Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Green Party says Nice not about enlargement!!!
Options
Comments
-
I don't speak for the Green Party, however.
The Nice Treaty is not required for enlargement, rather it is a treaty that the politicians in Europe (ostensibly French & German) felt was necessary to 'reform' Europe, before further enlargement could take place.
Of course the actual need for this "reform" is in my opinion highly suspect and apparently the Irish politicians who opposed the loss of a Comissioner to be gauranteed to each member state agreed with me. Somewhere along the line they changed their tune, mostly in my opinion because of immense pressure put onto the Irish government by Brussels to get the Treaty of Nice ratified.
Ireland opposed many of the measures contained in the treaty during the drafting of it, funnily enough the same government that opposed the drafting of many of the constituant parts of the treaty then had the cheek to turn around and ask the Irish voters to vote in favour of the same treaty twice, as if somehow the first rejection was not sufficient.
I'm sure you know this already.0 -
Type....for someone who has been incredibly active in this debate, you are either deliberately being misleading here, or you havent read the treaty.Originally posted by Typedef
The Nice Treaty is not required for enlargement,
Strictly speaking, no. An additional 5 members are permitted in the current structure. Unfortunately, there are far more than 5 countries looking for entry, and the EU wants these countries to be members.
So, while the Nice treaty is not needed for enlargement (unspecified), it - or part of it - is needed for the enlargement which the EU wishes to undertake.
And before we all get up on our high horses about letting these poor nations in to ruin our economies, I would suggest that you consider that the exact same principles were applied to allow Ireland into the EEC all those years ago.
rather it is a treaty that the politicians in Europe (ostensibly French & German) felt was necessary to 'reform' Europe, before further enlargement could take place.
As already stated. The desired enlargement required reform. It had nothing to do with what some French and German politicians may or may not have thought.
(As an aside, given that you're all for keeping our current voting system in the EU, I'd love to know how its fairer than QMV if stuff like this can already be railroaded through by "ostensibly" two nations.)
Well, as I've already explained, reform of some form was required to allow in the new states.
Of course the actual need for this "reform" is in my opinion highly suspect...
Given that the proposed/desired enlargement was of such a significant scale, it also became clear that some of the existing structures would become unfeasible (as opposed to just inefficient or awkward) as the EU grew to such a scale.
Add to this the fact that the EU in its current form was never intended to be the final product, and that some of the changes were forseen as goals since around the time that the EU was being discussed as a possibility, and you have a pretty compelling reason for the need for this reform - it was always on the cards, it was always expected, and there is absolutely nothing suspect about it.
Unless, of course, you count bringing in new nations as suspect. I mean, who in their right minds would want to take in these poor nations, pump cash into them, bring their economies into the modern day, and in maybe a decade or three have a thriving, powerful economy added to the pile.
You're right. Its mad. Crazy. I cant imagine why they let us in all those years ago.
Nice isnt just about enlargement, this is true, but it most definitely is about enlargement in part.
jc0 -
I tought everybody was in agreement that a Yes vote was not necessary for enlargement. This is a hapless treaty. It is being pushed on the Irish people again. Good were tyhe days when IBEC were going on about the mimumum wage inspead of their views on this shambles of a treaty.
A second refusal of the Nice Treaty by the Irish in a referendum will not stop enlargement of the European Union, French Minister for European Affairs, Noëlle Lenoir, claimed in Strasbourg on Tuesday, according to the Agence France Press, (AFP).
"If Ireland says No, we will continue. That will not stop the procedure of enlargement," she declared when speaking to journalists in the European Parliament.0 -
Thus in my opinion the argument about Nice being required for enlargement is a best spurious and misleading, you have already stated that another 5 countries can aceed to the Union as it stands, thus Ireland rejecting Nice is not some selfish desire to horde CAP subsidies or keep East Europe less competative with the Irish economy by keeping it out of the Union, because enlargement will go ahead without Nice being ratified.Originally posted by bonkey
Strictly speaking, no. An additional 5 members are permitted in the current structure.
Or perhaps the enlargement issue is an excuse to restructure the Union to suit the big countries and serrupiticously coral the smaller countries into a Federal Union they would never have initially agreed to join.So, while the Nice treaty is not needed for enlargement (unspecified), it - or part of it - is needed for the enlargement which the EU wishes to undertake.
I accept that under agenda 2000 Ireland will help to fund and rebuild the economies of the post-Soviet applicant countries, what I object to in the Nice treaty is that Qualified Majority Voting will in fact dictate how much Ireland will contribute to this rebuilding process. Already Ireland allows large amounts of revenue to be derived from Irish fishing waters by other EU countries, so on balance I don't really see merit in the argument that Ireland has not financially contributed to the EU and should simply cough up on demand. In fact it seems like a very important potential issue, that Europe can effectively levy amount(x) from Ireland for these structural funds, when the funds that Ireland was a beneficiary of were given by choice, not edict based on Qualified Majority Voting, so effectively the countries who paid up retained the choice in how much they paid up, while Ireland will not be given that same right. Perhaps this step can be seen as the first real and glaring step towards a European tax regieme that Ireland will have no substancial say over but will have to participate in.And before we all get up on our high horses about letting these poor nations in to ruin our economies, I would suggest that you consider that the exact same principles were applied to allow Ireland into the EEC all those years ago.
The Franco-German axis is the very cornerstone of the entire Federalist drive, in theory the axis had no part to play in the makeup of the enlargement process, however in reality the EU is a body made in the image of this Franco-German axis.As already stated. The desired enlargement required reform. It had nothing to do with what some French and German politicians may or may not have thought.
(As an aside, given that you're all for keeping our current voting system in the EU, I'd love to know how its fairer than QMV if stuff like this can already be railroaded through by "ostensibly" two nations.)
