said I looked through the first few articles of the nice treaty and it looks painful. The ability to through someone out of the EU if 33% believe they are breaking european policy for example isnt my idea of fair, but some of the other ideas are probably worth sacrificing that much to gain.

I presume you're referring to this provision:

Article 1.1:
On a reasoned proposal by one third of the Member States, by the European Parliament or by the Commission, the Council, acting by a majority of four-fifths of its members after obtaining the assent of the European Parliament, may determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of principles mentioned in Article 6(1)...

You can't be kicked out out of the EU for breaking EU policy; this provision deals with serious violations of the European Convention on Human Rights as defined in Article 6 of theTreaty on european Union

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.

bonkey

Originally posted by Terminator
Erosion of power of local government - a great thing considernig the gimps that are running the country

As opposed to the gimps who are running the EU?

jc

meglome

I was out of the country for the last one so couldn’t vote. But it is true to say it didn't go down well in Europe, although it was painted as Ireland rejecting enlargement of the EU, which I don't think is the case at all.

We have a bigger problem with this than other countries do, am I right in saying that we are the only country that HAS to have a referendum?, I believe that is correct. So it really puts the spotlight on us, rightly or wrongly.

As I was unable to vote on the last one my vote wasn't a factor but I respected the fact that we had indeed voted no to it. The next step should have been to establish why there was a no vote. Not just rerun it with a bigger advertising campaign. The governments approach is fundamentally wrong, the whole idea of a referendum is to let the people speak and then we all abide by our decision. Not assume that we made a stupid mistake and make us do it again without any changes until we get it ‘right’. At the very least this rerun referendum should have broken the treaty into its constituent major sections and then we can easily establish what the people object to by showing what we accept and what we don’t. If need be we then go and add an addendum to the treaty, a pain in the ass yes, but the democratic thing to do.

I wasn’t sure how to vote the last time, I’m still not 100% sure but I have a MAJOR problem with the government on this. I think they badly need a lesson on what democracy is and what the constitution is there for. I have a feeling there is going to be another no vote and I for one won’t be too upset.

DeVore

Ok, thanks to everyone so far but I still dont have a decent reason to vote YES.

Swiss has done the best job so far but frankly I dont buy the "its time to let the big boys bully us" idea...

There are 15 (?) members of a community. All joined under the auspices that they were equals. Now, after its been built up etc, they want to be kings of the castle (it seems) and dont want to be held back by the "little guys".

Well I dont buy into the idea that we should get less representation in proportion to our relative populations. I see a community of 15 of which we are one. I would agree with one country one vote and a system that says 65% or 70% needed to pass... but thats not whats on offer.... what IS being pushed at us is: we'll do what Germany and France decide effectively, and if we make trouble, they'll do it without us...

Also, Prodi's comments after the last referendum were unforgivable and belied the real truth imho.

I'm still waiting to see what terrible things will happen to us if we vote NO cos so far all I've seen is FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt).

I'm open to changing my mind but so far I havent seen much reason to want to vote YES. Its all "Vote YES or indefinable "bad things" [tm] will happen to Ireland..."

DeV.

mike65

As I dont have the right to vote in referenda I'll be flip.

Vote yes so you know you did'nt vote the same way as
Justin Barret.

Mike.

dathi1

So basically we want the larger states to pay up for the GAP and other european funded projects but to have equal say with all the countries who are contributing less.

No way...but I definitely don't want Shroder, Chirac (a very honest man ) with a dictat over us. A more Equal Europe would be great. So vote no again and if they don't like it Vote no again until they re- negotiate it for us and the other small states.

Vote yes so you know you didn't vote the same way as

or you could say:
Vote No so you know you didn't vote the same was as the minister for Ladbrokes Charlie Mc Creevy. The man who says what he means until his memos go loose.

We will have a Birteie Bowl? X
We will have no cutbacks in Education? X
We will have no cutbacks in Health? X
We will not have tax increases on Petrol etc? X

and now they say:

Our company Tax rate will not rise as requested by Europe.
There wont be a flood of workers form East Europe on 01/01/04
The big states won't dictate what we should do.

