If No to Nice then what?

Paulg

Because the voting electorate of this nation has already voted on this one!

But if it is a YES this time in a fair referendum, then why is it ridiculous?
I think putting the same referendum to the electorate again was a shocking decision.
If its a YES vote then thats what the people of ireland want, if its a NO vote, then the government will have a lot to answer for.

But it's not exactly the same referendum.
If the "neutralty" abridged referendum that is now being put to the people is voted down then the EU have no choice but to go back to the drawing board, as we will have vetoed the Nice treaty.
Our difficulty will clearly be with other aspects of the treaty.
Some E.U governments will find ways to put together a Euro Army for those within the EU that want it, just like they did with the currency.
It's not as simple an issue as a case of keep on "referenduming" the people untill you get Nice passed.
If it does not pass the Treaty will have to be changed even if only slightly, otherwise another referendum would not wash.
That would be a very democratic procedure imho.
mm

Cork

But it's not exactly the same referendum.

We are after enough of spin - It is the same referendum and the same treaty.

It's not as simple an issue as a case of keep on "referenduming" the people untill you get Nice passed.

Call a Spade a Spade.

We are voting on this shambles of a treaty.

Meh

Originally posted by Cork
We are after enough of spin - It is the same referendum and the same treaty.

It isn't the same referendum. There are two extra clauses in the proposed amendment, concerning neutrality and enhanced cooperation.

Paulg

All these replies, but no one from the NO side said what they would like to see in a referendum that would allow the 12 applicant countries join the EU.

Ireland has more of the percentage vote than the population percentage we have of the EU, so why do they object to our loss of voting power in the larger EU. Its obvious that when these countris join the EU, every existing country will get a lesser share of the vote... so whats the problem??

Is there anything in the existing treaty that they like???

buddy

1 vote per country is what we want to maintain - not .23% for one country and 2% for another country - that just diminshes are ability to have a say!

Did you see the signs - NO does not mean they can't join - those 12 countries can still join without NICE!

Paulg

Its not one vote per country at present.
Did anyone here read the Nice treaty?

buddy

Thats news to me!

1 Commisioner = 1 Vote

Meh

Originally posted by buddy
Thats news to me!

In that case, I suggest you read the Nice Treaty and the treaties it amends.

Biffa Bacon

I notice that none of the No to Nice people have answered the initial question. What exactly do you want changed in the treaty? It’s a simple enough question.

- we lose our commisioner –

All countries lose the automatic right to a Commissioner. The larger states in fact do worse than the smaller ones as now they will only be entitled to the same number of Commissioners as the smaller countries.

…we lose power as our vote is no longer tallied as the same as every other country…

Are you referring to QMV? You do realise it already exists?

…we are and want to be a neutral country!

We are not a neutral country as we give the US the right to conduct military exercises in our airspace and refuel in our airports. And I for one don’t want us to be neutral.

I am voting no, very simply because I already voted no and so did the majority of ireland vote no.

Incorrect, it was only a majority of people who actually voted that voted No.

What rights do the current government have to force us to vote again ?

The vast majority of people who voted No last time around hadn’t a notion what was in the treaty. Therefore it’s perfectly reasonable for the government to hold the referendum again if they believe that this time around the electorate will be fully informed of what it’s about.

What I get is 'ahh now, sorry, us irish are a wee bit thick and didn't understand what it was about..'.

Yes that’s true, the people who voted No are a wee bit thick. That much should be clear from the discussion on Nice on this board.

Its almost like tossing a coin in the air, on best of three and when its not in the loosers favour, they say, best of three again...

No, the outcome of tossing a coin is a random event, the outcome of a referendum is the freely-expressed will of the electorate.

Thats news to me!

1 Commisioner = 1 Vote

Good grief :rolleyes:

Typedef

I notice that none of the No to Nice people have answered the initial question. What exactly do you want changed in the treaty? It’s a simple enough question.

Actually I thought the subject of the Thread was "If No to Nice then what?", which I answered, a renegotiation in accordance with the wishes of the Irish electorate, given via plebiscite.

All countries lose the automatic right to a Commissioner. The larger states in fact do worse than the smaller ones as now they will only be entitled to the same number of Commissioners as the smaller countries.

