A simple question for the anti-Nice posters

mike65

Why will voting No To Nice save Irish jobs?

Mike.

pro_gnostic_8

Hi Mike, ........look, I'm no expert on the intricacies of this poll but my reasoning (in reply to your question) is this: an influx of cheap labour from East Europe we can do without in the present economic climate. S'pecially when you consider Ireland is one of only four EU countries (and the only English speaking member) to allow such immigration until 2007.

Of course IBEC is pimping desperately for a YES vote -- Capitalism/employers love a high pool of unemployed and cheap labour............ conditions that keeps income levels at a low threshold thru' worker competition.

Like I said, I'm kinda weak on the macro-economics of all this so I am open to any correction, k?

Anyway, I'm voting NO until someone can offer a good reason to do otherwise.

spongebob

I cannot see how voting yes will save jobs.

the treaty threatens the irish fical regime which tends towards low corporation tax in its overall mix. A harmonisation of fiscal regimes across europe would be most disruptive to the irish economy....were it to happen. This is provided for in the treaty by a combination of extending joint competence over taxation (fiscal matters) and the removal of the national veto ....taken in parallel.

the irish fiscal regime has benefitted ireland in a dramatic manner in the 1990's, we are not sure if it will continue to so do if the economy is constrained by crap infrastructure.....we may well be advised to vote no to buy time while we find out

no specific proposal on harmonisation has yet been put forward that may yet cloud the horizon but we have been threatened indirectly by the large core states in the past, they have their eye on us as the paaper said.

it is ironically arguable that a degree of bilateral harmonisation would have saved the good friday agreement from the gangsterism that flourishes in border areas...driven by the huge differences in excise rates between northern ireland and the republic.

personally i will either vote no or not vote.....

M

mike65

...nothing very convincing yet then....

Mike.

Dun

I have no idea but I'm equally unsure how voting yes will save jobs. Maybe you could enlighten us?

mike65

:rolleyes: I knew I'd end up doing this-

Answer the bloody question!

Mike.

dathi1

Why will voting No To Nice save Irish jobs?

AWNSER:
Corporation tax 12 % INTEL, DELL happy to be here we all have jobs.
Under NICE Germany and France get tax harmonisation pushed through under new powers afforded to them by Ireland voting yes.

INTEL, DELL, Hewit Packard not happy move to eastern Europe where they will make up the shortfall in cheaper labour etc.

Result? = two tier Europe. No Job prospects left in Ireland except crappy Jobs that the new Immigrants from eastern Europe will take here anyway. The 80's come back.
Back down to Werburgh ST, Dolier St labour exchange sign on the bleedin scratch and get those Duran Duran records back out...or was it Kajagugu?

Vote No to Nice for a Europe of Equal States as was the original idea. Not a two tier Europe for Birtie and crew to retire in as fat cat M.E.Ps.
John Bruton on Nice:

spongebob

i am not campaigning for a no, i am hoping (vaguely I might add) that more convincing yes persons than yourself will swing me to your side.

if Bertie wants me to belive that the truth is out there he should sack mccreevey for lying on the 16th.......may do the trick that,

be rhetorical ..... answer your own question from my point of view

Go On!

Cork

There was a story in the papers that state companys were contributing to IBECS YES campaign.

At a time of government cutbacks - this is a disgrace.

PH01

Originally posted by mike65
Why will voting No To Nice save Irish jobs?

Mike.

pro_gnostic_8 post is pretty close to the mark as to the No campaigns reasoning to saving Irish jobs by voting No.

It's basically an anti-immigration and an anti-enlargement position. And the reasoning as to how this will save Irish Jobs is questionable.

If you restrict the labour supply, the cost of labour goes up. No bad thing you might say - we all like a bit of extra cash in our pocket. But this extra cost of labour increases production costs, which leads to smaller margins. Smaller margins makes the product less competitive as you have less room to play with to pitch for contacts. If a business can't get new contracts it can't stay in business.
Therefore, Anti-immigration = higher labour costs = less competitive = job losses.

