Nice Treaty debate on Late Late Show

meglome

Anyone see this?

I felt dirty watching the Late Late in the first place but the debate was nothing if not confusing. Vote yes for enlargement..., vote no and we still get enlargement.... vote yes to benefit eastern Europe... vote no to stop a two tier EU... etc.

I think what got me the most was the smug ****s from (young) Fianna Fail and Fine Gael. What is it about young people who join political parties in this country, I fear for our future. It goes without saying that I can't bear Justin Barrett but I felt myself agreeing with him... now I feel REALLY dirty. Although it is dubious the press coverage he got by going to that rally in Germany, I do recall a similar smear around the time of the last vote.

I think I'll vote no but I can't swear that I'm 100%.

So what did everyone else think?

sceptre

Originally posted by meglome
It goes without saying that I can't bear Justin Barrett but I felt myself agreeing with him... now I feel REALLY dirty.

I'll refer you to my post here. Just remember, whichever way you vote: you're not agreeing with them - they're agreeing with you. They just happen to be on the same side in this one matter*. That applies whether you are voting yes or no.


<mean mode>
I always knew Justin Barrett was a muppet - I never realised he speaks like a muppet as well:D
</mean mode>


* Read as "you are your own person" mumbo jumbo

ReefBreak

Just watched it... I'm a Yes voter btw, but regardless: I think the Yes side promoted their arguments far better than the No side. I think Justin Barrett was an embarressment (even though I know that not all No people are not the same as him). I also think that the Yes guy on the panel (sitting beside Barrett) was excellent and showed up some of the No campaigners for what they really were.

Also, I was looking at the Paddy Power site a few days ago - during the week, the Yes was 4/6 to win; they've now cut the Yes odds to 1/4 to win. Almost definitely as a result of the Poll and revelations surrounding Barrett.

mike65

It goes without saying that I can't bear Justin Barrett but I felt myself agreeing with him... now I feel REALLY dirty. Although it is dubious the press coverage he got by going to that rally in Germany, I do recall a similar smear around the time of the last vote.

Fer petes sake, Barret is an embarrasment to the NO campaign and a nasty piece of work in himself, anyone remember how he put Brendan Howlins mum through the mill in Wexford becasue he was the Health minister?

As someone in the debate noted if you're invited to speak at an event you usually find out who the organisers are, that he did'nt bother speaks volumns for me.

http://www.npd.net/

http://www.freier-widerstand.net/topliste/
check the arian girl in the npd banner.

Mike.

Flukey

Enlargement will go ahead alright, no matter what way we vote. The point is though that the question being asked next week is not...

Do you want enlargement to go ahead?

..which we all do, but...

Do you want the Nice Treaty?

...which is a completely different question.

This is the spin that the Yes campaign have put on that if you vote NO you are saying you do not want the countries to join, which is not the case. I want the countries to join and get the same chance as we all have, which is what the yes people say they want too, but the countries won't get that if they join under the terms of the Nice Treaty! They will come in at an immediate disadvantage because of the way power will be given to big countries and taken away from small countries, so how can they have the same chance we have had? Under a different and fairer treaty, not Nice, they could have.

My whole policy on Europe could be summed up in one phrase: "Co-Operation, Not Integration." Membership of the EU has had huge benefits for Ireland. We have always been very pro-European and we have done well out of the European investment put into this country. One of the reasons for voting for the Nice Treaty given by the political parties was to give the countries emerging from the East the chance to develop and benefit the way we have. We were told they should get the same opportunities we had. I totally agree with them and that is why I voted against the Nice Treaty. The structure of the EU is changing where the bigger more powerful countries are to be given more power and voting strength than the smaller countries. As such the smaller countries will not have an equal influence. Therefore the new countries coming in will not get the same chance that we had.

Democracy is one person, one vote. Applied to the EU model it should be one country one vote. All countries should have the same influence, regardless of their size. Otherwise it is like saying a fat or tall person should have more votes than a thin or short person. Each country is one member. So it should be one member, one vote. Germany may well be bigger and have a bigger population, but they still have one government and one set of ministers that come for different meetings. If all the Agriculture Ministers are meeting, then each country sends one Minister. Why should any of them have more votes than another? The population of a country votes in the domestic elections in each country. There they elect their representatives for the goverment and the EU, but each country sends the same amount of representatives - one head of government, one defence minister, one finance minister, one foreign affairs minister etc. If we vote for Nice the new countries coming in will be at a disadvantage which is not fair. We will also lose some our influence. We will lose the right to veto a decision for example.