That is an issue for those countries, Ireland's issue is that for many Irish voter, the majority in the last Referendum (even if acknowleding that is somehow uncomfortable for you) considered Ireland's relative loss of self determinate power as unacceptable, under the Nice Treaty.

We are not a neutral country as we give the US the right to conduct military exercises in our airspace and refuel in our airports. And I for one don’t want us to be neutral.

There is a big difference between allowing US warplanes to refuel in Shannon Airport and funding and perhaps even participating in a Rapid Reaction Force that may engage in "combat" as the Treaty of Nice clearly stipulates, if you read it.

Incorrect, it was only a majority of people who actually voted that voted No.

See, that's called democracy, the majority of people who vote, win. Perhaps you would feel better if all people under the age of 18 voted in the upcoming Referendum, or rather were 'required' to vote, I'm wondering how you Biffa Bacon would run elections or any sort of vote, if not on the basis that the majority of people who vote win? Perhaps you'd like to run elections on the basis that the majority of people who vote, who agree with you win, or perhaps that the majority of people who vote on Saturday, win or some other skewed misnomer for democracy?
I wonder if you could actually explain that, such that it doesn't sound like you are cherry picking which democratic votes have a sufficient participatory criteria met to satisfy you?
Do you remember when the current Minister for Justice lost his seat in a general election by just twenty seven votes? Surely by your logic, that vote shouldn't have counted, because not 'everyone' who was entitled to vote, exercised that right?
Perhaps a better parlimentary system would be to peanalise, fine and then imprison people who didn't vote?
Maybe you should campaign on that platform Biffa, you might just get elected.

The vast majority of people who voted No last time around hadn’t a notion what was in the treaty. Therefore it’s perfectly reasonable for the government to hold the referendum again if they believe that this time around the electorate will be fully informed of what it’s about.

Ah the white man's burdon hmm? All those throngs of uneducated and ignorant No voters, just waiting to be re-educated by your illucidated self, it's great that the EU has taken it upon itself to educate us ignorants in Ireland as to the error of our ways, when exercising our democratic right to self determination isn't it? I guess we owe the EU thanks for showing us the error of our ways?

In short no, I don't accept this excuse to re-run the Nice Referendum, all it is, is a rationalisation of the manipulation of Irish democracy.

Yes that’s true, the people who voted No are a wee bit thick. That much should be clear from the discussion on Nice on this board.

Biffa Bacon, grow up.

No, the outcome of tossing a coin is a random event, the outcome of a referendum is the freely-expressed will of the electorate.

Except of course unless your illustrious self deems the electorate too ignorant to make up it's own mind hmm?
Arrogance doesn't really suit you if I may say so.

Paulg

Actually I thought the subject of the Thread was "If No to Nice then what?", which I answered, a renegotiation in accordance with the wishes of the Irish electorate, given via plebiscite.

Well thats not much of an answer, i wanted to know what you would like to see in the renegotiation....

Typedef

Actually I would like to see Ireland detach itself from political integration with the European Union as clearly that integration is leading to a European SuperState and in such circumstances Ireland would not in my view have accountable, nor representative governance.

Since you ask. I would like to see no, and I mean no relative loss of influence for Ireland in the EU. I believe all countries in the EU could and are entitled to a Comissioner. I disagree with enhanced co-operation and the use of EU institutions in a two tiered way. I do not want to see Ireland in a Federal Union, thus I don't want the EU turned into a Federal Union and as such I do not want a European Army, as only countries really have armies and I already have a country, it's called Ireland and I like it just fine as a soverign state.

Taxation will in my view be the next item on the Federalists wish list and a rise in corporate tax will severly adversely affect inward investment to Ireland, that is a fact, thus since the EU has stated that it wants to use EU institutions to create an exclusionary Avant Garde European structure to push into existance in an EU context things like Tax Harmonisation, I really need to see the Nice Treaty have that particular ammendum removed, because I believe such an ammendum is ultimately detramental to Irish soveringty, by placing Ireland in a position the 'Yes side' bemoan as the result of secession from the Union, marginalisation, yet attached and ultimately forced through lack of wanting to be marginalised to fall in line, thus Tax harmonisation serrupticiously

swiss

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon:

Yes that’s true, the people who voted No are a wee bit thick. That much should be clear from the discussion on Nice on this board.