Now the No side will argue that if we allow these Eastern European states to join, new investment will go East instead of West to Ireland. And yes this is probably the case, but only for lower skilled labour and low skilled industries. What Ireland needs and what it can compete for are jobs at the higher skill level. Ireland can no longer compete for jobs that have a lower skill requirement and this has nothing to do with a Yes or No vote in the forthcoming referendum. It's to do with Ireland not being a poor nation anymore. We don't people who are willing to provide labour for rock bottom prices? If we do then there is something wrong.

Dependance on investment that will provide low skilled jobs would be a flawed policy for Ireland. The IDA don't give grants to industries who are willing to invest here if the jobs they will be providing are at a lower skill range.

So I don't see how a No vote will save Irish jobs in this case. As long as Ireland has a highly skilled workforce we won't lose out.

And will a No vote save jobs of a lower skill level? No it won't, nothing will when the products produced can be produced cheaper somewhere else.

The question that the No campaign should answer is how will a NO vote protect higher skilled jobs?

Typedef

Originally posted by mike65
Why will voting No To Nice save Irish jobs?

I believe that voting Yes will introduce a mechanism in Europe where the institutions of the European Union can be used to create an Avant Garde United States of Europe in a miasma of areas, like military co-operation, enhanced co-operation in 'taxes' and so on. In such circumstances whether or not Ireland participates is largely irrelevant, as Ireland would be damned if it did participate in such a Union with it's military,tax and soveringty and democratic and representative governance issues and damned if it didn't as it would constantly be under pressure to cede ever greater amounts of it's soveringty or control of it's own destiny to the EU.

In short Yes I believe that enhanced co-operation will marginalise Ireland whether Ireland participates in some of the areas likely to be on the agenda of co-operation or not and that for example on enhanced co-operation on taxes that Ireland will be at a disadvantage in either case.

So if one works off of the assumption that tax harmonisation is going to be on the Federalists wish list for enhanced co-operation then Yes, preventing enhanced co-operation or a "two tiered Europe" will be to the advantage of Ireland and ultimately Irish jobs. What's more since the Nice Treaty is a further step towards a Federal Europe and since I believe that only the Irish are really qualifed to govern the Irish I believe that another No vote will keep greater amounts of Irish soveringty and control in the hands of the Irish and thus the Irish can make the really important decisions about the economic well being of Ireland, not some random Eurocrat who is making decisions (allegedly) for the benefit of the Union as a whole. So because a No vote will keep more control of Irish affairs in the hands it should be in (the Irish) I believe that a No vote will ultimately be better for Ireland's economic wellbeing, so to answere your question, Yes a No vote will ultimately 'save' jobs or rather foster an environment where more jobs will be created, long term.That seems only logical to me.

dathi1

Therefore, Anti-immigration = higher labour costs = less competitive = job losses.

Absolute bull....A Strict immigration control policy just like in the United States of America, Australia, Singapore and now other EU states helps an economy grow because you let in a skilled workforce in a controlled manner and not disrupt the labour pool in the host country.

Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Britain and others have now restricted immigration from the new member states "so as not to destabilize" their employment situation. (they said)read here Cowen + IBEC (cheap labour now!)on the other hand have given exclusive unrestrictive access to workers from new member states from 01/01/04. The only country now left with this stupid policy is Ireland. (he said he might change his mind)

An Uncontrolled immigration policy that you advocate above leads to destabilization of Jobs and social breakdown. Tie that in with a loss of power under NICE and we may as well move to Nigeria. (if they will let us in )
NO 2 NICE
John Bruton on Nice again:

PH01

Originally posted by dathi1
Absolute bull....A Strict immigration control policy just like in the United States of America, Australia, Singapore and now other EU states helps an economy grow because you let in a skilled workforce in a controlled manner and not disrupt the labour pool in the host country.

The United States does not have a strict immigration control policy. The US wouldn't be what it is today if it had a strict immigration control policy.

An Uncontrolled immigration policy that you advocate above leads to destabilization of Jobs and social breakdown. Tie that in with a loss of power under NICE and we may as well move to Nigeria. (if they will let us in )

What does Irish Immigration Policy got to with Nice?