You say tomato I say tomato. Where you say inefficient or awkward I would say inconvienant and untenable for France/Germany to dominate, so the structure had to be changed to facilitate a greater 'reweighting'. Arguably this reweighing process can only culminate in a one man one vote EU and in such a situation the EU would be dominated by Germanic,French,Italian,Spanish,British and Polish opinion.Given that the proposed/desired enlargement was of such a significant scale, it also became clear that some of the existing structures would become unfeasible (as opposed to just inefficient or awkward) as the EU grew to such a scale.Add to this the fact that the EU in its current form was never intended to be the final product, and that some of the changes were forseen as goals since around the time that the EU was being discussed as a possibility, and you have a pretty compelling reason for the need for this reform - it was always on the cards, it was always expected, and there is absolutely nothing suspect about it.
Unforseen goals requireing restructure? So is that to say that when the goal of 'total democracy' is seen to be a necessary goal in an infant United States of Europe, Ireland would be reduced to a voting bloc and nothing more? One may argue the merits of short sighted goals, but on the second or third iteration it seems more like smoke and mirrors to mask the true intent and goal of the Union, such that you get the member states to move only so far, and the move the goal posts in perpetuity util one achieves the Federal Union dominated by four main national voting blocs? Excuse me while I don't find that concept appealing.
While you apparently regard the Union as a club, I regard it as a bloc of countries who are conglomerating and increasing their total sphere of influence. This is all well and good for Franco-German interests, my issue is that when Ireland becomes yet another state to have this main axis' influence even further extended into, as is the case with the Nice treaty and the subservient re-run of that Treaty, I start to regard the Union more as a vehicle for Franco-German Superpower ambitions and less as Union of willing participant states.Unless, of course, you count bringing in new nations as suspect. I mean, who in their right minds would want to take in these poor nations, pump cash into them, bring their economies into the modern day, and in maybe a decade or three have a thriving, powerful economy added to the pile.0 -
Originally posted by Typedef
enlargement will go ahead without Nice being ratified.
Good. Then we can stop talking about the financial difficulties expansion into Eastern Europe will cause if we vote in Nice, because this will happen regardless.
OK. One major "No to Nice" point down the tube.
Oh - and screw the other nations trying for membership. They're only poor anyway. We dont want them.
Now, see, this is where you come off sounding a bit like a conspriacy theorist.
Or perhaps the enlargement issue is an excuse to restructure the Union to suit the big countries and serrupiticously coral the smaller countries into a Federal Union they would never have initially agreed to join.
France and Germany want to expand the union, and make the voting representation more equal which means that they have a lower percentage of the power base, because they want more power???
Please. Explain the maths of this to me.
Where you say inefficient or awkward I would say inconvienant and untenable for France/Germany to dominate, so the structure had to be changed to facilitate a greater 'reweighting'.
LOL. So, on one hand, we're being driven where we're going becayse the Franco/German axis is surroptitiously controlling everything, and on the other hand, we're going there because the Franco/German axis want to control us more easily by having less power.Arguably this reweighing process can only culminate in a one man one vote EU and in such a situation the EU would be dominated by Germanic,French,Italian,Spanish,British and Polish opinion.
This gets better and better.
The Franco/German axis consists of France, Poland, Italy, Germany, Austria and Britain????
This "axis" is going to rule the EU? Thats like saying the Fianna Fail / Fine Gael axis rules Irish politics. Do you have any idea about how firmly independant of each other the mainland European nations currently are, and how firmly independant they are determined to stay?
Actually, its even funnier, because youre implying on that this axis needs to expand the EU in order to control it, and yet it is expanding the EU because it already controls it.
I notice, incidentally, that you've even given up on the old "Germanics all share a common language, so theyre all the same", and would now expand that alliance to magically contain the Poles, Brits, Italians and French now. And of course, common political ideology is the only thing which is needed to bond these nations into one coherent union moving in unison,
And yet, even if you're right on this, you still seem to be maintaining that they're wrong to do it because we dont want to be part of it, but they shouldnt kick us out either, cause thats wrong.
What you are in effect arguing is that the EU should serve Ireland's best interests, and nothing else.
jc0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 8332
Christ Nice is such a stickler eh. Lets be straight about it - It is not purely about enlargement. It's only about 90% enlargement. The rest of it is what seems to worry this country (well ok apart from certain greedy parties who see themselves losing out on what they have gained from years of EU membership).
The big issue seems to be the loss of our veto to a sinister conspiracy of large countries who want to control the EU. God forbid they might be considering how best to deal with a large community of countries and God forbid we might be greediy be considering ourselves. For crying out loud we can leave the shagging Union if we don't like what is happening. At the moment we are only voting on a treay that makes allowances for dealing with a community much larger than we have dealt with before.
Don't kid yourselves - this treaty is about enlargement. It's about Hungarians and Polish people who want to be a part of Europe and who are beginning to hate the selfish bastards on a small Island in Europe who are blocking them FOR NO GOOD REASON. Just a bunch of politically oversized scare tactics.
Neutrality B()()lox, loss of Veto B()()lox. Be a bit selfless and start thinking of other nations and other PEOPLE who deserve to benifit just as much as we have for many many years.
But we are losing our power to... B()()lox.
There is a threat of many wide ranging decisions being made that we may not have a strong enough say in ...B()()lox. Leave the EU if YOU DONT LIKE IT. This is how it will be. You are either pro or con Europe. The scare tactics that various political parties are making are ridiculous.
Sin Féin - Aginst Europe from the start presumably on the grounds that we may lose our identity. - this will remain the saddest arguement against Nice never mind Europe that we have. We have joined and reaped the benefits. Ignore the non-leftist SinFéin arguement.