We are told the reason we are voting again is that people did not fully understand it last year and did not know what they were doing. Firstly, that is an insult to our intelligence. Secondly, had we said 'Yes' you can be sure they would not have said we did not know what we were voting on and they would not be asking us to vote again. We are being told it is all for a new and better democratic Europe. Well if a country makes a decision and is then told that it is not acceptable, that is not very democratic, is it? Also, had one of the big countries voted No, you can be sure they would not be asked to vote again! As it is, Ireland was the only country that actually got the chance to vote on it. No other country did, which is undemocratic too. Many of the people of those countries may be against it, but have no chance to say so. The one and only reason we are being asked to vote again is because we voted NO. Even after we voted No, the Government did not go to Europe and raise our concerns and have the Treaty renegotiated. Not one paragraph, word or letter has changed in the Treaty we voted on last year. Not one of our concerns with the treaty itself was addressed. The government got a few undertakings in relation to other things such as our neutrality and our wish to remain outside a military alliance. While that is welcome, it was not a direct element of the treaty so the treaty remains unchanged. We are being told if we vote No, that those undertakings will not be signed into our constitution.

The opposition are in favour of it. They are saying don't vote No, to punish the goverment for problems they have in other areas at present. You can do that at an election! I agree. Don't vote NO to punish the Government for their recent failings, but vote No because it is a bad treaty!


We are being told that if we vote NO, that we are stopping these countries from joining and denying them their chance to be part of the EU. Again, with or without the Nice Treaty, they can still join and as I said under another deal they and indeed all of us, may get better terms. As it is, on Wednesday Europe announced the next 10 countries that are ready to join, although strangely we are being told it can't happen if we vote NO. They are saying these poor countries suffered under Communism and deserve a fair chance and a chance to develop and prosper and not be dominated by anyone else. I totally agree, which is why I am voting NO, because they will not have equality under the terms of the Nice Treaty! The Yes people are in effect saying that these countries should be saved from domination by Moscow by having domination from Brussels! I am saying they should be saved from domination by Moscow by having equal status with all countries in the EU.

All in all, the different things we are being told are an effort to blackmail us. Voting No - Excludes these countries, prevents them from joining, does not give them the same chance we did, will damage their future and ours, will damage our economy, will mean Ireland will be stopping enlargement and are totally to blame for the countries not being able to join, will mean we won't have our neutrality copper-fastened etc. etc. etc. All of which is of course, lies!!!

I do not want to punish the Government for mistakes they are making by voting No. I will be voting No because of the treaty itself. I will be voting No because I want enlargement to go ahead, I want the countries to have the same chances we had, I want them to get away from being dominated like they were under communism, I want them to have a fair and equal voice and I want us to have a good future in Europe. For all these reasons I am voting NO, because Nice will not give any of these, although funnily enough the YES people are saying it is for all those reasons we should vote Yes! If these are the reasons you are voting Yes, which I am sure is true for many Yes voters, then you should be voting No.

These are just a few of the issues on Nice. Some people are also fearful of where the EU is going generally insofar as we may end up as a 'Superstate' with all the same laws, taxation etc. and being run centrally. In general on the EU I think the different countries should be able to work together. There are many areas where we should work the same kind of policies. There are many good ideas that we can borrow from other countries and other countries can borrow from us. But each country is different and has different problems. Issues important for one country are not so important for others. As such it is not possible to have the same solutions and policies applied to all the countries. Each country must retain its individuality and sovereignty. Co-Operation, Not Integration. So it does make a very big difference what way you vote. The new countries will join either way, but you are putting them at a severe disadvantage if you vote YES!

So for the good of Ireland, the good of Europe and the good of the applicant states: Vote No. That way we can get a deal that will give them the equality and benefits we have enjoyed and we all believe they should too.

Originally posted by Flukey
This is the spin that the Yes campaign have put on that if you vote NO you are saying you do not want the countries to join, which is not the case. I want the countries to join and get the same chance as we all have, which is what the yes people say they want too, but the countries won't get that if they join under the terms of the Nice Treaty! They will come in at an immediate disadvantage because of the way power will be given to big countries and taken away from small countries, so how can they have the same chance we have had? Under a different and fairer treaty, not Nice, they could have.

Well all countries are losing relalative voting strenghts when the E.U is enlarged, taking account of it's increased size and having to allocate voices to the new entrants, with out the parliament or the commission getting so large as to be unworkable.

My whole policy on Europe could be summed up in one phrase: "Co-Operation, Not Integration." Membership of the EU has had huge benefits for Ireland. We have always been very pro-European and we have done well out of the European investment put into this country. One of the reasons for voting for the Nice Treaty given by the political parties was to give the countries emerging from the East the chance to develop and benefit the way we have. We were told they should get the same opportunities we had. I totally agree with them and that is why I voted against the Nice Treaty. The structure of the EU is changing where the bigger more powerful countries are to be given more power and voting strength than the smaller countries. As such the smaller countries will not have an equal influence. Therefore the new countries coming in will not get the same chance that we had.

