Why should we vote yes?

DeVore

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?

Sorry but the ballot paper doesnt have room for my suggestions. I only get to say YES or NO. I guess we have to KEEP saying no until we (randomly it seems!) get something we DO agree with.

Personally I see no reason for this treaty.... why is our Veto being taken again? Why do you have to allow QMV? Its worked to date reasonably and if its a case of the new countries having a veto and causing too much distruption, then vote now to NOT give them a Veto.

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.

Ah swiss... you were doing soooo well.

This, is in fact, bollox.

Firstly, the community is of COUNTRIES, not specifically people. One member one vote and everyone has a veto.

Should Germany have 15 times as much say as Ireland given that it has 15 times the population? imho No.... but even that is irrelevant as we joined the EU under this understanding. We changed our currency to comply with this community etc... we've taken a LOT of actions based on wanting to be part of this community. And *now* they want to change the rules?

I'm still waiting for my reason to vote yes.

DeV.

Greenbean

"Should Germany have 15 times as much say as Ireland given that it has 15 times the population? imho No.... but even that is irrelevant as we joined the EU under this understanding. We changed our currency to comply with this community etc... we've taken a LOT of actions based on wanting to be part of this community. And *now* they want to change the rules?"

Unfortunately I think the reality is that Europe is changing and that this redefinition is going to happen. For Ireland it will mean marginalisation and a choice of either, slowly coming to terms with it or opting out and leaving the Union. We will probably come to live with it, since most people don't really remember or know the original agreements on why we joined the union (for bags of money). Is this WW2 continued? Will Europe finally be a super power controlled by the Germans

STaN

You should vote YES because the institutional changes and the additional membership of new states will benefit Éire.

Why should be loose our veto? Imagine a scenario where there are 20+ (and further down the road even more than this!) member states and one of them has a problem with something that benefits the EU as a whole and it is just 'getting its own back' as a result of a policital conflict or something like that.

"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."

Every country having a veto with such a large membership would derail the EU's ability to get anything done whatsoever.

The only solution to this is QMV. And the FACT that enlargement IS GOING AHEAD ANYWAY either with this treaty, another 1 in a few years or just without any, means that the whole thing is going to head downhill because of the above reasons.

This is why the treaty incorporates the framework necessary for the EU to function effectively after these new member states join.

ALSO, the increased market size for Irish businesses, coupled with the EU's greater presence on the international scene means that we would have an even greater voice when it comes to trying to avert Bush's stupidity.

Cork

ALSO, the increased market size for Irish businesses

IBEC have also made this point together with points about the mimimum wage.

The Nice treaty builds a Europe of not equals. As Europes second most expensive country (our wages are far from high - take note IBEC) - I believe in a single tier Europe of equal partners. Not a Europe - where people can go it alone.

PH01

Why should we vote Yes?

1. Enlargement will share the benefits of the EU membership with the applicant countries and help copper-fasten stability, peace and prosperity across Europe.

2. We keep Ireland at the very heart of the European Union. If we vote NO we create doubts.

3. We ensure that Ireland continues to be one of the most attractive places in Europe for foreign investment, and we will secure existing jobs. A NO vote will be exploited by countries with whom we compete for investment.

4. We ensure that Ireland will have friends and allies at the negotiating table. This will be particularly important in the review of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP). We will endanger these friendships if we frustrate our 14 fellow EU members by preventing the 10 applicant states from joining.

5. A 'Yes' vote will ensure that Ireland will continue to enjoy the social and cultural progress that has been a fact of life in Ireland since we joined the EEC in 1972.

6. There is a clear national consensus, confirmed at the National Forum, that enlargement is in Ireland's broad economic and political interest.

7. Enlargement creates new opportunities for Irish business by opening new markets with 100 million customers.

8. The Treaty of Nice is about ensuring that the enlarged Union can operate effectively and efficiently; it is about ensuring that the European Union remains a dynamic organization without altering in any fundamental way the Union's basic character, or undermining Ireland's position within it.

9. The miscellaneous alliance of European detractors from Sinn Fein and the Irish Green Party to Christian Solidarity and the National Platform would have us sacrifice all that we have achieved for reasons that bear no relationship to logic or reality. This unholy alliance also claims to be acting in the interest of the applicant States, ignoring the important fact that these States have applied to join the EU of their own free will. It is bad enough that those on the "No campaign" purport to speak on behalf of the majority of the people of Ireland, it is the worst form of patronizing arrogance, however, when they purport to speak for the peoples of the emerging democracies of Europe. A 'Yes' vote stops this carry-on.