Greens - mainly concerned about neutrality - what the hell does that mean? These people will argue against the invasion of Iraq and watch our men travel far and wide with the UN. Why does the loss of neutrality mean so much? Nobody has answered this satisfactorily for me.
Various - we may find ourselves with a common taxation rate because we cannot veto it. The Nice treaty does not allow far ranging decisions like this to be decided on the new voting rules being introduced. It is obvious to me and most people who belive in the common sense of man (and if we do not have that then we must leave the EU NOW) that something like a common taxation rate would have to be agreed by all and sundry, otherwise forget it.
As far as I'm concerned this treaty is about ENLARGEMENT. It's about letting other countries benefit from exactly what we have. Some have said a no vote will not stop enlargement but it WILL delay it unecessarily. It's about being a little selfless for just one time in your life. It's about retaining our reputation as being the most selfless country in the world. About how we have travlled far and wide and lived and blossomed wherever we have gone. And it's about letting someone else do exactly the same thing.0 -
Yes let's all roll over and lie down like good lemmings! Other people can be trusted, and know what's best for us!
Nice is 90% about enlargement? What exactly is the basis for this outrageous load of shíte you just spewed?
What the Greens were saying seems fairly simple to me. They don't oppose the Nice treaty on the basis of its allowing other countries into the community, rather the Treaty has other more contentious aspects. You can't have a multi-faceted Treaty and then start claiming that "oh it's all about enlargement/neutrality etc".
People oppose the Treaty for many different reasons, and this is reflected by the rather odd groups under the No umbrella. I have no doubt that if it were put to the Irish people tomorrow to allow these potential members into the EU they would resoundingly vote in favour of it. I know I would. I've talked to very many people who voted against the Treaty last time, and among the reasons they named for doing so an anti-enlargement sentiment was noticeable by its absence.
This is an opinion of someone who as yet is undecided over the Treaty by the way, I didn't get to vote last time. However, I'm sorely tempted to vote No, if only just to witness the self-righteous indignation of the Yes camp once more, as they pull out their hair and start apologising for our people's greed
Forgive them Oh Lord, they know not what they do.0 -
After Yesterdays Irish Times openion poll and the resignation of FF Nice Dicector of elections - I expect the Yes crowd to get more desperate to force this shambles of a treaty on the Irish people.
There is nothing in this treaty for Ireland. It creates a 2 tier Europe. The EU is not democratic or accountable and applicant countries deserve better. Just as what we got when we joined.
We were an equal member of a community. If Nice is passed - The mechanics are in place for a 2 tier Europe.
This is neither good for the applicant countries or Ireland0 -
Originally posted by Cork
If Nice is passed - The mechanics are in place for a 2 tier Europe.
This is neither good for the applicant countries or Ireland
OK. This is another one of those glib little comments which gets thrown about all the time.
How, exactly, does Nice pave the way for a 2-tier Europe. Why would this benefit the nations you assume will be in the top tier? Why do we assume Ireland will be in the bottom tier?
I'm honestly curious about this. Its one of those lovely little catchphrases which has been bandied about for ages about the dangers of Nice, but I'd love to see if anyone actually has figured out how it will all happen, and why anyone would want it to happen.
Please - explain.
jc0 -
"The European constitution that Germany and France wish for will be an essential step in the historic process of European integration."
-Joint statement of French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor
Gerhard Schröder, Nantes, 23-11-2001
"It(i.e.the EU) is one of the few institutions we can develop as a balance to US world domination."
-Swedish Prime Minister Goran Persson in Gothenburg, New York Times, 15 June 2001
THE EU has more to do with Pinky & The Brain.
Where is the EU going?
Have we not the right to know or are we like mushrooms?0 -
Advertisement
-
I notice jc that you have managed to side step the point I made about the validity of continuously resetting the goals of the Union and whether or not it is right and valid to do so? Would the Irish people have been so willing to vote to come so far into the Union had it's real goals of Federal Union be honestly spelled out at the time by the European and Irish politicians? Somehow I don't think so.
So since you ask, the primary axis or friendship if you like in the EU is one between the French and Germans, with the Germans being the dominant partner. Thus assuming what Michael Portillo of the UK's conservative party calls the "Unshakable axis" between France and Germany is in fact not just some paranoid delusion, that leaves France and Germany in practice with Britain largely uninvolved and disinterested in the makeup of the Union as the two largest and most influential member states. It is the Franco-German desire for Federalism that keeps moving the goal posts on Europe in perpetuity, yet somehow, this grand shift to a Federal Union is denyable even when a single currency is implemented throughout the Union.
So with qualified majority voting in extended areas, yet more soveringty ceeded to Europe and the two largest and most influential states within the Union unshakably cooperating on a sliding scale of integration which it would seem the Union is not above coraling small states like Ireland into as the current farce with a Referendum re-run aptly demonstrates, yes I would say that Germany is the dominant partner, with France as the second fiddle. I would also say that the voting arrangements in the Nice Treaty make it easier for states like France,Germany,Britian,Italy and Spain to run the Union from within and that in fact democracy and enlargement of the Union is not the reason the new arrangements on voting are being attemptedly imposed throughout the Union, but rather to make it easier for the Franco-German axis (with nominal agreement from two of the other large states) to railroad a Federation into existance and control that Federation when it does exist. Of course that is power bloc consolidation and I don't understand why it shouldn't be recognised as such, nor dressed up as something it is not, it seems there is a lot of that sort of disguising of the true intent of the Union when it comes to further integration.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 8332
I stand by this treaty being 90% about Enlargement. Most of the so-called sinsiter posibilties people are voting no for are in the treaty so we can accomodate the enlargement. They are not there despite enlargement but to make it all feasible.