Remember: the bin tax is a European Directive.
Remember the water tax is a European Directive.

I know there's a lot of good stuff to come out of EU membership too but I don't trust too much power in the hands of the Big States.

Its your Job Its your Mortgage. Protect Them!
no2nice.org

Meh

Originally posted by dathi1
and now they say:

Our company Tax rate will not rise as requested by Europe.

This argument that Nice will lead to tax harmonization being forced on us has been made in every Nice thread so far. I've rebutted it every time with quotes from the treaty itself. You know very well that tax harmonization will require unanimity, and that Ireland cannot be forced or pressured into joining any enhanced cooperation on taxes.

Now, I know you're not stupid, so I can only conclude that you are deliberately trying to mislead people as to the content of the treaty. And you accuse the Yes campaign of scaremongering?

dathi1

EU German/Franco Dictat on Tax Harminisation if Nice Goes through
YOU DONT LIKE IT U CAN LUMP IT

EU control of budgets for the eurozone members, harmonizing company taxes for the inner group countries, making the EU Court of Justice supreme in human rights matters for their citizens, are examples of "enhanced cooperation" for an inner group that have been discussed in EU circles in the past year.

Articles 1.11 and 2.1 of the Treaty of Nice remove the veto Ireland has at present on harmonizing company taxes in the EU sub-group of eurozone, countries, thereby abolishing the principal incentive we have for keeping foreign capital in Ireland and attracting new foreign investment here. At present Ireland can veto any such EU development, but under Nice's "enhanced co-operation" provisions, eight or more EU States can harmonise taxes among themselves, even if the others disagree. British politicians have called Ireland a tax haven, like the Cayman Islands. Germany, with its high tax rates, wants a level playing-field for company taxes in the eurozone and wants Ireland to raise its low, 12.5%, tax rate to remove the incentive for German and other companies to move here. Ireland can still opt out if the other eurozone States go ahead with harmonizing company taxes under 'enhanced cooperation,' but it will then be faced with becoming a second-class EU Member outside the core eurozone group. Ratifying Nice is thus likely soon to face us with the invidious choice of either undermining a fundamental basis of Ireland's economic success - the attractiveness to foreign investors of our low company tax rates - or being relegated to second-class EU membership status outside an inner core of avant-garde EU States.

Its Your Job, Its your Car, Its your Mortgage PROTECT THEM!
NO2NICE.ORG

STaN

This treaty is about enlargement basically. However every1 is worried about what enlargement means for us.

Why are they worried? Becuase there are allot of eastern european countries that on the brink of EU incorporation and these coutries 1) have lower wage rates 2) have a high education level relatively 3) are adopting an irish tax model to attract inward investment 4) have high unemployment, leaving allot of surplus labour for employers.

But should we really be worried? In reality, NO. We have a number of advantages over such countries and therefore there will only be a minimal threat of large amounts of companies moving base to these countries. We also have a highly specialised workforce and these are secure in relation to this issue, whether they are secure becuase of the global economy is another story. And a big feather in our cap, is that we are an english speaking country. This is a big reason why american companies setup here. And because theres no need for any language difficulties and means having a EU base in ireland makes more sence than putting it in estonia. But it does show us that we may have to tighten out belts when it comes to wage increases, so that we dont price ourself out of the market. This is a problem ireland has had for the last few years and has been caught in a inflation & wage spiral. Its just a matter of self control on behalf on trade unions and employers.

In reality these countries are there for the taking. Our exports to them have grown 700% over the last few years. Its a market of an extra 100 million people and a business opportunity not to be scoffed at. Any business that exports is going to welcome this increase in potential market for their products.

Another factor is even though the land line setup in this country is a scam, irelands telecommunications is relatively more advanced than allot of the newly proposed members to the EU and our position means that we are a semi-hub between the US and the EU, after the UK.

And what about the super state scenario? This wont happen within 20 years. And it cant happen if people in europe dont want it. And about our neturality? Its not affected by the treaty. But what are 800 irish soldiers doing training for a EU rapid reaction force? This is because the government opted for this to get involved in peace keeping or disaster assistance if it chooses to do so. There is no obligation on those soldiers to go when the EU calls them, our government has to give the go ahead on any action so in that way we dont have to get involved in anything that would mean being involved in a conflict against a rogue state or group.