I'm afraid Typedef is right, arrogance doesn't suit you. Frustration doesn't quite excuse this either. Please keep it civil.

From my own personal experience I have met quite a few people who are unaware of what Nice is all about. Hopefully, if more people become aware of Nice this time around (even if only due to it's noteriety) we can get a larger voter turnout, and hence get a more representative result, irrespective of how people vote.

Actually I would like to see Ireland detach itself from political integration

Typedef, if you feel that the European Union is progressing into a Neo - Imperialistic entity, do you feel that Irelands sovereignty would be better expressed outside the EU, that is that we sever all European ties and go it alone?

You have oftentimes argued that a 'no' to nice should force a renegotiation of the treaty that can lead to more favourable terms to Ireland and the applicant member states. The question the thread is asking, is what in particular should be in this renegotiated treaty that is not in the present treaty (and as an offshoot to this - how will this be achieved?). Frankly, I cannot see any enlargement plan that will not entail relative loss of power to the existing member states.

The way I see it, Europe is progressing and evolving. It is moving towards a closer integration between member states but I do not believe it is becoming an Imporium. I cannot see this happening for the forseeable future, for the simple reason that I think that the member states, are in themselves, independant and want to remain so. If you see this differently, if you want to stall or reverse this change (and if by a democratic vote so do the majority of voters) then should we recognise that Europe is going in a different direction than we would wish, and simply opt out?

Shazbat

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
I notice that none of the No to Nice people have answered the initial question. What exactly do you want changed in the treaty? It’s a simple enough question.

Simple answer:

I would like it changed so we don't lose our veto.

On the subject of answering initial questions, the 'No to nice people' answered the question of the nice treaty last year and the answer was rejected by our so called government.

It was a simple enough answer.

Meh

Originally posted by Shazbat
Simple answer:
I would like it changed so we don't lose our veto.

We don't "lose our veto" under Nice. Qualified majority voting has been in operation for a long time. Which of the areas that Nice extends QMV to are you unhappy with?

If you want to abolish QMV altogether, then that means withdrawing from the EU entirely. Are you in favour of this?

Shazbat

Originally posted by swiss
The way I see it, Europe is progressing and evolving. It is moving towards a closer integration....the member states, are in themselves, independant and want to remain so...

Closer integration ultimately means less independance. And if the Nice treaty is ratified we won't have any control over how much independance we lose.

At the moment we have a veto and we should retain that. Every country should. Whats good for one country won't necessarily be good for another country.

Each member state should have a veto over certain matters. I'm not saying they should go around using it willy-nilly but if a country feels very strongly that something is not in their interest why should they be forced into doing it?

The EU bullied Bertie into re-running the referendum. He might have wanted to re-run it anyway but the fact of the matter was he wasn't left to decide in peace he was hounded by EU officials. If Ireland is going to be dealing with people like that giving away our veto would be IMO a grave mistake.

The EU should scrap the Nice treaty and come up with something else where smaller countries don't have to roll over on their backs at the whim of the EU.

Meh

Originally posted by Shazbat
At the moment we have a veto.

No we don't. I suggest you read the Nice Treaty and the treaties it amends.

Shazbat

Originally posted by Meh
We don't "lose our veto" under Nice. Qualified majority voting has been in operation for a long time. Which of the areas that Nice extends QMV to are you unhappy with?

If you want to abolish QMV altogether, then that means withdrawing from the EU entirely. Are you in favour of this?

QMV has nothing to do with the veto we have at the moment.

Of course we have a veto otherwise we wouldn't even be having a referendum. If we had no veto nice would have just been ratified. They cannot ratify it without our consent - ie we have a veto.

At present all the EU members have to agree to something or it cannot be passed. If the nice treaty is ratified this will no longer be the case.

As for the QMV the bit I'm most unhappy with is the fact the luxembourg with a population of 300,000 (three hundred thousand) has 3 votes whereas Ireland with a pop of 4,000,000 or so has eight votes.

They have less than a tenth of our population yet they have over half of our voting power. QMV my árse.