And if someone can give me a good example of how the sinister men in black will abuse this treaty to our detriment then by all means do so. Do not moan on about "contentious aspects" without explaing what make them contentious. And when will people realise that all these, I'll quote again, "contentious aspects" are there to facilitate enlarging our community.
As I said in my ealrier post - nothing but scare tactics without so much as a shred of evidence bar X-Files like predicitons.0 -
Originally posted by Typedef
I notice jc that you have managed to side step the point I made about the validity of continuously resetting the goals of the Union and whether or not it is right and valid to do so? Would the Irish people have been so willing to vote to come so far into the Union had it's real goals of Federal Union be honestly spelled out at the time by the European and Irish politicians? Somehow I don't think so.
Somehow I think the Irish voters have had their ears closed since the Maastricht Treaty was first introduced to the public then.
Of course the goalposts continually change. Of course it is right to do so.
The EU was formed as the first of many steps along the road to the ultimate goal of a *real* union. This was never a hidden agenda - it was always openly admitted. Maastricht was "the next step", and was never, ever touted as "the final step".
From day one, it was clear there would be further moves towards greater unity, and these these steps would not be decided upon in advance - there would be no hard and fast timeline to a definite goal, but rather an evolutionary approach which set appropriate goals at appropriate times.
This is what is still happening. This is what Nice is. The next step. It is nothing we should not have expected. It is nothing unusual. It contains very little which could not have been forseen to some degree 10 years ago (more members, more democratic representation, changing internal structures for a variety of reasons, and so on and so forth).
And here's a little "secret". Regardless of whether or not the Irish ratify Nice, it wont end. Nice is not intended to bring about the final form of the EU. It *is* just another stepping stone - preparing the road for the next round of Treaty Talks (2004) which should pave the way for another Treaty - for 2007 IIRC. So Nice is, at this stage, little more than a 5-year plan, when you look at it that way.
None of this is a surprise. Its always been the plan, and no-one has ever made any bones about it.
So - no. I am not "sidestepping" your question about the correctness of moving goalposts. There is nothing unusual nor unexpected in whats happening. In truth, there arent really any goalposts being moved, because it has always been stated for a fact that at each round of Treaty Negotiations, the nations would examine the problems with the EU's structure, and propose ways to fix/improve them. This is what is happening.
Also, the Irish have been told (not very loudly, I grant you) since before Maastricht that this will be a long road of almost continuous change, and that not all of it would be easy
The fact that people are only now beginning to wake up to the implications of this is fine. However, they should at least have the sense to realise that Nice is not what they are complaining about. What they are complaining about is the entire process begun 10 years ago, of which Nice is just another interim step.
Yes, we can reject it. Yes, we can force the EU to consider alternate treaties. However, at the end of the day, Ireland will not stop the EU heading in the direction it is headed in. At best, it will redirect it very slightly.
So, like I've been saying for a long time - if your complaint is about loss of nationality, or this being the road to federalism, or that this is changing the playing field, then your complaint is not with Nice - its also with the Maastrich Treaty, the EU, and the path you will be asked to walk down in the future. In short - its with everything which the EU was, is and will be.
If this is what you have the problem with, then fine....but at least recognise that its not a problem with the Nice treaty per se, but rather that the Nice Treaty is symptomatic of a much larger problem.
Of course, Euro-skepticism is a lot harder to sell as anti-Nice material, but effectively thats what we're seeing....only its been cleverly wrapped up so that most people wont notice.
jc0 -
It appears that the Green Party have come up trumps again on 'over-the-top' statements.
Of course Nice is about Enlargement. What next from the Greens?0 -
NICE is not necessary for enlargement - Even Prodi has stated this. The YES are in absiolute disarray. Nice is about institutional change - the creation of a potential 2 tier Europe.
The Green Party is leading a pretty responsible campaign. The YES crowd are resorting to scare tactics.
Who put up those "Yes To Europe" posters - when we voted for Europe in 19730 -
As Cork has rightly stated. The Nice Treaty is not necessary for enlargement of the Union.
Perhaps bonkey has a point about the Maastricht treaty being the time Ireland should have dug in it's heels about Federalism. However the British are signatories of the Maastricht Treaty, but have not even agreed to join the Euro, thus the argument that somehow Ireland is indellably tied to Federal integration and that such a path is utterly set and solidified is spurious, if it were the case the British would be participants of the EU as opposed to what effectively amounts to 'observer status'.
Thus Federal integration is a choice that is not indellable, is not set and is on many different levels still negotiable.
In short Enlargement on the economic front should pose no problem for Ireland, however the political ammendum to the then EEC which has become the EU (as bonkey has pointed out) is in my opinion disadvantageous to this Republic, it's citizens and ultimately the economy that sustains both.
For example the Euro is a political move towards integration and has taken some of Ireland's soveringty and ceeded it to Brussels, which would seem to make sense for a Federal Union, where that argument breaks down on the economic front is that Ireland must now suffer interest rates set to the advantage of the Big two in the Euro, namely the French and the Germans, thus political Union is in some ways economically disadvantageous to Ireland.
Enlargement similary is not about economics, but rather politics, power bloc consolidation of Western Europe into the former Soviet sphere. No it is not a military Union as in the Union is not enforced by military means, rather it is a Union largely based on economy, however the Nice Treaty creates an effective (though small) European army, coincidentally just as the Union moves into the former Soviet sphere of influence.
It is possible to deny in perpetuity and decry the exponents of the theory that the EU is not all smiles and sunshine as the EU becomes a country as lunacy, however assuming it is not in fact lunacy, the EU is becoming a country, a country which the Germans and to a lesser extent French call the shots, that country has a currency and is creating an army. It is enlarging itself into Eastern Europe and it is creating an internal structure that can only lead to a one man one vote scenario, where in practice the large countries can dictate policy.