Meh

Originally posted by Typedef
I believe that voting Yes will introduce a mechanism in Europe where the institutions of the European Union can be used to create an Avant Garde United States of Europe in a miasma of areas, like military co-operation

Article 1.6.2 of the Nice Treaty:

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.

In such circumstances whether or not Ireland participates is largely irrelevant, as Ireland would be damned if it did participate in such a Union with it's military,tax and soveringty and democratic and representative governance issues and damned if it didn't as it would constantly be under pressure to cede ever greater amounts of it's soveringty or control of it's own destiny to the EU.

Can you explain specifically how the large states would go about coercing us into tax harmonization, under the provisions of the Nice Treaty? What exactly in the Nice Treaty could they threaten us with that would be worse for this country than tax harmonization? I've asked this before, but nobody from the No side seemed interested in answering me...

What's more since the Nice Treaty is a further step towards a Federal Europe and since I believe that only the Irish are really qualifed to govern the Irish I believe that another No vote will keep greater amounts of Irish soveringty and control in the hands of the Irish and thus the Irish can make the really important decisions about the economic well being of Ireland, not some random Eurocrat who is making decisions (allegedly) for the benefit of the Union as a whole. So because a No vote will keep more control of Irish affairs in the hands it should be in (the Irish) I believe that a No vote will ultimately be better for Ireland's economic wellbeing

An interesting point, but Ireland's economic independence outside the EU would be an illusion. Before EEC membership, we were at the mercy of tarriffs imposed by larger countries. We were a lone voice at the UN. The punt was tied to sterling, and we had no influence whatsoever over the interest rate policies of the Bank of England. These days, we have a say (albeit a small one) in the decisions of the European Central Bank. It is arguable that EU membership has actually increased the power that the Irish people have over Irish affairs. It certainly isn't a clear cut case of "more power for Brussels = less power for Ireland". Sovereignty is no longer a zero-sum game.

spongebob

As a no 'lite' IMO he has summarised my discomfort well. Thanks D1

BTW I am in favour of a common European Army and Coastguard.

In addition I would observe.

The current treaty (Amsterdam) allows the EU to take in 5 new members

The EU is negoitiating seriously with 10

I do not believe that all 10 are ready for the off on the 01/01/03.

Nor do I believe that the accession terms are as favourable FOR them as the Irish terms 30 years ago. We got straight into the CAP, they are being kept out for anumber of years even though Agriculture is very important to pretty much all the potential members.

I would rather see 5 new members let in on PROPER terms which will include CAP now and Free movenment of Labour within 3-5 years MAX than to have 10 states let in on a Yellowpack arrangement dragging ojn for years and years and that I voted for.

With the EU you are either in or not. Post Nice there is a distinct possiblity that new staes will be in BUT not. a 2 or 3 tier institutionalised arrangement. I feel that this is wrong and that its back to the drawing board for all of us.

M

dathi1

The United States does not have a strict immigration control policy. The US wouldn't be what it is today if it had a strict immigration control policy.

Ask the 10 irish nationals deported without court hearings as they get here (Irish solicitors make a fortune) from Boston last week the same question.

What does Irish Immigration Policy got to with Nice?

You brought it up! As above in my last reply.
No 2 Nice
O Keefe on NICE

I do not believe that all 10 are ready for the off on the 01/01/03.

Were we ready for the off in 1973?

Regarding the CAP:
Most of polands farmers for example are small holders, a 30 acre holding in Ireland would be a ranch in comparison.
10, 15 or 20 acres would be the norm, they are very unviable and those on the E.U side that negotiated their entry terms were aware of that.
If you were to give these farmers the full benefits of CAP, you would be encouraging Extreme ineffeciency as well as bankrupting the E.U

You would also be making it a cake walk for the United States, Australia and New Zealand to compete with ineffecient European producers.

Ireland's climate encouraged cheap grass based farming systems.
Unfortunately the climate of these Eastern European countries turns most(if they have any left) of their grass yellow from sunburn in the summer and freezes it over regularally at times even up to April.
That is why it makes sense to Wean them into the CAP.
Of Course it would be Nice(pardon the pun:D ) to hand them out loads of lolly straight away but that would be getting the new arrangements off to a very bad start.
mm

spongebob

....works a treat, thanks dude.