10. The 'YES" isn't 'bullying' anyone else in the debate as the No2Nice alliance would have you believe. The only sense in which the gun has been put to anybody's head is the "No" campaign's invitation to the Irish electorate to play Russian roulette with our prosperity, with inward investment and with our capacity to exert influence over the building of the Europe of the future.

11. A 'YES' vote will ensure sound national finances and safeguard the Euro

12. A 'Yes' vote will enable Ireland to continue to build competitive pro-enterprise pro-jobs economy. This is what the European Union is working towards. How will a No vote bring jobs to Ireland or Europe? How will it build a trading, enterprise economy?

13. A 'Yes' vote will help us achieve balanced regional development. The focus on regional policy in Ireland received a great impetus from Europe. How would a No vote contribute to advancing European regional development support for Ireland?

14. A Yes vote will help and enable the continued building of social inclusion. European social policy has supported Ireland in promoting equality and inclusion, backed by over €5 billion in social funds. How will a No vote build on that progress?

15. A Yes Vote wil help to ensure a clean environment, safe food, and sustainable development, all areas where international action is essential and
the EU is taking a lead.

16. A YES vote is a vote for Ireland - not for the Government.

17. Yes vote is a vote for a strong economy.

18. A Yes vote will mean more companies investing in Ireland, employing more people and opening up new markets for our products, driving prices down and ensuring better goods and services.

19. A Yes vote will give poorer countries a chance. They will have the opportunities we had to work and live in their own country.

20. A Yes will ensure greater equality in Ireland. It means that workers, women and people living with disability will continue to benefit from European directives covering everything from access and pay to maternity leave.

21. Yes will mean real equality between member states. Every country, large and small, will have exactly the same right to an EU Commissioner, for the first time.

22. Yes will continue to give Ireland a good deal. Our membership of the European Union has given us better transport, better hospitals and better schools.

23. Yes will extend better employment rights. This will bring candidate countries into line with European industrial norms and prevent unfair compeitition.

24. Yes will allow more small countries to join the EU, countries with whom Ireland can ally itself to pursue mutual interests and further common aims.

25. Yes will mean a strong voice for small countries. With Nice, Ireland will have twice the voting strength per head in the European Parliament and five times the strength per head in the Council of Ministers as Germany.

gandalf

PH we already enjoy most of those items without Nice what your saying is if we vote no we MAY lose out on 1-25 which to be honest is pure speculation and scaremongering (imho)

I mean to say we have to vote YES so as to not to piss off our european partners is a really weak arguement.

If Irish people have a problem with Nice and alot of us do for various reasons we should vote No.

The more I look at this treaty the more I feel it begins in earnest a Federal European Superstate (a United States of Europe). I agree with DeVore the Europe I want is a partnership of equal states based on one state one vote not based on population sizes ( I sense we may disagree on this point )

Gandalf.

Shinji

I agree with DeVore the Europe I want is a partnership of equal states based on one state one vote not based on population sizes ( I sense we may disagree on this point )

Yeah, I think that's going to be the major bone of contention right down the line. A lot of people - myself included - believe that a closer integration of Europe and the gradual formation of a European super-state is a very logical progression and something to be worked towards; and on the other hand, a lot of people are terrified of the concept of a "united states of europe". Those are viewpoints that are very difficult to reconcile.

The problem with a referendum, of course, is that you only get to say "yes" or "no", not "well yes but with this exception". The specific problem with THIS referendum is that the people who have negotiated the treaty on behalf of Ireland have failed to present the actual opinions of the people they allegedly represent - since it has been obvious for some time that the only people represented by the Irish government are, well, themselves.

At this point the question becomes, "is this treaty more good than bad?", and perhaps more importantly, "if we keep saying no will the EU actually renegotiate the treaty to suit us?".

The answer to the latter is almost definitely "no, absolutely not". The former... Well, that's a decision you have to make from careful reading of the treaty yourself.

