One man's reason to vote yes

Yoda

From today's Irish Times letters to the editor:

Sir, -- This doesn't come in a brown envelope but it's language they'll understand. I will vote Yes in the re-run of the Nice referendum, if Fianna Fáil will re-run the general election before Christmas. Don't laugh -- I'm deadly serious. -- Yours, etc., LIAM J. McMULLIN, Galway.

I don't think it would make me change my views about the weighted votes rejuggling in the Treaty, but I think it's clear that we may expect a lot of No votes from citizens enfuriated with Fianna Fáil's litany of lies.

sceptre

Pity there's no full address printed. Worthy of sending the price of a pint to the guy at least

Yoda

His full address is printed in the paper; I didn't think it appropriate to post it to the boards.

Cork

This treaty deserves to be defeated because it is a bad treaty. FF ran a very polished election campaign.

When Albert was rounded upon by the media........who complained?

Just - because FF ran a campaign to get re-elected and suceeded.

Everybody knew about the economy was on a slide or was Matt Cooper & others writings just ignored by the general public?

swiss

Sir, -- This doesn't come in a brown envelope but it's language they'll understand. I will vote Yes in the re-run of the Nice referendum, if Fianna Fáil will re-run the general election before Christmas. Don't laugh -- I'm deadly serious. -- Yours, etc., LIAM J. McMULLIN, Galway.

Well Mr McMullin, if you happen to read these boards and see this thread I would just like to say that I think this is a highly irresponsible and badly misdirected demonstratation of your annoyance with the current government.

Let's explore the fallacies of Mr McMullin's logic.

1) A representative body is voted in on the basis that it will do XYZ

2) Later, it is found that this same body has deliberately lied, and instead intends to do ABC

3) This representative body brings out another pledge, to do DEF. Unlike XYZ, it delivers on this.

4) People do not validate the representatives body to do DEF because of it's failure to implement XYZ.

This isn't a particularly good example, but it will do. Obviously, ABC (what the representative body is doing to which people object) has nothing to do with DEF (the Nice treaty - I might as well say it). Thus attempting to equate the two is fallacious IMO.

DiscoStu

3) This representative body brings out another pledge, to do DEF. Unlike XYZ, it delivers on this.

There being the problem. One year ago the people decided that they didnt want to accept DEF. There was a small turnout but would FF or any other party have any objections to taking government in a general election if there was an equal turnout to the first nice vote? No.

Its disgusting that we have to vote on the same flawed treaty with changes one of the very fundamental priciples the EU was founded on, equality, because the government did not get the result thay wanted. It is the antithesis of democracy. If the government want to undermine the electoral process why shouldnt the people use their vote to complain?

swiss

Originally posted by DiscoStu:

Its disgusting that we have to vote on the same flawed treaty with changes one of the very fundamental priciples the EU was founded on, equality, because the government did not get the result thay wanted

This is a valid argument, one that I do not necessarily agree with, but it is not the reason Mr McMullin cited for voting no. He is blackmailing the government by using his vote on the treaty to strongarm the government on matters unrelated to the specifics of the treaty itself. This is wrong, IMO.

dahamsta

[ Doesn't anyone in here think that just possibly Mr. McMullen was having a wee bit of fun? Especially when he effectively just copied it from a letter in De Paper the week before. You guys are so uptight. Anyway... ]

This treaty deserves to be defeated because it is a bad treaty.

<adam falls off his chair> You're not disagreeing with a Fianna Fail policy Cork, are you? You should see a doctor about that.

FF ran a very polished election campaign.

Indeed, Fianna Fail has been consistently polished at lying to the public. It used to be the only thing they were good at, but now they can't even get that right.

Everybody knew about the economy was on a slide

Indeed, but people in general are gullible, which makes it all the more offensive that Fianna Fail tried to paint it otherwise in order to win the election. Sure, politics is politics, but let's be honest, good politics is not getting caught. Bertie and McGreedy got caught rotten. Charlie must be crying in his sleep. (Although I'd prefer it if I was able to say "turning in his grave", creepy little turd that he is.)

adam

I for one will be voting yes. I see no problem in declaring that fact, it's an informed decision and I have no problem with anyone voting no as is their right.

People are entitled to be given an oportunity to change their minds on an issue. The second Nice vote is democratic in that respect.
I would like to know though what avenues are available to this country if the Nice Treaty is passed , yet down the line for whatever reason opinion polls indicate that it was a bad decision and that people want to change their minds again?