No extensivication premia for the Poles so. It think your reading of the weather in Slovenia is a bit harsh though.

As Poland has stacks of farmers I think that keeping the Poles outta CAp is a bit like saying......rural Poles not welcome, feck off and urbanise.

Your other key about about the

'hand them out loads of lolly straight away but that would be getting the new arrangements off to a very bad start.'

is that the corollary (my paraphrasing)

hand them no lolly and the arrangement will be off to a wonderful start

is simply Immoral!

My next gardener will be an unemployed Polish farmer so...much better than the local hired help ..sniff.

M

Typedef

Originally posted by Meh
Article 1.6.2 of the Nice Treaty:

The Treaty of Amsterdam as you well know enunciated a mechanism by which the EU could exponenciate a Common Foreign and Security policy. Now with respect you may subscribe to the delusion that the creation of the Rapid Reaction Force is not an embryonic European Army to countenace a European Foreign policy (the EU already has a foreign Minister in Javier Solana (persuant to the Treaty of Amsterdam)), but I do not.

2. Article 17 shall be replaced by the following:
ëArticle 17
1. 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.
The progressive framing of a common defence policy will be supported, as Member States consider
appropriate, by cooperation between them in the field of armaments.
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.

Notice 'combat forces in crisis management', that phrase seems quite ambiguous and open to interpretation. Quite clearly the Treaty of Nice in Article 2.2 gives a mandate to the Rapid Reaction Force and be under no delusion this is specifically the mandate the Force is being created under, so perhaps article 1.6.2 is in conflict with Article 2, but in either case without a mandate the European Army (aka Rapid Reaction Force), will not be able to participate in conflict in the name of the EU and thus in the name of Ireland (as members of the EU).

Can you explain specifically how the large states would go about coercing us into tax harmonization, under the provisions of the Nice Treaty? What exactly in the Nice Treaty could they threaten us with that would be worse for this country than tax harmonization?

Article 43a
Enhanced cooperation may be undertaken only as a last resort, when it has been established within
the Council that the objectives of such cooperation cannot be attained within a reasonable period
by applying the relevant provisions of the Treaties.
Article 43b
When enhanced cooperation is being established, it shall be open to all Member States. It shall also
be open to them at any time, in accordance with Articles 27e and 40b of this Treaty and with
Article 11a of the Treaty establishing the European Community, subject to compliance with the
basic decision and with the decisions taken within that framework. The Commission and the
Member States participating in enhanced cooperation shall ensure that as many Member States
as possible are encouraged to take part.í

Enhanced co-operation allows for a groups of nations to petition the EU to allow use of EU institutions for closer integration without the entire EU being involved and clearly the main item on the 'Enhanced co-operation' wish list is tax harmonisation. Thus specifically once nine or ten nations in a Europe of fifteen or twenty have harmonised taxes, I believe nations like the UK who have already complained to Europe about Ireland's low corporate tax rate, would be in a position to put an enomous amounts of pressure onto Ireland to fall into line with the European fast track, in fact the Treaty of Nice is supposed to 'encourage' nations to participate in the European Fast Track, where in the areas of petitioned 'enhanced co-operation' of which taxation is the primary candidate, qualified majority voting will be the pre emanate method of decision making and taking.

13. Article 44 shall be replaced by the following Articles 44 and 44a:
ëArticle 44
1. For the purposes of the adoption of the acts and decisions necessary for the implementation of
enhanced cooperation referred to in Article 43, the relevant institutional provisions of this Treaty
and of the Treaty establishing the European Community shall apply. However, while all members of
the Council shall be able to take part in the deliberations, only those representing Member States
participating in enhanced cooperation shall take part in the adoption of decisions. The qualified
majority shall be defined as the same proportion of the weighted votes and the same proportion of
the number of the Council members concerned as laid down in Article 205(2) of the Treaty
establishing the European Community, and in the second and third subparagraphs of Article
23(2) of this Treaty as regards enhanced cooperation established on the basis of Article 27c.
Unanimity shall be constituted by only those Council members concerned.