Devore, I suspect you're playing Devil's Advocate, because you're a clever enough bloke to know that this idea that the status quo will be maintained if Ireland votes "no" is rubbish. Ireland's biggest advantage in Europe is the strength of our diplomatic team in Brussels; not in terms of numbers or actual power, but in terms of being considered to be the life and soul of the party at the heart of the EU. The Irish throw the best parties, make the most friends and curry the most favour, and that's the only reason that Ireland has benefitted as much as it has from the EU to date. The rejection of Nice puts those people on the spot; it IS seen in Europe as being greed and ingratitude on the part of the Irish people (and lets be honest, to a large degree that's what it actually is). The EU doesn't cease operating just because Ireland has failed to ratify Nice... But you can be damn sure that the eurocrats will look a lot harder at everything related to Ireland that crosses their desks in future.

Of course, whether you think that's actually a problem or not is an entirely personal decision. There are those who don't think Ireland needs the EU's support. There are those who fear a loss of our democracy in the EU (not that our democracy has been much to shout about for the past 20 years or so).

At least if you make a decision on Nice based on your personal beliefs regarding the EU and the benefits and downsides of the treaty, you're fulfilling your role as an Irish citizen, and that's a decision worth respecting. It's the people voting no "because I don't understand it" or voting yes/no on the basis of stupid propaganda without bothering to do any of the homework themselves that ought to be ashamed.

Meh

Originally posted by gandalf
I mean to say we have to vote YES so as to not to piss off our european partners is a really weak arguement.

If Irish people have a problem with Nice and alot of us do for various reasons we should vote No.

Can't disagree with you there. If you don't like the treaty, go ahead and vote no. It's your vote.

The more I look at this treaty the more I feel it begins in earnest a Federal European Superstate (a United States of Europe). I agree with DeVore the Europe I want is a partnership of equal states based on one state one vote not based on population sizes ( I sense we may disagree on this point )

While Nice doesn't establish a "federal superstate", it is definitely a small step in that direction, with the expanded QMV etc. But all the EU treaties have been a step towards a federal superstate in one way or another (Maastricht set up the euro, Amsterdam introduced the idea of QMV...). It all depends on where you think the line should be drawn.

Myself, I'm happy with the steps taken in the Nice Treaty, especially given the safeguards on the rights of individual countries in the treaty. But I would vote no to a treaty that established something equivalent to the US federal system at a European level. "States rights" is a pretty hot topic in the US currently, with many people arguing for a reduction in the power of the US federal government at state level.

PH01

Gandalf, that's an interesting and fundamentally flawed point. I'd like to discuss it (subject of this post) in the context of a possible future United Ireland. Do you want to create a separate thread on this?
(Go wan I dare ya)

BTW, the No2Nice Allience knows all about "speculation and scaremongering"

swiss

Originally posted by DeVore:

Sorry but the ballot paper doesnt have room for my suggestions. I only get to say YES or NO. I guess we have to KEEP saying no until we (randomly it seems!) get something we DO agree with.

It was a rhetorical question DeV , this forum (unlike the ballot paper) does leave room for suggestions. How do you feel the EU can be better arranged so that enlargement can take place in an equitable manner? Many people are quick to criticise but reluctant to suggest.

Ah swiss... you were doing soooo well

I deserve neither this praise nor this censure . I didn't spell out my point well enough (due to time restraints I had to cut my post short). I'll go back to that now.

Technically, if we are talking about a democratic European Union then yes, we are talking about one voice one vote etc. For the reasons you have spelled out, this is not practicable. Countries with large relative populations would be in a position of dominance over states that do not. On the other end of the spectrum, I believe your proposed model of 'one country one vote' is (almost) equally untenable, for political reasons. A country with 15 times the population of Ireland would not accept exactly the same representation at European level. Therefore a compromise must be reached somewhere, a 'magic number' if you will whereby a balance between population levels and governmental representation can be agreed.

As an Irish citizen, I get almost five times the say about Europe as a German citizen under Nice. Is this not enough? As has been pointed out several times, an inner core of large European states cannot force through legislation unless a large number of smaller states support that legislation. And as has been pointed out - this cannot relate to matters of critical national importance - individual countries still hold a veto in this regard. So it is not a matter of large countries bullying or domineering smaller states into accepting resolutions or legislation that they do not support - imputations to the contrary is (IMO) FUD from the no side.

The present voting arrangements are, as I've stated, imperfect but fair, IMHO.

Originally posted by Gandalf:

If Irish people have a problem with Nice and alot of us do for various reasons we should vote No.