The yes argument here is that, the smaller countries including Ireland will have more in common with each other and therefore will co-operate with each other, in the larger E.U
Relative to population the smaller countries will be better represented than the bigger ones. As a block they would be a very powerfull voice in insuring that their needs are paramount.

Democracy is one person, one vote. Applied to the EU model it should be one country one vote. All countries should have the same influence, regardless of their size. Otherwise it is like saying a fat or tall person should have more votes than a thin or short person. Each country is one member. So it should be one member, one vote. Germany may well be bigger and have a bigger population, but they still have one government and one set of ministers that come for different meetings. If all the Agriculture Ministers are meeting, then each country sends one Minister. Why should any of them have more votes than another? The population of a country votes in the domestic elections in each country. There they elect their representatives for the goverment and the EU, but each country sends the same amount of representatives - one head of government, one defence minister, one finance minister, one foreign affairs minister etc. If we vote for Nice the new countries coming in will be at a disadvantage which is not fair. We will also lose some our influence. We will lose the right to veto a decision for example.

Well countries send representatives to the Euro parliament based on constituencies, notwithstanding the fact that German M.E.P's represent many more constituents than their Irish counterparts.
The Nice treaty was negotiated to take account of this fact, with Ireland still having less constituents for it's M.E.P's than larger countries.

We are told the reason we are voting again is that people did not fully understand it last year and did not know what they were doing. Firstly, that is an insult to our intelligence.

I keep hearing this and find it misleading..
A recent vox pop street interview on RTÉ news turned up a lot of people saying they were voting no as they do not understand the treaty.
I also heard Phillip boucher Hayes on 57 live on RTÉ during the week following Gerry Adams on the campaign trail in moore street.
Traders there were saying they were voting no as they did not understand the treaty.
Now thats even after all the stuff that has came in through the letterboxes, some people aren't bothering to read it and still voting no.
I have no problems with a no vote but it should be an informed decision.
The referendum commissions leaflets on the subject this time round are as clear as day on what this treaty is about.

If we vote for Nice the new countries coming in will be at a disadvantage which is not fair. We will also lose some our influence. We will lose the right to veto a decision for example.

That is a matter of opinion. Without reforming the institutions of the E.U and the way each country is represented, you would stagnate the decision making process within the E.U
There had to be give and take in relation to this, you cannot be joining the E.U in the same way as you join a gym.There is a process involved and clearly the ten States that have been decided as ready to join have recognised and agreed to that.

Some people are also fearful of where the EU is going generally insofar as we may end up as a 'Superstate' with all the same laws, taxation etc. and being run centrally.

The super state argument does not hold water.
Ireland would need another referendum to abolish the Dáil and our constitution.That is a referendum that would never be passed.

We are being told it is all for a new and better democratic Europe. Well if a country makes a decision and is then told that it is not acceptable, that is not very democratic, is it? Also, had one of the big countries voted No, you can be sure they would not be asked to vote again! As it is, Ireland was the only country that actually got the chance to vote on it. No other country did, which is undemocratic too. Many of the people of those countries may be against it, but have no chance to say so.

Again a matter of opinion.
We held a forum , to which a lot of participants were invited to discuss why the country voted no.
The reason why that was done was a reflection of how important the government viewed our relationship with Europe, and how important it felt the Irish Governments contribution to the negotiation of the Nice Treaty was.
In any negotiation process, it has to be recognised that if a deal is agreed but later torn up and there are new negotiations , those talks might turn up a less favourable treat to Ireland.
The government obviously took this view on the Nice Treaty, while recognising also that it would be neccessary to copperfasten Irish neutrality within the new enlarged E.U.

Democracies like Ireland elect their governments to take decisions like that.
Even though the other European countries did not hold a referendum on Nice, any individual in those countries can stand on that single issue in their general election and see what vote they get.
If we are not happy with our governments decision , we throw them out at the next election. Similarally we can vote no to the Nice referendum this time, safe in the knowledge that , our reason is not neutrality or lack of information about the treaty.

I will be voting No because I want enlargement to go ahead, I want the countries to have the same chances we had, I want them to get away from being dominated like they were under communism, I want them to have a fair and equal voice and I want us to have a good future in Europe.

I fail to see how you can compare, domination within the U.S.S.R or the old communist block with membership of the E.U????
If thats one of your main arguments for voting no, you should provide examples of where and how the citizens of the E.U are being repressed and have poor standards of living and lack the freedom of movement that characterised the old communist block countries.
mm

Biffa Bacon

Justin Barrett made an absolute fool of himself. He was arguing that our loss of the veto over Structural Funds would mean that Ireland would have to basically sign a blank cheque. The guy from the Yes side proceeded to rip his argument to shreds by pointing out that the veto was there to protect the richer countries in view of how Spain had tried to blackmail the rest of the EU in previous years during Structural Fund negotiations because they didn’t believe they were getting enough loot. Barrett’s response? “I think that’s just childish, it really is.” The audience just burst out laughing at him.