In other words, when the French, the Dutch, the Germans and others get together and use EU institutions to create a co-operative tax regieme, encouraging Ireland to join in, decisions pertaing to sucessfully petitioned areas of enhanced co operation will be subservient to Qualified Majority Voting.

This from the EU's own website http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l31036.htm

Communication on the tax policy in the European Union - Priorities for the years ahead [COM(2001)260 final - Official Journal C 284, 18.10.2001]

On 23 May 2001, the Commission adopted this communication.
This text is based on the principle that greater tax coordination would make it possible to achieve certain objectives laid down by the Lisbon European Council of 23 and 24 March 2000. Although greater harmonisation is required in the field of VAT and excise duty, in other areas of taxation coordination does not necessarily mean harmonisation. The Commission intends to propose measures to coordinate business taxation . It is also submitting reports on the taxation of alcohol and transport. In addition, it will make greater use of the "enhanced cooperation" introduced by the Amsterdam Treaty and developed by the Nice Treaty. This procedure enables the Commission to propose that a group of at least eight Member States may cooperate on a given field, after approval within the Council by a qualified majority. Energy taxation , for example, lends itself well to enhanced cooperation. The Commission also hopes to use non-binding instruments in the future, such as recommendations, rather than legislative proposals.

An interesting point, but Ireland's economic independence outside the EU would be an illusion. Before EEC membership, we were at the mercy of tarriffs imposed by larger countries. We were a lone voice at the UN. The punt was tied to sterling, and we had no influence whatsoever over the interest rate policies of the Bank of England. These days, we have a say (albeit a small one) in the decisions of the European Central Bank. It is arguable that EU membership has actually increased the power that the Irish people have over Irish affairs. It certainly isn't a clear cut case of "more power for Brussels = less power for Ireland". Sovereignty is no longer a zero-sum game. [/B]

Nonesense Ireland enjoyed the greatest prosperity this nation has known in decades during the time Ireland was closest to having a floating currency where the interest rates in Ireland were controlled by the Irish Central Bank. Now with the power to control Irish interest rates ceded to the European Central Bank, Ireland must try and ask it's workers to accept less money in the vain hope that such policy will be an adequate supplicant for the power to vary and set Irish interest rates to the benfit of Ireland.

Meh

Originally posted by madman
If you were to give these farmers the full benefits of CAP, you would be encouraging Extreme ineffeciency as well as bankrupting the E.U

I believe that the CAP should be scrapped entirely, as it is morally and economically indefensible. But that's probably a discussion for another thread...

Notice 'combat forces in crisis management', that phrase seems quite ambiguous and open to interpretation.

Also note the phrase "in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements". In Ireland, this means a referendum. And the phrase "shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States".

I believe nations like the UK who have already complained to Europe about Ireland's low corporate tax rate, would be in a position to put an enomous amounts of pressure onto Ireland to fall into line with the European fast track,

Again I ask, what specifically would they threaten us with that would be worse than tax harmonization? How exactly would they coerce us into harmonization? Just waving your hands in the air and saying we'd be "pressured" by some vague, unspecified means isn't a very good argument...

Also, from the EU communication you quoted:

Although greater harmonisation is required in the field of VAT and excise duty, in other areas of taxation coordination does not necessarily mean harmonisation.

Typedef

Also note the phrase "in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements". In Ireland, this means a referendum.

Since when? Ireland has no constitutional provisio for Neutrality and in any case, since the Rapid Reaction force is allegedly about defence, it would be fine for a Neutral nation to participate in defence, the crux of the point is that the Force will be used for interventionist combat, as Article 2.2 clearly states.

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.

On taxation

Energy taxation , for example, lends itself well to enhanced cooperation.

For 'example' implying more then just harmonisation on the grounds of enhanced co-operation, even though technically the exception invalidates the rule, tax harmonisation via enhanced co operation is tax harmonisation via enhanced co operation, no matter which way you slice it.

Also I happen to concur on an ammendum point, the CAP is in fact contributing to deprivation in the thrid world and should be scrapped.

swiss

Now with respect you may subscribe to the delusion that the creation of the Rapid Reaction Force is not an embryonic European Army to countenace a European Foreign policy (the EU already has a foreign Minister in Javier Solana (persuant to the Treaty of Amsterdam)), but I do not.