All that stuff about balancing up each member countries vote with QMV is just hogwash. How can anybody justify the imbalance between ireland & luxembourg?

seamus

Originally posted by Shazbat
At the moment we have a veto and we should retain that. Every country should. Whats good for one country won't necessarily be good for another country.

There's one big argument people seem to have - "The bigger countries will do what's good for them, and not necessarily what's good for us."

However, the idea is that they will do thing that are good for Europe. This won't be a communist bloc. Smaller countries won't be bled dry and neglected, just because they haven't got the power to prevent it. If a decision is made, that looks like it's badly affecting a certain country (eg tax harmonisation), then either the entire policy will be altered, or the country in question will be allowed alter it as needed for itself. No-one else in the EU will want to see another country fall into depression. And if it did happen, the EU would take measures to try and help it. If we find that being in the EU is destroying our economy, then we pull out. But it won't destroy our economy, because the EU is about maintaining a stable Economic Community, and the more power we give to the EU, the more responsible it becomes for ensuring our economic stability.

Meh

Originally posted by Shazbat
Of course we have a veto otherwise we wouldn't even be having a referendum. If we had no veto nice would have just been ratified. They cannot ratify it without our consent - ie we have a veto.

At present all the EU members have to agree to something or it cannot be passed. If the nice treaty is ratified this will no longer be the case.

You appear to be confused about the difference between making a decision under a treaty and amending the provisions of the treaty itself. We will still have a veto where any changes to the underlying EU treaties are concerned. And we will continue to have this veto forever, since the Supreme Court has decided that EU treaties require a constitutional amendment, and international treaties do not affect countries that don't explicitly agree to them.

As for the QMV the bit I'm most unhappy with is the fact the luxembourg with a population of 300,000 (three hundred thousand) has 3 votes whereas Ireland with a pop of 4,000,000 or so has eight votes.

They have less than a tenth of our population yet they have over half of our voting power. QMV my árse.

All that stuff about balancing up each member countries vote with QMV is just hogwash. How can anybody justify the imbalance between ireland & luxembourg?

The same way they justify the imbalance between Ireland and Germany. Ireland has five times as many votes per capita than Germany. If you're going to reduce Luxembourg's voting strength, then you must also be in favour of reducing Ireland's voting strength.

Typedef

There's one big argument people seem to have - "The bigger countries will do what's good for them, and not necessarily what's good for us."

However, the idea is that they will do thing that are good for Europe.

So you admit that Ireland is entering into a situation where Ireland will no longer have control over substantive issues that effect Ireland, and your contention is that the powerful member states are so full of the milk of human kindness that said states will act in the interests of Europe, give me a break. The Rapid Reaction Force can be deployed to do "combat" in the name of the EU and thus in the name of Ireland, funded by Ireland in part if truth be told, and there is not a damn thing Ireland can do about it, perhaps you think the likes of France, Britain and Germany can be trusted not to abuse that power, however you had better tell the millions of people in various countries throughout the world that the Greatest Imperialist countries the world has ever seen have suddenly developed a sense of humanitarian justice. You had better tell the Aborigine people in Australia who were disposessed of their land to make way for British Nuclear Weapons tests that the British have suddenly developed a love of human rights in the last fourty years, you had better tell the people in Polynesia that the French have realised it was wrong to go letting off Nuclear Weapons on thier back doorsteps, because suddenlly these countries can be trusted 'not to' abuse their power. The difference in the French timescale would be a turnaround of just ten years, since the last French Weapons tests!

This won't be a communist bloc. Smaller countries won't be bled dry and neglected, just because they haven't got the power to prevent it.

What you mean like the interest rates in the European Union? The rates that are set to the advantage of Germany and which are agrovating inflationary pressures in the Irish economy? Somehow what you've said seems like empty words against the reality of how the currency (for example) is being administered.

If a decision is made, that looks like it's badly affecting a certain country (eg tax harmonisation), then either the entire policy will be altered, or the country in question will be allowed alter it as needed for itself.