I can't disagree with this. However I sometimes take issue with the reasons whereby people vote no (such as to spite the government, because Sinn Féin/Greens/National Front tell them to etc). Obviously not everyone is going to read the treaty - it is pretty heavy going and I admit I've forgotten the exact wording of some of the articles (and they don't have adobe acrobat readers in the computers in work - bah) but people should make themselves aware of the outline of the treaty and the issues involved, so that an informed decision can be made.

Meh

Originally posted by swiss
(and they don't have adobe acrobat readers in the computers in work - bah)

Actually, Google have a PDF->HTML translation thingy which Typedef linked to above. Just search google for "nice treaty pdf" and then click the "View as HTML" link.

Typedef

Meh alluding to Shinji and Gandalf
While Nice doesn't establish a "federal superstate", it is definitely a small step in that direction, with the expanded QMV etc.

Then let us reiterate and state the point.

If you are in favour of a Federal Superstate with Ireland participating in that you should vote for Nice.

If you are not in favour of such a entity nor Ireland's participation in it you should vote no.

Essentially is that not the proposition we have just exponenciated?

STaN

Vote yes for enlargement that is going work, be fair and work to our advantage.

Vote no if your backward/afraid and want to hold up or possibly introduce a europe that just wont work with these new countries in it.

Typedef

Originally posted by STaN
Vote yes for enlargement that is going work be fair and work to our advantage.

Vote no if your backward/afraid and want to hold up or possibly introduce a europe that just wont work with these new countries in it.

The Nice Treaty is not required for enlargement, this has been stated by many a Eurocrat.

It is touted as a means to 'reform' of the structures of the Union to enable and facilitate enlargement (an argument I reject), but there is no written proviso that requires the Treaty to pass for East European countries to aceed to the Union.

Meh

Originally posted by Typedef
If you are in favour of a Federal Superstate with Ireland participating in that you should vote for Nice.

Yes.

If you are not in favour of such a entity nor Ireland's participation in it you should vote no.

No. You should vote yes to Nice, and vote no to the "United States of Europe Treaty" of 2009 (or whenever). Nice doesn't establish a federal superstate, and I wouldn't vote for it if it did.

Nice is a prequisite for a european superstate, but there is nothing inevitable about moving from Nice to such a superstate.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed.

swiss

Thank you muchly meh, I'm kicking myself for not having thought of that . Doh'

Originally posted by Typedef:

Then let us reiterate and state the point.

If you are in favour of a Federal Superstate with Ireland participating in that you should vote for Nice.

If you are not in favour of such a entity or Ireland's participation in it you should vote no.

Essentially is that not the proposition we have just exponenciated?

Umm, do you mean expounded rather than exponenciated? I don't mean to be pedantic or anything, it was probably just a typo, but I have to assume that's what you meant.

Regardless, I pretty much disagree with every sentiment in this post here. I do not see a yes vote as a vote for federalism. This is not about devolving power to a European superpower in which we have little say. Every country has the soverign right of national self determination, which in Irelands case is enshrined in our consitiution and reiterated (somewhat unnecessarily) in the Seville declarations.

Some people see this as a step towards a federal European Union. Again, unless a majority of people want it (which is reflected by a plebiscite in each and every country in the EU) there is no chance of this happening. It's a bit like assuming that just because someone is walking towards a cliff edge, they are going to jump off. [edit] I've just noticed meh has already debunked that assertion [/edit]

Typedef

I mean exponenciated.

So since all parties accept that

While Nice doesn't establish a "federal superstate", it is definitely a small step in that direction, with the expanded QMV etc.

It would be illogical to vote for a Treaty that was a 'step in the direction' of a Federal Supra-national Superstate if in fact you did not want Ireland to participate in such a state.

Thus the argument follows do not vote for a treaty that is a step towards European Federalism if that is not what you want for Ireland.

Similary if you want Ireland to participate in such a union you should vote for the Treaty.

Thus since I don't want Ireland to participate in a Federal union, nor to take steps towards said Union, I will not in fact be changing the way I voted in the last referendum. In short I will be voting No to the Nice Treaty.

STaN

I dont know where you get your philosophy from but its like saying i wont buy a car cause i might be asked to tow another.

Nice means that it COULD go that way if EVERY1 in the EU wanted it.