Thus if you believe that Nice is all about enlargement you must either willingly be ignoring evidence to the contrary or simply have not investigated the issues to any great extent.0 -
In response to Musicians and other requests for a concrete reason to vote no, the changes to article 133 would definitely provide me with this.
This adds a paragraph giving the European Commission the sole competence in negotiating the GATS and TRIPS agreements. This overturns a 1994 court of justice case, goes against the outcome of the Amsterdam negotiations and is acknowledged by Pascal Lamy (the trade commissioner) as lessening democracy and trasnparency in the union in the interests of efficiency.
It has nothing to do with enlargement and is rather put in place at the behest of the European Services Forum - a business group (dominated by Vivendi amongst others) who are pushing for the liberalisation / privatisation of services within and outside the EU.
Voting yest to Nice means we cannot debate these things - either at the European or National levels.
http://imc1.nologic.org/article133/0 -
The whole Nice thing has become just like the divorce and abortion referenda. Everyone beleives wholeheartedly that their opinion is right, and can't be swayed. As such, I refuse to argue it with anyone becuase it's a waste of time.
No, Nice is not just about enlargement. It's about levelling the playing field. Essentially, we will eventually have a United States of Europe, very similar to the USA, except that I can never see national indentities being lost. In the USA, it's one-man-one-vote. Why shouldn't it be the same in the EU? Proportional representation is only right. Why should we have the power to block decisions by nations with 10 or 11 times the population that we do? How would people in Dublin feel, if the Government decided to introduce a one-county-one-vote system for electing future governments? We'd be outraged, and rightly so, after all, one third of the entire population lives in this one county.
Without the EU, we would have been fúcked. No arguments, we'd still be living in mostly poverty, with high unemployment rates, and being sold out by corrupt politicians. We owe the EU. What sacrifices has Ireland made since joining the EU? Ummmm....none. France, Britain and Germany (and others) risked a lot to create the EEC and allow Ireland in. Suddenly, when a proposal doesn't fully benefit us, we turn around and say no? Ffs, that's just being childish.
I beleive as well, that we would be better off creating allegiances with the smaller countries that are allowed in, than making ourselves a hated figure by restricting the flow of these new countries in. Because with our without our vote, eventually these countries will join the EU. We'd be better off making friends with the smaller countries and giving ourselves a higher effective vote, instead of piggybacking the big guys and opposing all change which doesn't fully benefit us.
And frankly, I'd be far happier with a German cabinet running our country, than the useless shower of **** we have at the moment.0 -
That Lenihan interview is hilarious. He obviously hasn't a clue what article 133 is, and the indymedia people try to build a vast conspiracy theory out of his ignorance...Originally posted by seedot
http://imc1.nologic.org/article133/
OH NO SAVE US FROM THE EVIL CONSIPRACY OF SUIT-WEARING MIDDLE-AGED MEN.IMC RR: (Shouts after him) You're a fvcking liar! Minister! Why can you not tell me about article 133?
(BL COMES BACK TO THE IMC RR)
BL: Really you should learn a little bit of manners in your profession. Unfortunately you're unworthy of your profession.
IMC RR: Minister you are avoiding the Question. Why are you evading the question?
BL: You should Learn the manner and courtesy of your profession.
IMC RR: What is article 133 minister? You don't know what article 133 is?
(BL WALKS OUT OF FOYER)
IMC RR MAKES A HASTY EXIT AS A NUMBER OF UNIDENTIFIED MIDDLE AGED MEN IN SUITS OBSERVE THESE GOINGS ON WITH GROWING INTEREST AND CONCERN.0 -
No, Nice is not just about enlargement. It's about levelling the playing field. Essentially, we will eventually have a United States of Europe, very similar to the USA, except that I can never see national indentities being lost. In the USA, it's one-man-one-vote. Why shouldn't it be the same in the EU?
One man one vote, where Germany has what 84 million people and Ireland has 4 million, would mean that for example the Germans would have more say over Irish governance than the Irish. Why Ireland wouldn't want to join a Federal Union on a scale of five hundred million people is that the Irish would have no control over the governance of this country in practicle terms.
No one is actually old enough to remember English misrule of Ireland, but it wasn't a pretty thing, self governance though flawed, gives a much greater say for the little guy in Ireland, that is why being subsumed into a vast Federal Union is not in the interests of this country. The little guy from the small, marginalised peripheral nation gets no real say over the running of his country in a PR parliment which is representative of five hundred million people.
This is a nation, not merely a state, the differences of opinion and interest between me a Dubliner and a Galway man pale in comparison to the differences between me and citizen (x) from Munich, because we come from different countries, have different language,economies,cultural background, outlook on the world, economic interests the list goes on. Why should a Munich citizen be given any kind of say in how Ireland gets governed? How this country is governed is at best totally irrelevant to his day to day life, but is of substancial relevance to my day to day life, that is why in decisions that affect the national interest of Ireland one way the Irish can 'try' to make sure they have some kind of influence over important decisions that affect our culture,identity and national wellbeing, (because the Irish are so radically different a totally seperate and distinct entity from the rest of the nations (as are many in the Union)) is that Ireland retains effective control of it's self governance.Proportional representation is only right. Why should we have the power to block decisions by nations with 10 or 11 times the population that we do?
As I have said I believe the interests of a nation, vis-a-vis self governance trancends the lines of county/region/member state.How would people in Dublin feel, if the Government decided to introduce a one-county-one-vote system for electing future governments? We'd be outraged, and rightly so, after all, one third of the entire population lives in this one county.