Funny that. I missed the part where the mandate of the RRF was said to be an embryonic European Army. I'm sure it's just narrow mindedness on my part, after all I can't seem to read "between the lines" (tm). You are right. "Crisis management" is a loose term, and it does not make the distinction of boundaries between the EU and other countries. This is why two important safeguards are in place

• Under the provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty, participation in any Petersberg mission remains a sovereign decision to be taken by national governments. Each government will decide on a case by case basis whether, when and how to commit either troops or other resources
• Participation by the Irish Defence Forces in the RRF will only arise in clearly defined circumstances, namely when UN authorisation is in place and when the terms of the relevant Irish legislation have been met.

I'm too lazy to post an opinion so I'll just parrot another one.

The development of this Rapid Reaction Force must be seen against the background of the situation in Europe, which has altered greatly over the past ten years since the end of the Cold War. New patterns of security co-operation involving former adversaries and European states, have emerged and are continuing to evolve. The Rapid Reaction Force would be in a position to act as a regional arm of the United Nations Peacekeeping Service, so Ireland's involvement in these circumstances will effectively constitute a continuation in the European region of our existing UN peacekeeping duties.

I have to agree with this. I for one am proud of the role Irish peacekeeping troops have played abroad. It has always been based on a premise of co-operation rather than confrontation, and always took place under the auspice of a UN mandate. I'll take your view that the RRF is an embryonic European Army under consideration, but since there I cannot find any substantiated foundation for this claim, I will have to (for now) dismiss it as idle speculation.

In relation to your second point about tax harmonisation, as nefarious as it is for the evil French and Germans to want to try to harmonise taxes across the EU to try to ruin the Irish economy, my response is a simple "so what". We still retain a veto with regard to matters regarding taxation. Europe can apply all the pressure it wants. The electorate retains the ultimate hold over any administration, in that it can vote it out.

In any case, I feel that it is unfair for the Irish government to keep corporation tax deliberately low in order to attract MNC's at the expense of other countries. As has been pointed out before, there is nothing to stop larger countries from following this taxation model, effectively taking away Irelands competitive advantage in this regard, and giving us a two finger salute in process. However, they are not doing this. Possibly because they don't want to screw our economy, or because the slew of economists at the ESRI haven't cottoned on to this ingenious plan of siphoning trade away from the EU to a member state (ssh we'd better not tell them)?

Meh

Originally posted by Typedef
Since when? Ireland has no constitutional provisio for Neutrality

It will if the Nice referendum is passed:

9° The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7° of this section where that common defence would include the State.

Originally posted by swiss:
In any case, I feel that it is unfair for the Irish government to keep corporation tax deliberately low in order to attract MNC's at the expense of other countries.

I disagree. As you say yourself, there is nothing to stop the other countries lowering their tax rates too.

Typedef

Originally posted by swiss
Funny that. I missed the part where the mandate of the RRF was said to be an embryonic European Army.

That really depends on whether or not one considers troops being sent in the name of the EU to do 'combat' in a crisis situation can really be deemed as 'defence'. Somehow I have diffuculty equating the two.

• Under the provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty, participation in any Petersberg mission remains a sovereign decision to be taken by national governments. Each government will decide on a case by case basis whether, when and how to commit either troops or other resources
• Participation by the Irish Defence Forces in the RRF will only arise in clearly defined circumstances, namely when UN authorisation is in place and when the terms of the relevant Irish legislation have been met.

Which is actually unimportant, as once the troops are sent to fight somewhere in the name of the EU, those troops are in part sent in the name of Ireland. No one has addressed this issue from the proponents of a Yes vote. Apparently the fact that Ireland may be able to withhold commitment of troops assuming the same people who had no regard for Irish opinion given via plebiscite on the issue of Nice have regard for Irish opinion on the commitment of Irish troops abroad, does not in fact influence the fact that when a soldier from the Rapid Reaction Force kills someone, or shoots at them, that soldier does so in part in the name of this nation and yet is not accountable to the Dial or the the people of Ireland. This is part of the problem of grey area foreign policy, when another body can act in the name of the Irish people and yet can not in any practicle terms be held accountable for those actions.