Otherwise it wont and voting for Nice would just have been to introduce the framework to instigate effective expansion.

Meh

Originally posted by STaN
I dont know where you get your philosophy from but its like saying i wont buy a car cause i might be asked to tow another.

Or like not asking a girl out because you're afraid you might end up marrying her.

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
It would be illogical to vote for a Treaty that was a 'step in the direction' of a Federal Supra-national Superstate if in fact you did not want Ireland to participate in such a state.

So I can take it you were against (and campaigned against) Ireland joining the EU in the first place?

After all - the founding of the EU was "a step in the direction of a Federal Supra-National Superstate".

So was currency unification. Against that one as well?

If so, then maybe you could explain how these things have ruined our independance, freedom, democracy, or whatever you feel youre losing.

If not, then maybe you should stop complaining about "a step in the direction" and just say that its a step too far. Which, of course, would mean that if we fail to ratify Nice, our logical course of action would be to leave the EU, as it clearly wishes to evolve in a direction which we dont, and regardless of which form you prefer (community of equals or QMV), we do not have the power to bend the entire EU to our desires.
jc

Typedef

Originally posted by bonkey
So I can take it you were against (and campaigned against) Ireland joining the EU in the first place?

Not only was I not of voting age when Ireland joined, I wasn't even born. Had I been I would have probably campaigned for Ireland to join, as the then EEC was not touted as an embryonic Superstate of five hundred million people with aspirations to superpowerdom.

After all - the founding of the EU was "a step in the direction of a Federal Supra-National Superstate".

Arguably yes it was, though at the time I was much too young to have grasped the issues involved. Of course in an ideal world it wouldn't matter that Ireland would be a mere four million in a Superstate of five hundred million, however as most people are more than aware the world is far from a utopian place, so I don't in fact think that a massive federal state is going to be a tenable form of governance that will be benefical to nor compatible with Ireland and that is a genuine and considered opinion (one which I have slowely converted to over the space of roughly ten years) not just some randomly/blindley extolled mantra.

So was currency unification. Against that one as well?

In short yes, I was against currency unification, I regarded a currency as a vital and constituant part of a country. For example long before there was Bismark's Germany there was the North German Confederation which had, you guessed it, a common currency. Thus in my view a common currency is a major (though perhaps not intractable) step towards creating a United States of Europe.

If so, then maybe you could explain how these things have ruined our independance, freedom, democracy, or whatever you feel youre losing.

Indepandance, I'm not sure Ireland which is sometimes termed a banana Republic ever really has been independant, more swept along in the wake of the British, Americans and now the Europeans. Freedom though is the 'supposed' right of self determination and self expression in my opinion, thus to be forced to 'reexpress' an opinon on such an important issue as a further step toward European integration is in my considered opinion as an adult and a voter a major infraction of my right to free, fair and umambiguous self determination and the self determination of the Republic of which I proud to be a citzen of.
Needless to say the argument for democracy is a near mirror image corollary of what I have just said.

If not, then maybe you should stop complaining about "a step in the direction" and just say that its a step too far.

No it is the direction I object to and not the actual point of iteration that I object to. Essentially a Eurozone of soverign cooperating states in certain areas is in my view a benefical and logical thing that is good for prosperity and for Ireland, what is not in my view necessary nor desirable is a Pan National or Supra National if you prefare Union of States, a country for want of a better euphamism.

Which, of course, would mean that if we fail to ratify Nice, our logical course of action would be to leave the EU, as it clearly wishes to evolve in a direction which we dont, and regardless of which form you prefer (community of equals or QMV), we do not have the power to bend the entire EU to our desires.
jc

The EU is not yet a Federal Union so perhaps it is better to try and influence the shape of the Union as much as it can be by such a small state and then make our decisions if Ireland is effectively excluded from the decision making process as I believe Ireland has been by being effectively being told to put up or shut up by Europe on the Treaty.
If Ireland does indeed ratify the Treaty on the second sitting I believe it will signal not only the effective end of any illusions that Ireland is a participant of the EU as opposed to it's subject as well as signal the end of any pretences to effective, representative and unhindered democracy in Ireland, assuming it ever really existed.

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
Not only was I not of voting age when Ireland joined, I wasn't even born.

You werent born when we entered the EU? I'm impressed. I'm amazed that someone who is less then ten years old can discuss things so maturely.