Really? Does that mean that somehow, magically Ireland will be allowed to alter it's interest rates, because the current policy is hurting the Irish economy? Thought not. You are attempting to argue that the States in question have any interest in what happens in Ireland, when if Ireland should learn one lesson from six hundred years of English misrule it is that only the Irish have sufficient interest in what happens in Ireland and to the Irish nation to take the sort of extraneous action that is required to administer and promote prosperity in Ireland adequately.

No-one else in the EU will want to see another country fall into depression. And if it did happen, the EU would take measures to try and help it.

Name one measure the EU has taken to help Ireland tackel inflation that is in part caused by high interest rates, interest rates set to benefit the German economy, which has been teteering on the brink of recession for months.

If we find that being in the EU is destroying our economy, then we pull out.

How does Ireland do that? How can Ireland secede from the Euro and set interest rates in Ireland to the benefit of Ireland and the Irish as opposed to Germany and the Germans? Tell me that.

But it won't destroy our economy, because the EU is about maintaining a stable Economic Community, and the more power we give to the EU, the more responsible it becomes for ensuring our economic stability.

So you contend if Ireland gives Europe the power to raise or lower taxes in Ireland (ie Tax harmonisation) that this would somehow be beneficial to Ireland? I most certainly do not agree.

Paulg

If the bigger states of Europe don't care about the smaller states, then why do they want 12 more countries to join. All of these countries are extremely poor, and will require huge investments and grants over the next few years from the EU. Most of this money will come from the likes of Germany, France and Great Britian.

What you mean like the interest rates in the European Union? The rates that are set to the advantage of Germany and which are agrovating inflationary pressures in the Irish economy? Somehow what you've said seems like empty words against the reality of how the currency (for example) is being administered.

Actually at 5% or so, inflation is only bad relative to other European countries.It has a lot more to do with the fact that we import a lot of produce from the UK than the ECB interest rate.

I think on reflection the majority of people in Ireland have benefited from lower interest rates via the ECB(I know my credit card has:D ).
mm

dathi1

If the bigger states of Europe don't care about the smaller states, then why do they want 12 more countries to join.

Power, power and power again. The bigger the super state the more power.
NO TO NICE Crap Treaty, More power for Germany and France less for us and the smaller states.. Dump it! Vote No and re negotiate for an Equal Europe.

Typedef

Originally posted by Paulg
If the bigger states of Europe don't care about the smaller states, then why do they want 12 more countries to join. All of these countries are extremely poor, and will require huge investments and grants over the next few years from the EU. Most of this money will come from the likes of Germany, France and Great Britian.

With all due respect, cry me a river. The expansion is about power bloc consolidation, and extending the influence of the EU, EU institutions, major players in the EU and major companies in the same, not about humanitarian kindness.

If France, Germany and Britain are climbing over each other to help East Europeans, because of the kindness of their hearts then why does the Common Agricultural Policy still exist when it is detramental to Third world countries? Why does the European Union impose restrictions on processed materials entering the EU, from third world countries hmm? Because somehow relocating those jobs from the third world to the EU is good for those (ostensibly) African nations?

I remain entirely unconvinced by the milk of human kindness argument.

Lady Macbeth :'Thou art too full of the milk of human kindness'

Paulg

The five biggest states will loose power when more countries join.
No one country runs the EU. Germany have been on the loosing side of proposals brought before the european commission than Ireland have.

Typedef

The big problem with that assumption is that the interest rates in the Eurozone are currently set to the advantage of Germany, so certainly Germany is not loosing out financially on that front, Ireland most certainly is loosing out due to the same interest rate, so I don't quite follow your logic.

Money talks.

Yeap, it's power and money at the root of this EU allright.
So far they've restricted the fruits of their Economy to most of the residents of it and especially to the detriment of third world countries.
Thats a capitalist thing though,it didn't much apply to the U.S.S.R, China maybe.
It is unfortunate that some African Countries are so Debt ridden that they do not stand a chance competing with the E.U
It is equally unfortunate that that situation was brought about in the main by bad government.

It is the old argument , the Bigger, you are, the better you are, and the easier it is to withstand external shocks.
the smaller you are , the weaker you are, and the more prone you are to worldwide recession etc.
Although my Granny used always say " theres good goods in small parcels...":D
mm

Paulg

Its obvious now that the NO voters are anti-european! and not just anti-Nice.