Originally posted by Swiss:

He is blackmailing the government by using his vote on the treaty to strongarm the government on matters unrelated to the specifics of the treaty itself. This is wrong, IMO.

I 100% agree with that statement.
The Nice treaty should be voted on for what it is and not for any disagreement with the current government.
If this Government lasts it's full five year term , then judge it on it's achievements or lack of them.
In the mean time lobby your local T.D to air disagreement or use by-elections.
mm

DiscoStu

People are entitled to be given an oportunity to change their minds on an issue

But what has changed to warrent people changing their minds? its still the same bad treaty put to us before.

The government dosnt listen to the people, McCreevy's comments yesterday while addressing a group in nui dublin highlighted this when he felt he didnt have to answer questions over accusations of mismanaging the economy. Unless there is a freak hurricane that hits the FF conference the chance of dealing the govenment a crippling blow will not come for another 5 years. imo this is a vote that should not talking place and highjacking it over sideline issues is justified as it will show it up for the farce that it is.

meglome

IMHO It's fundamentally wrong to re-run a referendum, exactly the same referendum, which has already been rejected by the people. This is NOT democracy. I think that the constitution should be altered to stop the same rejected referendum being put before the people.

I wasn't able to vote the last time and wasn't 100% sure which way to vote, this time I'm swinging towards a no. What are we supposed to do with a government that is caught lying to us and re-runs another referendum just because they don't like the result. Personally I think a no vote would force the government to actually address the issues instead of just running a glitzy advertising campaign to solve it. In the short-term a no vote will look bad for us in Europe but in the long-term it’s a vote for democracy, which is more important.

Originally posted by DiscoStu
But what has changed to warrent people changing their minds? its still the same bad treaty put to us before.

The government dosnt listen to the people, McCreevy's comments yesterday while addressing a group in nui dublin highlighted this when he felt he didnt have to answer questions over accusations of mismanaging the economy. Unless there is a freak hurricane that hits the FF conference the chance of dealing the govenment a crippling blow will not come for another 5 years. imo this is a vote that should not talking place and highjacking it over sideline issues is justified as it will show it up for the farce that it is.

If the Nice treaty is passed this time, people have changed their minds, that will be a fact regardless.
I f Charlie Mccreevy was in UCD or wherever to talk on the Nice treaty, then he was entitled not to answer questions on the mis-handling of the Economy.
If he was there to speak on the latter then he should have spoke on that.
Although he should accept an invitation to come back and speak on the Economy.
mm

Meh

Originally posted by meglome
IMHO It's fundamentally wrong to re-run a referendum, exactly the same referendum, which has already been rejected by the people. This is NOT democracy.

It's not the exact same referendum. The government has added two clauses to the previous proposed amendment. Here, read it for yourself.

I think that the constitution should be altered to stop the same rejected referendum being put before the people.

So once the people voted No to divorce in 1982, they should never have been allowed vote on it again? Your proposal sounds a lot more undemocratic than the alternative.

MrPudding

Originally posted by DiscoStu
But what has changed to warrent people changing their minds? its still the same bad treaty put to us before.

The level of some peoples knowledge has changed. I know several people who voted no the last time because they didn't understand the thing. This time round they took a bit more interest in it, did a bit of reading and have made a decision. Some of them will vote no again but not because they don't understand it this time but because thay see something in it that they don't like. Some will vote yes. I think this is a good thing. IMO running a referendum again is not undemocratic, people do change their opinions, it would be undemocratic to not allow them to show it.

meglome

Ok it's not EXACTLY the same referendum but damn close to it. And at the very least there should be a minimum time between re-runs, which should be a few years.

I just don’t think how the government is behaving could be called democratic.

Typedef

I must admit the government must really be desperate if it is attempting to place a constitutional barrier to Irish participation in a European Army on ithe Treaty of Nice Referendum.

The moronic part is that it is only with the Treaty of Nice being passed that the Rapid Reaction force (aka European Army) can actually be created.

So given the choice of Ireland placing a constitutional barrier to a European Army and approving the Nice Treaty or Ireland rejecting the Nice Treaty and filibustering or perhaps even preventing a European Army's creation I prefare to vote my concience and defeat the treaty of Nice (again).