Ten years ago, the Maastricht treaty marked the major turning-point where the Economic community moved formally towards political union, creating the European Union.

I'm sure you know this.

This is the point where it ceased to be the club of equals that so many people think our current system should be heading. This is when the changes were put into motion which not only made Nice inevitable, but made Nice nothing but a stepping stone along the path to wherever it is heading.

This is why I find it somewhat amusing. The outcry against the Masstrict Treaty was nowhere near as severe as that against Nice, and yet that was the point in time where a stance against a political union in favour of an economic one could and should have been taken.

The boat has been missed by 10 years, and yet somehow we're expected to believe that it is only now that these issues are arising? Almost every single one of the problems the No side tell us to expect in a post-Nice world are problems which can already exist under the current structures.

Even the argument about loss of national identity / democratic freedom / whatever freedom is dated. This is what we accepted 10 years ago when we joined the EU.

Like I said....its not a case of a step in the wrong direction, but a step too far that people are having problems with. We agreed to walk down a path, and now that we are being asked to walk down it, we are having second thoughts.

Thats fine too, but if thats what we're doing, we should have the honesty to admit it, and get off the path entirely, rather than standing on one paving stone at some point and deciding that we'd just like to stand here and prevent everyone else from moving forward as well.

jc

Biffa Bacon

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".

And aren’t they perfectly within their rights to do so? Once we’re not forced to participate, what’s the problem?

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...

In a union of 27, under the Nice Treaty provisions, Ireland would have 2.02% of the votes with 0.8% of the population. At the other end of the scale, Germany would have 8.4% of the votes and 17% of the population. What you’re suggesting would give both Ireland and Germany 3.7% of the votes each. Now, that would be great if the smaller states could marginally increase their voting strength at the cost of a large reduction in the power of the larger states but do you realistically think we could get agreement on such a radical departure from the way votes have been allocated in the Council for decades? And is it really worth kicking up a fuss over?

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..."

Unless you have specific objections to particular provisions of the treaty, why wouldn’t you vote Yes?

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.

How exactly do you want it renegotiated? What do you want changed?

…why is our Veto being taken again? Why do you have to allow QMV?

DeVore, to be honest, I don’t think you understand how the Council of Ministers works at all. The fact is that we already have QMV. We have had QMV since the foundation of the EEC. And it only applies to some areas of decision-making, not all. We still have a veto in other areas such as taxation. All that’s happened with Nice is that QMV is being extended to several areas where previously states had a veto. Here is the complete list (taken from the government White Paper):

ARTICLES IN WHICH QUALIFIED MAJORITY VOTING WILL BE INTRODUCED
Article 23.2 Appointment of CFSP special representatives.
Articles 24.3 and 4 CFSP/JHA related international agreements, where QMV applies internally.
Article 13 Anti-discrimination measures.
Article 18 Measures facilitating the exercise of the rights of citizens to move or reside within EU territory. Does not apply to passports, identity cards, residence permits or social security provisions.
Article 62.2 (a) Measures on the crossing of external borders. Council will decide once agreement on border controls is in place.
Article 62.3 Nationals of third countries freedom of travel. As from May 2004.
Article 63.1 Asylum. Following agreement on common rules and basic principles.
Article 63.2 (a) Refugees and displaced persons. Following agreement on common rules and basic principles.
Article 63.3 (b) Immigration. As from May 2004.
Article 65 Judicial cooperation in civil matters, but excluding aspects relating to family law.
Article 66 Cooperation between national administrations. Possible QMV from May 2004.
Article 67 Council ‘will endeavour’ to apply QMV and co-decision as soon as possible after May 2004 to certain aspects of visa, asylum and immigration policy, and to other policies related to free movement of persons.
Article 100 Assistance to Member States in economic difficulties or confronted by natural disasters.
Article 111.4 Representation at international level regarding EMU.
Article 123.4 Measures for rapid introduction of euro.
Article 133.5 Trade in services.
Article 137 Social provisions.
Article 157 Measures supporting actions by member states in industrial sphere.
Article 159 Economic and Social Cohesion outside Structural Funds.
Article 161 Reform of Structural and Cohesion Funds, from 2007.
Article 181a Economic, financial and technical cooperation with third countries.
Article 190.5 MEP statute, excluding conditions relating to taxation.
Article 191 Political parties at European level.
Article 207.2 Appointment of Secretary General and Deputy.
Article 210 Salaries, allowances and pensions in Court of First Instance.
Article 214 Appointment of President and Members of Commission.
Article 215 Replacement of same in event of death or resignation.
Article 223 Approval of Rules of Procedure of European Court of Justice.
Article 224 Approval of Rules of Procedure of Court of First Instance.
Article 225a Approval of Rules of Procedure of Judicial Panels.
Article 247 Appointment of Court of Auditors.
Article 248 Approval of Rules of Procedure of Court of Auditors.
Article 259.1 Appointment of Economic and Social Committee.
Article 263 Appointment of Committee of the Regions.
Article 279 Financial Regulations concerning EU budget, from 2007.