Where do you get this from? Without prudent economic management and lots of hard work from the Irish worker and low taxes Ireland would still be poor. You get nothing for nothing. The EEC free trade area is good for the Irish economy, but don't delude yourself into thinking that the EU in it's benovalance has created a Celtic Tiger economy, it hasn't. Ireland is highly dependant on high tech exports, and the USA over the past ten years has been the engine for the high tech boom, and it was nothing to do with France or Germany that the Irish were prudent enough to capitalise on that boom. Had the Irish not been so cute, this country would still be poor, no arguments.No arguments, we'd still be living in mostly poverty, with high unemployment rates, and being sold out by corrupt politicians.We owe the EU. What sacrifices has Ireland made since joining the EU? Ummmm....none.
We owe the EU? I thought we were supposed to be part of the 'EU', so is it your contention that Ireland is not in fact part of it or that Ireland owes itsefl? You've lost me, perhaps 'we' should ask the EU to give back the billions in fish it has extracted from Irish seas, or more accurately the Spanish have extracted from Irish seas. This point aside, the EU has now decided it can dictate how much the Irish should contribute to the EU from 2007 on wards. Say hello to the first EU tax.
France blocked British entry into the then EEC for years.France, Britain and Germany (and others) risked a lot to create the EEC and allow Ireland in.I beleive as well, that we would be better off creating allegiances with the smaller countries that are allowed in, than making ourselves a hated figure by restricting the flow of these new countries in.
Am I sensing an element of fear in your posting about our 'European partners'?
A higher effective vote? You've lost me again.Because with our without our vote, eventually these countries will join the EU. We'd be better off making friends with the smaller countries and giving ourselves a higher effective vote, instead of piggybacking the big guys and opposing all change which doesn't fully benefit us.
However I think I catch your jist. No Germany, France and others did not in fact allow Ireland into the Union out of the kindness of their hearts, as much as I'd like to believe that was why, in practice if the likes of France were such a bleeding heart nation, it wouldn't have 'displaced' people from tropical islands so that it could test Nuclear weapons. So given that the afore mentioned nations aren't in fact bleeding hearts, I would postulate that Ireland was allowed entry into the Union such that the Union's sphere of influence could be extended that much further, not because after allowing Ireland to be ruled by England for six hundred years the rest of Europe suddenly felt a burning desire to intercede in Ireland and help out.And frankly, I'd be far happier with a German cabinet running our country, than the useless shower of **** we have at the moment.
Get your facts straight, Helmut Kohl the former German Chancellor is in the centre of an election funding scandal.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/today/article/0,6729,360742,00.html
Of course the age old argument about Irish being unfit for self governance was used by the British to rationalise rule from Westminster and all I find in the comment you just made is more of the same nonesense. Let me assure you self governance for Ireland gives you and I much more say over how, when and where things get done in Ireland then ceeding soveringty to Brussels ever will.0 -
Advertisement
-
This is a very 19th century view of international relations. International politics is no longer a zero-sum game. Pooling sovereignty in Brussels does not necessarily mean that Ireland is less powerful. It is arguable that Ireland now has much more influence over its destiny now than when we were outside the EU. Back then, the punt was tied to sterling and we had no say whatsoever over the Bank of England's economic decisions. Now, we do not have control over the EU Central Bank, but at least we have a voice in its decisions. Before EU membership, we were a lone voice at the UN. We were at the mercy of tarriffs imposed by other nations (the economic war with the UK in the 1930s). Now, we have a well-respected voice at the EU decision-making table.This is a nation, not merely a state, the differences of opinion and interest between me a Dubliner and a Galway man pale in comparison to the differences between me and citizen (x) from Munich, because we come from different countries, have different language,economies,cultural background, outlook on the world, economic interests the list goes on. Why should a Munich citizen be given any kind of say in how Ireland gets governed? How this country is governed is at best totally irrelevant to his day to day life, but is of substancial relevance to my day to day life, that is why in decisions that affect the national interest of Ireland one way the Irish can 'try' to make sure they have some kind of influence over important decisions that affect our culture,identity and national wellbeing
Ireland's "independence" before it joined the EU is in many ways an illusion. Ireland's membership of the EU has given it much more power to influence its own affairs, economically and otherwise, than an isolationist Ireland could ever hope for.0 -
This is the crux of the Green argument. What it fails to see is the logistical nightmare of permitting this under the current system. As we have seen many times, the use of a veto has been used unfairly as a bartering chip to furthur the political agendae of various member states. Should the EU grow by an additional 5 member states without implementation of the Nice treaty, this veto will still be in place, which means that any resolution or piece of legislation has a commensurately smaller chance of being ratified at European level.Originally posted by bonkey:
An additional 5 members are permitted in the current structure.
The current reform of EU institutions and voting procedures, though in the pipeline for a while have been brought to a head with the interest of many European States to enter the EU. Thus while Nice is essentially about bringing reform to EU institutions, the effect of these reforms is to facilitate a smoother enlargement process that guarentees member's rights and soverignty.
One a more concrete level, Nice also allows more member states to join than the current status quo (as bonkey has pointed out). If Nice should be rejected, who gets to pick and choose which countries should be allowed in and which should be rejected?
Thus, IMO the Green view is at best short sighted, at worst deliberately fallacious.
I agree. Therefore should we ratify Nice we still have the soverign right of national self determination (as demonstrated in the Seville declarations). Should we decide to opt for a federal system (and the EU would have to act in unanimity for this to take effect), we have the right to decide this matter on the basis of a plebiscite on the matter. Thus, whether accusations of Europe marching towards a Federal Superstate are groundless or not, this will not affect us unless we specifically want it. Fat chance of that happening, in this generation at least, IMO.Originally posted by Typedef:
Thus Federal integration is a choice that is not indellable, is not set and is on many different levels still negotiable0 -
A second refusal of the Nice Treaty by the Irish in a referendum will not stop enlargement of the European Union, French Minister for European Affairs, Noëlle Lenoir, claimed in Strasbourg on Tuesday, according to the Agence France Press, (AFP).