Conjoining a constitutional ammendment against participation in a European Army to the very treaty that creates such an entity is a fallacy of logic and is hypocritical. On the one hand the government is telling voters to vote to create the Rapid Reaction force because the government says that such a thing would be good, and at the same time the government is saying vote for Nice and prevent Ireland joining such an entity, hmm.
I came across this link http://www.teameurope.info/members/nice-referendum.0628.htm which claims that Denmark has acquired an exemption of contributing funds to a Common European Defence entity, whilst Ireland has not, again this seem like the first of many back door taxes being introduced by Europe, the most notable other one being Ireland's inability to decide when and how much money it contributes to the EU's structural funds, as this amount will instead be decided by Qualifed Majority Voting.

Funnily enough, I saw Bertie going into St Lukes on the Drumcondra road on Friday and I almost felt guilty for the long list of Fianna Fail lies I have been involved in poiting out on boards.ie, then I remembered, being seen in the local boozer is part of Bertie's man of the people image and I would be a real sucker to be taken in by the man's charisma, when compared to the way he and his party have mauled democracy in this country, lied to the electorate on a scale that even supporters of Fianna Fail seem to be taken aback with, and have run the finances of this country into the ground because the government just can't say no when it comes to spending tax payers money.

Originally posted by Typedef
So given the choice of Ireland placing a constitutional barrier to a European Army and approving the Nice Treaty or Ireland rejecting the Nice Treaty and filibustering or perhaps even preventing a European Army's creation I prefare to vote my concience and defeat the treaty of Nice (again).

Conjoining a constitutional ammendment against participation in a European Army to the very treaty that creates such an entity is a fallacy of logic and is hypocritical. On the one hand the government is telling voters to vote to create the Rapid Reaction force because the government says that such a thing would be good, and at the same time the government is saying vote for Nice and prevent Ireland joining such an entity, hmm.

Fair enough. Aren't the majority of the E.U's population alligned to Nato anyway and therefore not neutral?
That makes it very difficult to go down the road of a "United states of Europe"(for want of a better phrase) with countries like Ireland being Neutral.
We won't be involved ourselves in terms of the army(assuming the constitutional prohibition does it's job) but we will suffer the consequenses of any war in which the E.U gets involved, financially as future net contributers .
Of course we won't be directly contributing to an army, but indirectly and by stealth.

So unfortunately from the way I see it anyhow, regardless of how much we like our neutrality, it's going to be diluted, by our partners not being neutral.

Being in Europe nowadays seems to be a game of compromise, a game of weighing up what we gain or what we lose and whether we are better off with that compromise or without it.
mm

Meh

Originally posted by Typedef
The moronic part is that it is only with the Treaty of Nice being passed that the Rapid Reaction force (aka European Army) can actually be created.

The Nice Treaty doesn't mention the words "Rapid Reaction Force" even once. What the Nice Treaty does say about common defence (Article 1.2, page 7):

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

Cork

The Treaty of Nice is the necessary legal path to dividing the EU into what former Commission President Jacques Delors has called "A Union for the enlarged Europe and a Federation for the avant-garde."

The miscalled "enhanced cooperation" provisions of Nice open the necessary legal path to a two-class two-tier EU along these lines,under the hegemony of the Big States, Germany and France in particular.

Nice militarizes the EU by giving it direct responsibility for the
60,000 soldier Rapid Reaction Force. It makes the EU an alliance for mutual offence abroad, although not for mutual defence.

Nice is not primarily about EU enlargement. It is about DIVIDING EUROPE, SHIFTING VOTING POWER TO THE BIG STATES, CENTRALISING more decisions in Brussels, and MILITARIZING THE EU

sceptre

Backtracking a little (sorry) but what I took out of the letter was that the chap was saying something like:

Bertie has said that the reason we voted no in the last referendum was that we didn't understand what was best for the country and weren't armed with the full facts to show us that voting in a particular manner would have been best for Ireland. We didn't know what we were doing. So we made a mistake last time we voted.

Moving on to the general election...

Meh

Originally posted by Cork
Nice militarizes the EU by giving it direct responsibility for the 60,000 soldier Rapid Reaction Force. It makes the EU an alliance for mutual offence abroad, although not for mutual defence.

Can you quote from the treaty to support this, like I did in my post above? Or are you just parroting No vote propaganda?

Typedef

Originally posted by Meh
The Nice Treaty doesn't mention the words "Rapid Reaction Force" even once. What the Nice Treaty does say about common defence (Article 1.2, page 7):

And from the Same Treaty

(Article 1.2 page 7)

2. Questions referred to in this Article shall include humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping
tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking.

4. The provisions of this Article shall not prevent the development of closer cooperation between
two or more Member States on a bilateral level, in the framework of the Western European Union
(WEU) and NATO, provided such cooperation does not run counter to or impede that provided for
in this Title.