Thats a sum up of part of the knowledge ive gathered. The only reason to vote NO, is becuase of FEAR and DOUBT. We're in europe theres no point turning our noses up at countries that represent ireland 30 years ago when we first went for membership in the EEC. Why not give them the chance we were given? Its selfishness if we dont tbh, it cant be seen any other way.

Meh

Originally posted by dathi1
EU German/Franco Dictat on Tax Harminisation if Nice Goes through

This is untrue. Plain and simple. Even if Nice did make tax subject to QMV (which it explicitly doesn't) France and Germany would still be unable to force the other member states to harmonize -- read the criteria for QMV in the treaty. France and Germany combined do not have the power to overrule the rest of the EU using QMV.

Articles 1.11 and 2.1 of the Treaty of Nice remove the veto Ireland has at present on harmonizing company taxes in the EU sub-group of eurozone, countries,

They do no such thing. Tax harmonization and the euro are separate areas of enhanced cooperation. You can be a member of the euro without joining tax harmonization, and vice versa.

At present Ireland can veto any such EU development, but under Nice's "enhanced co-operation" provisions, eight or more EU States can harmonise taxes [among themselves, even if the others disagree.

True. If France and Italy want to decide between themselves to have the same company taxes, why should we want to veto this?

Ireland can still opt out if the other eurozone States go ahead with harmonizing company taxes under 'enhanced cooperation,' but it will then be faced with becoming a second-class EU Member outside the core eurozone group.

Untrue. If Ireland chooses not to sign up for tax harmonization, it will still be able to participate in other areas of enhanced cooperation. Just as Ireland is part of the euro yet not part of the Schengen agreement. And Denmark is part of Schengen but not part of the euro. And your implication that Ireland will be kicked out of the euro if it refuses to join enhanced cooperation on taxes is laughable.

Typedef

Originally posted by Meh
You know very well that tax harmonization will require unanimity, and that Ireland cannot be forced or pressured into joining any enhanced cooperation on taxes.

Strange that Meh, Ireland has already been pressured by Brussels to abrogate the results of the last Nice Referendum by re-running said Referendum, so if Ireland is so powerless to protect it's own democracy how will it protect relatively paltry things like a few percentage points on corporate tax?

Seriously though if Ireland can prorouge it's democracy when Romano Prodi snaps his fingers, what is to stop Jaques Chirac or Gerhard Schroder snapping his fingers and Ireland falling into line on tax harmonisation?

I would also like to know what advantage there is for Ireland in voting Yes. I'm not talking about any other EU state or applicant country or the much vaunted though little proved 'necessity' for 'reform' of the power structures in the EU for expansion. I'm talking about Ireland, what benefits are there in this treaty for Ireland?

Personally I don't find any. I see that Ireland's influence is being relatively reduced, while more soveringty is being transfered to Brussels. I notice that just at the time when Ireland is to become a net contributor to the EU structural funding structure is also the time that Qualified Majority Voting will come into force over how much a member state must contribute to the funds.

http://www.nationalplatform.org/notnice/economic_reasons.html

Articles 2.13 and 2.14 of Nice remove the veto Ireland has at present on the rules of the Structural Funds - just at the time when Ireland will become net contributors to the EU Budget. These rules govern how much money we pay to these Funds and how much we receive from them. Nice provides that, from 2007, these rules will be decided by qualified majority vote, rather than by unanimity as heretofore.

What's more Ireland's influence over it's company tax rates will become subservient to Qualified Majority Voting.

http://www.nationalplatform.org/notnice/economic_reasons.html

Articles 1.11 and 2.1 of the Treaty of Nice remove the veto we have at present on harmonizing company taxes in the eurozone, thereby abolishing the principal incentive we have for keeping foreign capital in Ireland

Ireland currently the lowest rate of company tax in Europe and this is a major attractive quality of this enconomy for inward investment. Just in March of this year the French were calling for harmonisation of taxes across Europe. Excuse me while I don't see merit in increasing the current Irish rate of 20% to French levels of 34.3% or worse yet German levels of 38.4%, what impetus for investment in Ireland rather than France or Germany is there in such a tax level? Where is the benefit for Ireland?
Please do illucidate.