Prodi has also stated that a NO to Nice will not stop enlargement.
I think the YES camp are trying to use confusion as a tactic. When they realiseb that there is nothing in this treaty for Ireland - they try and confuse the public0 -
Originally posted by bonkey
An additional 5 members are permitted in the current structure. Unfortunately, there are far more than 5 countries looking for entry, and the EU wants these countries to be members.
Sure. So do I. So do most of us. Question is, when will they be ready? Let's say that Estonia and Slovenia, recipients of lots and lots of funding from Finland/Sweden and Austria, are doing really well; let's say that the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary are the next best candidates due to their size and industry. OK, that gives us five countries in under the current rules, no problem.
What about the others? Romania is a disaster, most of us know that. I'm not going to go over the list of all of them, but will give an anecdote about one of them. Last week I was in Bulgaria. Nice place. Great food. Plenty of it. Poor infrastructure, from rusted buildings to buckling pavement tiles that wanted replacing 25 years ago. Just what you'd expect. Not insurmountable difficulties.
Some 85% of Bulgarians own their flat or house or have a dacha or some property somewhere, apparently. That's pretty cool. But the one thing that I saw as a huge impediment to them participating in the EU the way the rest of us do -- is that they have an entirely cash economy. You buy books with cash. You buy your car with cash. You buy your house with cash. And it works. Now what is going to happen when the almighty credit card and ECB interest rates are introduced?
I think some of the aspirant countries are pretty far away from being ready to deal with membership. What's the rush?
Just my thoughts.
By the way, most Bulgarians are more interested in the way their government is bending over backwards to join NATO than they are in the question of the EU. So I was told.0 -
But the one thing that I saw as a huge impediment to them participating in the EU the way the rest of us do -- is that they have an entirely cash economy. You buy books with cash. You buy your car with cash. You buy your house with cash. And it works. Now what is going to happen when the almighty credit card and ECB interest rates are introduced?
I fail to see your point here. If credit cards/bank accounts and ECB interest rates are introduced, then people are going to start to use these more and more as a way of conducting business. I don't believe that it will have the detrimental effect that you believe it will have. I for example do not yet own a credit card (although I'm planning on getting one soon). My interaction with a bank is limited (mostly) to using the ATM. Yet Credit Cards, cheque books, Laser cards etc have been around for years, yet not all business adopt their use, it merely provides an extra means of business payment for those that do. Rather than providing a business revolution, ebusiness and modern means of conducting a business is more akin to a business evolution.
I don't really want to second guess the reasons applicant countries may have for joining the EU, but I would guess that economic reasons would feature on the list. Thus "the rush" would be to try to get its economy up to scratch, which would not only benefit the country in question, but also Ireland (as it would give us a more viable export market). Given this, why should we opt for unnecessary delays?
This decision should really be left to the applicant countries (who have all promised to hold a plebiscite on the matter) as far as I am concerned. As long as they sign up to the Acquis Communitaire, then I don't see any reason why we should exclude them.I think some of the aspirant countries are pretty far away from being ready to deal with membership.
So you were told? Do you have anything to link that could back up this point. I'm not necessarily disputing your point, just asking for a little evidence before I accept it as undisputed fact.By the way, most Bulgarians are more interested in the way their government is bending over backwards to join NATO than they are in the question of the EU.0 -
Originally posted by swiss
I fail to see your point here. If credit cards/bank accounts and ECB interest rates are introduced, then people are going to start to use these more and more as a way of conducting business.
The point is that the Bulgarians, by and large, are happy doing business the way they do. Interfacing an economy where you pay cash for a house with the kind of economy we have is likely to take rather a long time. Or so I would suspect.
I was just trying to point out that conditions in some of these countries is a lot different than we imagine.I don't believe that it will have the detrimental effect that you believe it will have. I for example do not yet own a credit card (although I'm planning on getting one soon). My interaction with a bank is limited (mostly) to using the ATM. Yet Credit Cards, cheque books, Laser cards etc have been around for years, yet not all business adopt their use, it merely provides an extra means of business payment for those that do. Rather than providing a business revolution, ebusiness and modern means of conducting a business is more akin to a business evolution.I don't really want to second guess the reasons applicant countries may have for joining the EU, but I would guess that economic reasons would feature on the list. Thus "the rush" would be to try to get its economy up to scratch, which would not only benefit the country in question, but also Ireland (as it would give us a more viable export market).
Another colleague of mine from Hungary (who had worked with me on the totally unrelated issue of encoding Old Hungarian Runic in Unicode) wrote to ask if joining the EU had been good for Ireland. People are discussing this a lot in Hungary these days, he says. (I said that I thought it had been very good for Ireland, and he was not talking about the provisions of Nice with regard to the question of Hungary's membership.)Given this, why should we opt for unnecessary delays?
If you mean "why not vote Yes on Nice now since countries want to join the EU" I must beg to differ with you. I think the provisions set out in Nice are disadvantageous to the applicant countries and to the member countries alike. I want Nice to fail, and I want to see a new treaty drawn up. I think that there are a lot of European citizens who feel very much the same, but it is only the fact that our Constitution differs from theirs that we get to vote on this matter.This decision should really be left to the applicant countries (who have all promised to hold a plebiscite on the matter) as far as I am concerned. As long as they sign up to the Acquis Communitaire, then I don't see any reason why we should exclude them.
I do not suggest excluding any country who meets the criteria. I only suggested that it would appear that some are going to take a lot longer to meet those criteria than others. Hence, what's the rush on Nice? The five strongest candidates can be accommodated by the current treaty.So you were told? Do you have anything to link that could back up this point. I'm not necessarily disputing your point, just asking for a little evidence before I accept it as undisputed fact.