In other words the European Union's Rapid Reaction Force may be deployed for reasons mentioned in Article 1.2.2 of the Nice Treaty and if any of the states participating in the Union want to form even closer military co-operation within the framework of the Union then that is just fine.

So you can deny until the cows come home that the Rapid Reaction Force is going to happen or is planned, but you had better tell the BBC and Geroge Bush all about it.

From the BBC
Steps are being taken to create a European force of 60,000 troops, with supporting air and naval assets.

Often called the Euro-army it is designed to allow Europe to mount its own military operations, after decades of reliance on Nato and the United States.

The force, which planners aim to have ready by 2003, will be capable of being deployed at 60 days' notice, and sustained for a year.

Its tasks, according to the Treaty of Nice, will include "humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking".

The force is designed to complement rather than compete with Nato, and will only act when Nato has decided not to get involved.

The Bush administration has voiced its support for the force, saying it will strengthen the Nato alliance.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/europe/euro-glossary/1054403.stm

Meh

I'm not denying that the RRF is going to happen; I'm making the point that the Nice Treaty has nothing to do with the RRF.

Originally posted by Typedef

4. The provisions of this Article shall not prevent the development of closer cooperation between two or more Member States on a bilateral level, in the framework of the Western European Union (WEU) and NATO, provided such cooperation does not run counter to or impede that provided for in this Title.

In other words the European Union's Rapid Reaction Force may be deployed for reasons mentioned in Article 1.2.2 of the Nice Treaty and if any of the states participating in the Union want to form even closer military co-operation within the framework of the Union then that is just fine.

But from article 1.6.2:

Enhanced cooperation pursuant to this Title shall relate to implementation of a joint action or a
common position. It shall not relate to matters having military or defence implications.

So closer cooperation on defence can't take place within the framework of the Union. EU member states can cooperate more closely on defence without involving the EU, fine. But they aren't allowed use EU institutions for this purpose. Any EU common defence must be approved unanimously by all member states (since defence is excluded from QMV).

Typedef

Meh as you most likely know the Treaty of Amsterdam created a mechanism by which the EU could begin to exponenciate a foreign policy.

In October 1997 the fifteen member states of the Union signed a further treaty in Amsterdam which takes CFSP a long step forward. The Treaty further identified ways in which these objectives are to be pursued. Inter alia it created a policy planning and early warning unit to monitor and assess the significance of relevant political developments, produce policy option papers and provide early warning of potential crises outside the Union. It also introduced a new office – that of High Representative for CFSP. Javier Solana, previously Secretary-General of NATO, was appointed as the first High Representative, taking up his position in 1999.

http://www.ecdel.org.au/eu_guide/cfsp.htm

Article 1.2.2 of the Nice Treaty set outs uses of the Rapid Reaction Force, the Rapid Reaction Force is not being created by the Nice Treaty true enough, however the Rapid Reaction Force is been given a mandate by the Treaty of Nice and without the Treaty to give the Rapid Reaction Force a mandate to act in the name of the EU of which Ireland is a member the Rapid Reaction Force cannot be created and cannot add military ammendum to representations made by Javier Solana (or others) on behalf of the EU and thus on behalf of Ireland.

So yes the creation of the Rapid Reaction Force in Europe is not accountable, though I'm not sure that is what you were trying to point out, what the Nice Treaty does is create guidelines for the Rapid Reaction Force to operate in and without those guidelines the force cannot be brought into existance.

ReefBreak

2. Questions referred to in this Article shall include humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping
tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking.

4. The provisions of this Article shall not prevent the development of closer cooperation between
two or more Member States on a bilateral level, in the framework of the Western European Union
(WEU) and NATO, provided such cooperation does not run counter to or impede that provided for
in this Title.QUOTE]

Do the No side have a problem with Ireland joining in with "Humanitarian and rescue tasks"?
Do the No side have a problem with Ireland joining in with "peacekeeping"?
Do the No side have a problem with Ireland joining in with "tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking"?

I find all of the above to be a very good reason to vote Yes. And if this is one of the reasons that the No side are urging for a rejection of the Treaty, then my respect for the No campaigners has really gone downhill.

Typedef

I don't mean to be rude, however if you think that the Rapid Reaction Force will be used for "Peacekeeping" as opposed to fighting for the economic interests of the large member states you must be niave or simply ignoring the recent histroy of some of the 'member states' who are squarely behind the Rapid Reaction Force.