Meh

Originally posted by Typedef
What's more Ireland's influence over it's company tax rates will become subservient to Qualified Majority Voting.

This is untrue as I pointed out in my above post. Are you going to address the points I made there, or are you just going to parrot what the National Platform has to say? Is it even possible to argue rationally with you people? I'm getting tired of disproving this over and over again.

Ireland has already been pressured by Brussels to abrogate the results of the last Nice Referendum by re-running said Referendum, so if Ireland is so powerless to protect it's own democracy how will it protect relatively paltry things like a few percentage points on corporate tax?

The difference is that the Nice Treaty is good for Ireland (allows more effective decision-making which is essential in an enlarged EU), and tax harmonization would be bad for Ireland. The EU would find it quite difficult to pressure the government into committing economic suicide, compared to pressuring it into rerunning a referendum.

I notice that just at the time when Ireland is to become a net contributor to the EU structural funding structure is also the time that Qualified Majority Voting will come into force over how much a member state must contribute to the funds.

Quote from treaty please. All I could find on budget voting arrangements was this (page 35):

2. The Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament and obtaining the opinion of the Court of Auditors, shall determine the methods and procedure whereby the budget revenue provided under the arrangements relating to the Community's own resources shall be made available to the Commission and determine the measures to be applied, if need be, to meet cash requirements.í

Cork

There is not one decent reason to vote in favour of this treaty unless you are a card carrying member of IBEC.

We loose our veto in areas of structural funds and tax harmonisation. Our agricultural folk will get a smaller slice of CAP pie. We loose an automatic right to a comissioner.

The EU is not accountable or even democratic.

THINK before you vote. We'll still be in the EU.b But we would be taking a stance for a more accountable and democratic EU if we vote No.

Gambler

Hmmmmm... (Yes, that's my considered opinion..)

Seriously though. I have no idea what way I am going to vote.. So far all I can see from both camps is propaganda.. I have read through the Nice treaty proposals at length and while I admit quite a bit of it was lost without putting it in context I DON'T see anywhere anything that really forces the country to do anything it doesn't really want to.. I don't see it as part of an EU take over of government.

I.E. Tax harmonisation. From what I can see any country that wants to take part in tax harmonisation can and anyone that doesn't want it can stay the way they are.. How is that different from the way England handled the Euro? As meh stated above with the EU structural funding donations requires a unanimous decision..

I know that sounds like I am decided on Yes but the truth is I still don't really feel satisfied that I have heard the straight up truth on what the REAL IMMEDIATE ramifications are of a yes vote.. You have the yes vote people saying vote yes means this and you have the no vote people saying it means the EXACT opposite.. It can only be one or the other... Vote Yes for More Jobs.. Vote No or we will Loose jobs... How exactly will we get more jobs if we vote yes? How exactly will we loose jobs if we vote yes? Lots of claims with no real info...

As for wether or not the referendum should be run again.. I honestly believe very few people really knew WHAT they were voting for and tbh I don't think it is much better this time. The last referendum was full of adds saying you should make sure to vote but NO real info on what the ramifications were and for this reason I think, yes it is strange to have another referendum but I don't think it is necesarily wrong. I just wish they had handled this one better... Yet again we aren't learning from our mistakes..

Phew.. A long post and STILL no idea how I am gonna vote..

Gambler

BTW.. Personaly I don't think loosing a veto is necesarily a bad thing..

swiss

I think Gambler has summated the real crux of the issue here for many voters. Many of the supposed "ill" effects of a yes or no vote are based on nothing more substantial than FUD.

I've outlined the main reasons why I think we should ratify this treaty, that is to facilitate a smoother expansion programme, to remove some of the much criticised bureaucracy of the European Commission and to allow the EU to effectively carry out what it was designed to do in the first place - harmonise relations (trade and otherwise) between European member states. STaN also points out the significant trade benefits that access to larger markets entails.