Well, no, I don't have links. I was told this, by more than one Bulgarian, on different occasions. Apparently there is some ridicule levelled at the Bulgarian President or Prime Minister for being really slithery (raising taxes for Nato, introducing travel barriers for Russians for Nato). Perhaps a web search will turn up something.0 -
Nice is not legally necessary for enlargement, for up to five new members anyway. It is, however, desirable in order to reform the institutions of the EU so that they can still function effectively in the event of enlargement.Can anyone explain what the Greeners are on about?
The structural funds are paid for out of the EU’s budget. The amount to be spent and how it will be spent will be decided by QMV. However, each country’s contribution to the EU budget is a fixed percentage of GNP, so that Ireland cannot be forced to cough up any amount the rest of Europe demands.I accept that under agenda 2000 Ireland will help to fund and rebuild the economies of the post-Soviet applicant countries, what I object to in the Nice treaty is that Qualified Majority Voting will in fact dictate how much Ireland will contribute to this rebuilding process…. In fact it seems like a very important potential issue, that Europe can effectively levy amount(x) from Ireland for these structural funds …
At present, France and Germany together control 23% of the votes in the Council of Ministers. In a union of 27 they will control 16.8%.Where you say inefficient or awkward I would say inconvienant and untenable for France/Germany to dominate, so the structure had to be changed to facilitate a greater 'reweighting'.
As it currently stands, paragraph 5 of Article 133 says:In response to Musicians and other requests for a concrete reason to vote no, the changes to article 133 would definitely provide me with this.
This adds a paragraph giving the European Commission the sole competence in negotiating the GATS and TRIPS agreements. This overturns a 1994 court of justice case, goes against the outcome of the Amsterdam negotiations and is acknowledged by Pascal Lamy (the trade commissioner) as lessening democracy and trasnparency in the union in the interests of efficiency.
It has nothing to do with enlargement and is rather put in place at the behest of the European Services Forum - a business group (dominated by Vivendi amongst others) who are pushing for the liberalisation / privatisation of services within and outside the EU.
Voting yest to Nice means we cannot debate these things - either at the European or National levels.
The Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, may extend the application of paragraphs 1 to 4 to inter-national negotiations and agreements on services and intellectual property insofar as they are not covered by these paragraphs.
Thus the Council already has the power to grant the Commission responsibility in negotiating agreements on services and intellectual property. Any such negotiated agreement can be approved by the Council by QMV. Voting No to Nice will not prevent this.
What the Treaty of Nice will do is to exclude “agreements relating to trade in cultural and audiovisual services, educational services, and social and human health services” from these provisions. Thus these areas will have greater protection under Nice than under the status quo.
This has nothing to do with Nice. Why are you bringing it up?One man one vote, where Germany has what 84 million people and Ireland has 4 million, would mean that for example the Germans would have more say over Irish governance than the Irish. Why Ireland wouldn't want to join a Federal Union on a scale of five hundred million people is that the Irish would have no control over the governance of this country in practicle terms.
And isn’t that their problem? What business is it of ours to be making that decision for them?I think some of the aspirant countries are pretty far away from being ready to deal with membership. What's the rush?0 -
The Amsterdam Treaty, which Ireland ratified in 1998, was presented to people, like Nice, as being a treaty to facilitate the enlargement of the EU. Amsterdam, which remains in force if the Nice Treaty is rejected, is in fact far more congenial to a practical enlargement of the EU than is Nice.
It is legally incorrect to say that only 5 new States can join the EU onthe basis of the Treaty of Amsterdam and the other existing EU Treaties. All the Amsterdam Treaty says is that when the EU reaches 20 THERE WILL BE A CONFERENCE TO REVIEW THE INSTITUTIONS, that is, the Commission, Council,
Court,and Parliament. It does not put any legal bar on the EU enlarging by 10 or more new States by means of their Accession Treaties, which is how the EU enlarged on several previous occasions. If 10 Applicant countries
are getting ready to join the EU - as is the case at present - once their Accession Treaties have been signed, there is no need to pick and choose
among them as to which ones can join first. That is a totally spurious dilemma, which has been put forward by some people on the Yes-side who want to distract attention from what the Amsterdam Treaty really says.
It is true that Amsterdam envisaged a more gradual EU enlargement, with 5 new States joining the EU and then taking part in a grand conference to
review the EU institutions (Although Amsterdam does not legally preclude a "Big Bang" enlargement of 10 new Members or more.) A more gradual enlargement may well have been better both for the Applicant countries and for the existing EU. It may indeed be still what occurs, depending on how
the negotiations with the Applicant countries go on the 10 Accession
Treaties. Nice makes fundamental changes to the rules governing the EU, in the interest of the Big States, BEFORE any new State joins it. The Nice Treaty conference itself, which took place without any new EU Members
participating in it, was in effect a substitute for the grand conference to review the institutions that was originally proposed in the Treaty of Amsterdam.
A comparison of the Amsterdam and Nice Treaties from the point of view of
how they facilitate EU enlargement, shows that Nice is really more about
"deepening" the EU, by changing its fundamental rules, than it is about
"widening" it by including more countries. Objectively therefore, Nice
makes EU enlargement more difficult for the Applicants, as they have to
take on board all the new rules of Nice which they had no say in making,
BEFORE any of them can join the EU. These new rules are the two-class,
two-tier EU provisions (so-called "enhanced cooperation"), acceptance of
the principle of a rotating Commission for an enlarged EU, the shift in
weighted votes on the Council of Ministers to the Big States from the
Small, majority voting instead of unanimity for appointing national
Commissioners, the abolition of the veto in 30 policy areas, and
significant moves towards militarizing the EU. Legally most of these
provisions have nothing as such to do with EU enlargement.0
Advertisement