I have to agree with this. I for one am proud of the role Irish peacekeeping troops have played abroad. It has always been based on a premise of co-operation rather than confrontation, and always took place under the auspice of a UN mandate.

Except that again irrespective of whether Ireland consents to action being taken by the Rapid Reaction Force the Rapid Reaction Force will still act, in the name of the EU and thus in the name of Ireland. The Rapid Reaction Force is in my view a euphamism for a European Army not that the distinciton is important since the Army in quesiton will be used for more than just defence of the EU (not that such an amorphous entity needs 'defending'), call it the boys brigade if it makes you feel better about it, what the Force in question will not be, is purely used for defence, that much is clear and again whether or not Ireland consents to it's use the Force in question may still be deployed and Ireland will share the blame and the consequences for actions taken by that force.

The electorate retains the ultimate hold over any administration, in that it can vote it out.

Unless of course the government "listens to people's concerns" and decides that the vote that voted them out should be run again, now that the government in question has listned to the people and allegedly taken action to redress problems, which while not technically illegal is not democratic, but rather authoritarian and funnily enough if we supplant the example of election with Referendum the course of action I just outlined is exactly what the government has done and since the execption invalidates the rule, you are in fact assuming the government respects democracy, when in fact it has shown itself not to respect democracy, put rather a government of plutocracy, where the elites 'listen' to the people in fora and then decide it's "ok" to revote on issues that the government deems 'necessary'.

In any case, I feel that it is unfair for the Irish government to keep corporation tax deliberately low in order to attract MNC's at the expense of other countries.

Why would that be now? Because having a competative economy and job creation are, bad? I have to say I totally disagree with you here, low taxes attract investment, it's that simple and since Ireland is not a huge industrial power, we Irish don't have the luxury of having bloatedly high tax regiemes like the Sweedes, Germans and French do, we Irish have to have low tax rates to attract inward investment and that is just the way it is.

Originally posted by Muck
....works a treat, thanks dude.

No extensivication premia for the Poles so. It think your reading of the weather in Slovenia is a bit harsh though.

As Poland has stacks of farmers I think that keeping the Poles outta CAp is a bit like saying......rural Poles not welcome, feck off and urbanise.

Your other key about about the



is that the corollary (my paraphrasing)

hand them no lolly and the arrangement will be off to a wonderful start

is simply Immoral!

My next gardener will be an unemployed Polish farmer so...much better than the local hired help ..sniff.

M

The CAP is for another thread.

However negotiations for extra countries entering the EU had to take account of the reality that someone who has a 10 acre holding can not and could not be viable.
That is a universal situation throughout the E.U
There is no farmer anywhere in the E.U surviving soley on the farming income of 10, 20 or 30 acres.
They have, to paraphrase yourself already fecked off into town for secondary income.
why should it be any different for new entrants?

I did not say hand Eastern countries no lolly, I said wean them in, which is what the E.U sensibly plan to do.
It's not possible for those on 10,20, or 30 acres to earn a decent living even with full subsidies.
The approach is designed to encourage some type of consolidation so as viable units are developed.
The climate makes that even more difficult in Eastern Europe.
mm

spongebob

I have a feeling ....remember that I am 'lite' now..... that the accesssion terms will be mangier than the weaning you describe MM .

I think they will be yellowpacked rather than weaned.

I am fully in favour of 5 new members now, as allowe by Amsterdam.

I would favour Poland as one of them , the EU therefore expands its population by 50M or so in one go.....the biggest expansion since the 40m odd Iberians 20 years ago.

I would not care to wean them.....sounds too much like apartheid to me not that anybody in here ever suggested that. I think they should be given work permits on demand straight away, priority in any skills program, priority in any unskilled worker program too. with full access without a permit or visa by end 2005/6

I would throw them into the Regional Aid/Social Fund and CAP and let them get their share NOW based on needs....their needs being greater than the current recipients in most cases. The idea that the curent recipients should have some kind of priority is ludicrous.

But I would ONLY let in 5 now ands see how it goes.