I'm beginning to wonder if people are voting no because they don't like they way the EU is going, and they want to see it go back to "the way it was". The Nice treaty is about bringing institutional reform to the EU, but in terms of budgetary allocations, Ireland will still lose out, reagardless of a yes or no vote. This is because of rising prosperity levels (in Ireland - despite recessionary warnings), plus an increasing unwillingness on the part of certain governments to foot ever larger bills to the EU.

CAP reform is also underway, and although it is almost certain that farmers will resist any such reform, it is likely that rationalisation plans (i.e fewer farmers and larger farms) will be implemented. Again, this is not the fault of the EU, but rather a worldwide trend that is proving difficult to resist. Irish farming as we know it would disappear overnight if it weren't for European subsidies.

Typedef

Originally posted by Meh
Is it even possible to argue rationally with you people?

That depends on whether or not you expect people to troll through 87 page documents to satisfy your burdon of proff, when an annotated version already linked and quoted should suffice.

Quote from treaty please.

However since you ask.

The Treaty of Nice
Available all formatted from our friends google here
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:luHEmnC8dKUC:europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/treaties/dat/nice_treaty_en.pdf+Treaty+Of+Nice+Text&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

feel free to trawl through it to satisfy paranoia about the national platform at your leisure.
From Article 2.

13. In Article 159, the third paragraph shall be replaced by the following:

‘If specific actions prove necessary outside the Funds and without prejudice to the measures decided

upon within the framework of the other Community policies, such actions may be adopted by the

Council acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 and after consulting the

Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.’

14. In Article 161, the following third paragraph shall be added:

‘From 1 January 2007, the Council shall act by a qualified majority on a proposal from the

Commission after obtaining the assent of the European Parliament and after consulting the

Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions if, by that date, the multiannual

financial perspective applicable from 1 January 2007 and the Interinstitutional Agreement relating

thereto have been adopted. If such is not the case, the procedure laid down by this paragraph shall

apply from the date of their adoption.’

Note how Ireland will not in fact decide how much money gets handed over the the European Union, no mention of unanimity there hmm? Thus the point is valid.

The other two articles pertain to ehanced cooperation and not worth debating to any great extent. What enhanced cooperation will do is allow states like the France and Holland to congolmerate themselves in a two tiered way where it is believed there is no reasonable redress currently available (ie) ehanced cooperation.

From the government white paper on the Treaty of Nice.

http://www.gov.ie/iveagh/nice/summary.htm

29 In the event, it was agreed to set out the pre-conditions for authorisation of enhanced cooperation in a consolidated format. This stipulates that enhanced cooperation may not undermine the single market, constitute a barrier to trade, or distort competition between Member States, and that it can only be applied as a last resort, when the objectives cannot be achieved otherwise within a reasonable period.

Now from an official Europe website on taxation who's objective is to .

http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l31036.htm

To provide a basis for discussion for the Council's policy debate on taxation and to propose a package of measures to curtail harmful tax competition, including a code of conduct.

And since it has been stated by France that it thinks Ireland's taxation regieme is 'damaging' and that tax harmonisation should take place, I can see no more obvious area or issue where enhanced cooperation will take place. Ireland is sure to decline to harmonise taxes to French and German levels, however since Ireland's tax regieme is said to be 'damaging' I would submit that in a two tiered Europe of taxation cooperation that Ireland would be forced, cajoled, coerced into cooperation against Ireland's better judgement or wishes.

Such enhanced cooperation will put serrupiticous pressure on Ireland that Ireland could not reasonably resist in perpetuity.

I'm getting tired of disproving this over and over again.

Well since you haven't actually proved a thing, except for that the Yes side can't even give proove there is one single good thing about the Nice Treaty for Ireland as is the subject of this thread I'm not really surprised.

The difference is that the Nice Treaty is good for Ireland (allows more effective decision-making which is essential in an enlarged EU)

Really? How do you know this, I mean honestly is this just something you made up out of the air or do you have a single shred of cooberating evidence to support this allegation?