Which of these is an unacceptable loss of national influence? Take your pick.

seedot

article 133.5 - trade in services is a pretty big one.

The article 133 committee (there really is one) signs Ireland up to liberalisation of services - waste, water, health insurance, ancillary education and health services.

No country has veto.

QMV is purely in relation to this being against the policies and rules of the union - no other option. This gives each govt. an out for public opinion - we can't oppose this, sorry, even though we really don't want to privatise - the deal is done.

Tell me
a) why this is necessary for enlargement
b) how we row this back without leaving the EU
c) why is nobody discussing this?

bonkey

Originally posted by seedot
The article 133 committee (there really is one) signs Ireland up to liberalisation of services - waste, water, health insurance, ancillary education and health services.

This is a bad thing? Liberalisation benefits everyone through increased competition. OK, sure, we will face costs in some areas where previously the state has footed the bill, but where do you think the state gets the money?

Imagine...if all the state costs on water supplies were eliminated, they could spend the money on something like, oh, health care.

What would happen? Ppl would complain about a decrease in service without a corresponding decrease in tax, and then a week later would complaun about the dire state of our health care system.

No country has veto.

And so it should be. Not only is the concept veto anathema to the concept of democracy (under proportional representation or a union of equal states, but once you exceed certain critical limits it becomes unworkable.

If the EU is to expand, the veto must go.

a) why this is necessary for enlargement

OK. The changes in voting and representational structure are necessary for enlargement. Otherwise you end up with an unfeasibly large parliament, with too many ppl holding the right to veto. Sure, nations like the US have large parliaments, but they do not have representations from 27 nations, each of whom have multiple political parties. The US has (effectively) two parties, and while individual states may want to have their say at times, by and large it boils down to democrats vs Republicans.

In the EU, you will have multiple parties (min of 1 per nation) each looking to protect their interests. A parliament with membership in the hundreds is simply untenable. Show me one example of such a large parliament with such diversity working well in a modern context, and I'll cede that it may not be necessary.

Sure, ppl will point out "but Ireland only ever used its veto once in 30 years". So? If its that rare on average, surely we can do without? If its not that rare on average, then do the math and work out how ridiculous a situation you end up in with 27 members each of whom is using the veto to protect their national interests (which is effectively what the No side say we want it for)

b) how we row this back without leaving the EU

Well, see, I dont believe we can. The major objections to the EU are that increased participation decreases our national independance, and that its a Federal Europe we're heading for, and we dont want that.

In regards to decreased independance I can only say "Duh. What did you think the EU was about". The economic community was left behind a long time ago, but seems to be the "step forward" that a lot of the No side seem to want.

Ultimately, Ireland can attempt to hold the EU indefinitely in its current political structure, or we can abandon some of our ideals and move forward. Or we can leave. A belief that we can move backwards to something we chose to leave behind over a decade ago, and call it progress, is laughable. Not only that, but its not what the rest of Europe appear to want.

So, put it a different way. Why should what we want be more important to the other member states than what they want...particularly when they can agree with each other.

Short answer....it shouldnt.

Yes, we can force a renegotiation of Nice. So what. All that will happen is that maybe a few of the stickier points will be deferred or rephrased. Ultimately, the objections raised against Nice cannot be alleviated by an alternate, workable treaty. Not unless the majority of nations have a change of heart and decide that our currently-ridiculed position is, in fact, the right one, and that they should all follow our lead. Probability? Virtually zero.

c) why is nobody discussing this?

What do you mean? It is being discussed. The points have been raised time and time and time again.

jc

shotamoose

Originally posted by bonkey


This is a bad thing? Liberalisation benefits everyone through increased competition. OK, sure, we will face costs in some areas where previously the state has footed the bill, but where do you think the state gets the money?