For example the French in 1990's tested Nuclear Weapons in the vicinity of Polynesia and the British in the 1960s had a proxy government in Australia "displace" abroigine people from land the aborigine people had been living in for upwards of 60,000 years to test Nuclear weapons. Not particularly humanitarian records for the two principal proponents of the Rapid Reaction Force.

Still if you think a Rapid Reaction Force sponsored by France,Britain and Germany will be used for "peacekeeping" as opposed to "gauranteeing interests" feel free to decry the position I put forward and vote accordingly if that is your choice, needless to say for me the Rapid Reaction Force seems like a Neo Imperialist entity dressed up with some politically correct banners to bang a drum underneath, then again perhaps that is simply because of the association of the term Imperialism with British,French,Germans,Spanish,Portuguese and Italians throughout the centuries.

Originally posted by Typedef
I don't mean to be rude, however if you think that the Rapid Reaction Force will be used for "Peacekeeping" as opposed to fighting for the economic interests of the large member states you must be niave or simply ignoring the recent histroy of some of the 'member states' who are squarely behind the Rapid Reaction Force.

For example the French in 1990's tested Nuclear Weapons in the vicinity of Polynesia and the British in the 1960s had a proxy government in Australia "displace" abroigine people from land the aborigine people had been living in for upwards of 60,000 years to test Nuclear weapons. Not particularly humanitarian records for the two principal proponents of the Rapid Reaction Force.

Still if you think a Rapid Reaction Force sponsored by France,Britain and Germany will be used for "peacekeeping" as opposed to "gauranteeing interests" feel free to decry the position I put forward and vote accordingly if that is your choice, needless to say for me the Rapid Reaction Force seems like a Neo Imperialist entity dressed up with some politically correct banners to bang a drum underneath, then again perhaps that is simply because of the association of the term Imperialism with British,French,Germans,Spanish,Portuguese and Italians throughout the centuries.

Gosh I have to hand it to you, Typedef, with convictions held as strongly as that I can see why you would vote no.
Unfortunately, your no vote will have very little bearing on whether the Imperialist forces of France, Britain or Germany etc set up an Army between them or not.

If it were not for the forces of the U.S and Britain in the 1940's, Germany and the rest of Europe might be a little more imperialist than it is today,n'est pas ?

To displace Aboriginies for to test awful nuclear weapons was wrong. But back then when the U.S.S.R was placing them in Cuba and were in striking range of Gt Britain from Eastern Europe-Western Governments had to test their own somewhere, to show that theirs worked too.
That deterent while awfull worked well to preserve and promote Democracy and our vote in this upcoming referendum.
mm

ReefBreak

I don't mean to be rude, however if you think that the Rapid Reaction Force will be used for "Peacekeeping" as opposed to fighting for the economic interests of the large member states you must be niave or simply ignoring the recent histroy of some of the 'member states' who are squarely behind the Rapid Reaction Force....
...needless to say for me the Rapid Reaction Force seems like a Neo Imperialist entity dressed up with some politically correct banners to bang a drum underneath, then again perhaps that is simply because of the association of the term Imperialism with British,French,Germans,Spanish,Portuguese and Italians throughout the centuries.

So... you're voting No not on what the Nice Treaty says, but on what you think might happen with the "Neo-Imperialist" entities of Britain, France, etc. I don't mean to be rude either, but I'm voting on what the Treaty says, and if it says "humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking" then I believe Ireland should be 100% behind it, instead of hiding behind the Neutrality flag (which would not be applicable in the case of peacekeeping).

dathi1

If it were not for the forces of the U.S and Britain in the 1940's, Germany and the rest of Europe might be a little more imperialist than it is today,n'est pas ?

yeah and now they're gona blow some aaarabs to smithereens and back up the biggest war criminal since Nixon and Hitler. ...Israel's Arial Sharon. Now only if a EU rapid reaction force could do that too...no wonder you switched sides reef

Originally posted by dathi1
yeah and now they're gona blow some aaarabs to smithereens and back up the biggest war criminal since Nixon and Hitler. ...Israel's Arial Sharon. Now only if a EU rapid reaction force could do that too...no wonder you switched sides reef

Still I'd rather be living in the european Union than in Iraq for the lifestyle I have:) wonder why that is??

It's not too difficult to work out who is more hostile to Western society and in particular to the U.S...it's not Israel, but those that are, usually have moustaches:D

Little wonder the U.S and Most of Europe in the guise of a rapid reaction force want to get rid of people with moustaches.
mm