What's more this entire debate should not even be taking place. I don't care that the government and the No side think themselves to illucidated on the topic that the Referendum result should be set aside, nor that said congolmeration thinks a re-run is in the best interests of the country. A re-run is undemocratic and fortunately you don't have to satisfy the Meh,Gerhard Schroder or Romano Prodi sliding scale of Nice Treaty semantics to vote on the issue. Clearly the re-run is an anthema and abrogation, an amorphous attempt to manipulate democracy in Ireland and that manipulation is sinister and chilling.

It matters not that the No side shouts J'Accuse to anyone who will listen, the people have spoken and in my opinion no amount of undermining of the Treaty or the exponents of a no vote will in fact negate the fact that there is nothing beneficial to Ireland in the treaty and that the re-run is a double blow to the due process of democracy in Ireland.

DeVore

Swiss, you put forward two good posts which have made me think. However I think you are confusing:

A. moving forward and expansion being a good thing etc
and
B. This treaty achieves those objectives.

Just because A. is a good thing, doesnt mean that B. is true.

I think this treaty may be very seriously flawed, I'm not sure but I DONT like being railroaded and I DONT like being asked "are you sure" to a democratic vote.

I agree with your objectives Swiss but if we refuse this treaty, its not the end of the world, expansion can happen anyway (its not DEPENDANT on this treaty despite what we're being told) and they can go and formulate a treaty we will WANT to sign.

I still see no reason to vote YES from our pov, but I'm still open to someone giving me one.


DeV.

Meh

Originally posted by Typedef
Note how Ireland will not in fact decide how much money gets handed over the the European Union, no mention of unanimity there hmm? Thus the point is valid.

Fair enough, apologies for doubting your word.

Ireland is sure to decline to harmonise taxes to French and German levels, however since Ireland's tax regieme is said to be 'damaging' I would submit that in a two tiered Europe of taxation cooperation that Ireland would be forced, cajoled, coerced into cooperation against Ireland's better judgement or wishes.

Such enhanced cooperation will put surreptitious pressure on Ireland that Ireland could not reasonably resist in perpetuity.

How exactly would the EU go about coercing Ireland into tax harmonization? Note that the EU didn't have to do any persuading/coercion to get the government to rerun the Nice referendum, as the government (which we reelected a few months back) already supported Nice and believes it to be in the best interests of the country. It would be an impossible task to persuade an Irish government that tax harmonization was in Ireland's best interests. I can't envisage any Irish government in the foreseeable future agreeing to this. It would be electoral suicide.

Note that we will have plenty of allies in the new member states that will help us resist tax harmonization if the big countries try to push it. Estonia, for example, has a corporate tax rate of 0%. The UK has also strongly resisted harmonization in the past.

OLDYELLAR

why should we vote? more like. i dont have much faith in the government of this country as it stands , and as usual they will fill us with sh*t and tell us what we want to hear .i dont reckon the votes will even matter , no doubt it`ll be fiddled to suit the big boys anyway when push comes to shove.

swiss

Originally posted by DeVore:

A. moving forward and expansion being a good thing etc
and
B. This treaty achieves those objectives.

Just because A. is a good thing, doesnt mean that B. is true.

Fair 'nuff, but I believe it does. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that the Nice treaty is perfect by any means, but I do believe it is fair. The question then really becomes, if you want to achieve objective A - what is the most equitable way to do this?

From http://www.europeanmovement.ie

The voting power of existing EU member states, including Ireland, is slightly less under the Treaty of Nice. In the current system Ireland hold 3 of the 87 votes. This represents 3.4% of the total vote among the 15 members. In the proposed new system, Ireland would hold 7 votes out of 345 in a 27 country EU. This represents 2.03% of the total vote. This is considerably larger than Ireland's 0.8% of the total enlarged EU population.

Technically, for a completely fair and equitable democracy, we should have under half of our proposed representation at European level under Nice. Germany, and other large states will have a greater say. The reason why this is not the case is exactly because of the fears of a European Superstate controlled by large countries that is echoed here. Of course Ireland (and other states) would never accept that, as there is no guarantee that the people will accept the treaty in it's current state.

I'd continue but I have to go now - I'll post up more reasons later.