Liberalisation of the type promoted by Nice does not increase competition, but increases cross-border mergers and acquisitions because national firms can NOT compete with the transnational companies given access to the domestic market. And what's more significant about the changes to Article 133 is that it extends the Commission jurisdiction over the EU's external trade relations to include services, so that negotiations within the WTO will be handled by the Commission (technically answerable to the Council) rather than the Commission and member countries.

Now, while the EU is not going to force its own member countries to liberalise public services, the Commission is presently trying to use Europe's economic power to lever open the services 'markets' of developing countries for the ultimate benefit of European companies. Now, if liberalisation was beneficial for everyone, you'd think developing countries would be climbing over each other to open up their markets. They're not, though, they're afraid of the consequences and they're resisting it - just like the EU with its agricultural subsidies.

Nice reduces the ability of national governments (and their parliaments and the public those parliaments are accountable to) to protest about and seek to change the utterly hypocritical and damaging external trade relations of the EU.

Michael Collins

Originally posted by bonkey

You werent born when we entered the EU? I'm impressed. I'm amazed that someone who is less then ten years old can discuss things so maturely.

He is refering to 1973, when we joined what was then known as the EC...

bonkey

Originally posted by Michael Collins
He is refering to 1973, when we joined what was then known as the EC...

No, he...I mean I....was referring to the signing of the Maastrich Treaty in 1992 (ok, so hecould be 11) which is when the EC (previously the EEC) was agreed to become the EU. Which is why I termed it the EU, and chose the age timeframe accordingly.

It might seem like anally retentive terminology pedantry, but the simple fact is that the aims and goals changed significantly each time, and the name changes give you incredibly simple insight into the major changes :

European Economic Community
European Community
European Union

Spot where it stopped being primarily about commerce?
Or when the agreement to progress to significantly closer political ties was?

And yet, these are what the preferable solutions I've mostly heard consist of - effectively returns to the previous structures, and yet there wasnt a fraction of the outcry when we made these moves in the first place.

Fine, if thats where we think we should move, but what makes anyone think that this is what the rest of Europe wants....and if they dont have the right to pressure us, what possible right have we to even request this?

jc

colinsky

of course suggesting this as a model goes against the criticisms of a "united states of europe", but the us did face this same exactly dilemma (population vs. state sovereignty), the decision being that both schemes should be implemented because they both has advantages. the typical result is that the house of representatives (population based) typically puts forth populist solutions, while the (equally weighted) senate tends to rate more ethical and political issues involved in suggested measures.

not to say that that implemention is right, just that its not necssarily an either-or problem.

seedot

Just to be clear - my previous post was purely related to the changes to article 133 since we were asked to pick an area where QMV caused a problem.

This is a bad thing? Liberalisation benefits everyone through increased competition. OK, sure, we will face costs in some areas where previously the state has footed the bill, but where do you think the state gets the money?

Imagine...if all the state costs on water supplies were eliminated, they could spend the money on something like, oh, health care.

OK this is a bit shortsighted. Water and waste management are PUBLIC GOODS. If people other than the govt. to pay for them, then some people don't get them. This is a public health issue. We managed to sort this out in the 19thC when cities took on waste and water - to roll this back now in the name of competition is ridiculous. This is not a moral or ethical issue - I don't want to live next door to someone with no water and no bin collection.

I also think shotamoose is being optimistic when he states liberalisation will only be pushed onto developing countries

http://www.psiru.org/reports/_Toc517606084

gives some background on the current state of play.

On my 3 questions - agains I was asking these specifically in relation to article 133.

Not only is the concept veto anathema to the concept of democracy (under proportional representation or a union of equal states, but once you exceed certain critical limits it becomes unworkable

My issue here is that no democratically elected body or person will intervene between a set of negotiations and the commitment to liberalise services. This is not democracy - this is the fast track approach to international trade negotiations that is being implemented both in the US and here in Nice. Fast tracking trade in services (which is not trade but investment anyway) and homogenising IP regimes is not necessary for enlargement - whatever about reforming the institutions.

My objections to Nice are not about national sovereignty - the Nice treaty represented a victory for the large business interests in Europe against the people of Europe. It should not be ratified for the sake of all the people in Europe.