Therefore I think the Treaty of Nice is unecessary and will not be required until the NEXT tranche of entrants, anotehr 5 or so I should think, in 5 years time.

I think you are either in or your not, like the last wave which included the Swedes/Austrians etc....they did not have a transition so why should the EU take on too many applicants and then say there are too many of you , you must accept a transition period.

That negative circular argument tilts me towards a no but I may abstain, as is my right.

M

By weaning, I was referring to the CAP and only that.
That was the negotiation and the proposed entrants have agreed their terms.

It was in the gift of the current members of the club to invite and approve new members to join, same as in any club.

It would be difficult, bordering on impossible to apply all aspects of current EU membership immediately to new members.

Just think about the chaos, if you do not give countries a small amount of time to impliment the thousands of rules and regulations governing all kinds of activities in the E.U

If you did not set up the Expansion of the E.U in that way, then you would have a two tier Europe as you would be expecting comparatively archaic businesses to play on the same playing pitch as the rest of Europe.
It would be unequal in the extreme and simply wouldn't work.

Therefore a phasing in period is necessary.
mm

spongebob

The aspirants are obliged to codify 30 chapters or so of 'acquis' or EU law into their own systems as part of th erun up to geting invited in the first place.

Most of them are already in the high 20's codifying wise.

Cyprus is stuck on the very last one, something to do with Dickybirds and their culinary practices.

We on the other hand had derogations (exemptions) for hlf the rules we signed up to AFTER we joined the EU so why should we beat on the aspirants. That shower in Eircom come to Mind by way of example.

anyway, now I am feeling sorry for Mike65 and would invite him to summarise what he has heard in response to his question .

M

mike65

anyway, now I am feeling sorry for Mike65 and would invite him to summarise what he has heard in response to his question.

"Cough!"

I'll stick to my main point rather than dicuss RRF, CAP etc.

I asked the question because I feel it to be a canard,
something to scare the lowpaid in particular but also something to blame when Nice is passed (as I think it will be). Ireland once had a thriving textils, clothing and footware sector which has been all but wiped out. Thats happened while the eastern countries with thier lower costs have been on the outside, the jobs went to places like Morroco (which is'nt joining) and Finland which is a member. The kind of jobs which are under threat can be classed roughly as semi-skilled, screwdriver and soldering iron postions which are only
viable here becasue of generous grants and low corporation tax, I belive the tax regime is as safe
as can be expected (bearing in mind anything is possible) However low-tax may still not be enough simply because the work could be done just as well in China or Vietnam. EU tarifs may be a factor here but not if the WTO has its way.

The anti-Nice groups are, I feel exploiting fears by suggesting a NO will save jobs esp. like those described above, such postions are always under threat from emerging economies and that'll be true regardless of the vote.

Ireland will have to continue to climb the skills ladder
towards a knowledge based economy which is easier to protect as investment levels are huge and the workforce innately valuable.

I may have a few more thoughts later.

Mike.

Originally posted by Muck

anyway, now I am feeling sorry for Mike65 and would invite him to summarise what he has heard in response to his question .

M

I agree sorry mike65, possibly the discussion was mildly related to your topic:D
But Muck I simply had to answer your specefic point made here in relation to the CAP, which was:

Nor do I believe that the accession terms are as favourable FOR them as the Irish terms 30 years ago. We got straight into the CAP, they are being kept out for anumber of years even though Agriculture is very important to pretty much all the potential members.

Their(Poland in this example) Agriculture industry is about at the production and effeciency level, that we were at 30 years ago.
Yet the CAP is radically different today than in 1973.
This is Off topic, I've made my point and won't discuss it further here-regardless of how much I might disagree with mucks reply:eek: lets agree to disagree on it anyway;)
mm

spongebob

I agree with Mike65 that we upskill, screwdriver plants with no grey matter input are so.....70's really.

I still think we are putting the poor feckers thru the wringer to get to the door so they can stick a hand into the warmth to beg....to coin an analogy. I am not comfortable with it.

This is the only country where the people can decide as people, the rest of our EU partners have left the decision to their political classes.

I feel we have a duty!

Nobody in here said we don't

We differ on what our duty is really.

M