Biffa Bacon

This is the spin that the Yes campaign have put on that if you vote NO you are saying you do not want the countries to join, which is not the case.

I agree on this. Much of the Yes campaign has consisted of scaremongering, emotional blackmail and irrelevancies.

They will come in at an immediate disadvantage because of the way power will be given to big countries and taken away from small countries, so how can they have the same chance we have had?

They can’t have the same chances we have had because Ireland joined the EEC 29 years ago and there have been massive changes since then. You can’t expect the applicant countries to be able to renegotiate every treaty the rest of the EU has already agreed on.

The structure of the EU is changing where the bigger more powerful countries are to be given more power and voting strength than the smaller countries.

The bigger countries already have a greater voting strength than the smaller countries. It’s been like that since the Single European Act of 1986.

Democracy is one person, one vote. Applied to the EU model it should be one country one vote. All countries should have the same influence, regardless of their size.

That’s an entirely reasonable suggestion but you need to understand that QMV has never operated according to that principle. I don’t believe it’s reasonable to expect that Ireland can keep voting No to every European treaty presented to us until such a principle is accepted as a basis for the allocation of voting rights.

We will lose the right to veto a decision for example.

We will lose the right to veto certain decisions (see the government White Paper for the full list). As it stands, there are already very many policy areas that we do not have a veto over. The loss of veto power is not something that is being introduced for the first time by this treaty.

We are told the reason we are voting again is that people did not fully understand it last year and did not know what they were doing. Firstly, that is an insult to our intelligence.

It’s a simple statement of fact. I certainly didn’t fully understand it last year and I’m certain that the vast majority of posters on the politics board didn’t understand it either. Hand on heart, can you honestly say you did?

Secondly, had we said 'Yes' you can be sure they would not have said we did not know what we were voting on and they would not be asking us to vote again.

Of course not, why would the government want to do that? The question of whether the people fully understood the treaty or not only relates to the issue of whether or not it is reasonable to hold the referendum again, not whether it ought to be held again.

We are being told it is all for a new and better democratic Europe. Well if a country makes a decision and is then told that it is not acceptable, that is not very democratic, is it?

We are not being forced to hold this referendum again, the government has chosen to hold it again.

Also, had one of the big countries voted No, you can be sure they would not be asked to vote again!

I think it’s entirely likely they would have tried a second time to get it ratified.

As it is, Ireland was the only country that actually got the chance to vote on it. No other country did, which is undemocratic too.

No it’s not. Each nation has the right to decide how it wants to handle it’s own constitutional affairs. Germany, for example, is constitutionally prohibited from holding referendums.

Many of the people of those countries may be against it, but have no chance to say so.

They have the democratic right to vote out of office the government that ratified the treaty.

Even after we voted No, the Government did not go to Europe and raise our concerns and have the Treaty renegotiated.

Why would they, when it’s clear that the people didn’t understand what they were voting on? What guarantee would there be that the people would understand a renegotiated treaty any better?

We are being told that if we vote NO, that we are stopping these countries from joining and denying them their chance to be part of the EU.

A No vote would certainly slow down the enlargement process as the EU institutions would quickly become overburdened and unworkable.

Again, with or without the Nice Treaty, they can still join and as I said under another deal they and indeed all of us, may get better terms.

Up to five new members can join without Nice; after that, the legal situation is unclear as to what can happen.

STaN

1stly i have to say that i am a yes voter.

Justin Barrett is a right wing catholic extremist. He claimed that he didnt know that it was a neo nazi rally that he attended, which it obviously was. tbh he reminds me of that character in lord of the rings, who was the advisor to the king of rohan, who spread lies and poisoned the king slowly over time and wanted only to serve his selfish goals. (good book )

A few people have mentioned that they want all these new member states to have the same chance that we had. Right, that would be fine if they were joining back when there were less than 15 members at the time. Now we are looking at up to 27 member states joining. If that goes ahead without the Nice Treaty it will mean that every one of those 27 countries would have a veto. If one country didnt like something, and the next time a different country didnt like another, the EU would grind to a stand still and nothing would get done. QMV solves this issue so that the EU can work effectively and work like a democracy. Another fact on this is that we are not going to loose the veto in all area's.

Also the fear that the larger member states taking over is unfounded. Germany are hardly going to try another conquest of europe, simply becuase they can't. Germany and France rarely agree on issues so a group of big countries on the take over is not going to happen which immediately disproves the arguements of a EU army, tax harmonisation etc. Farmers are worried about reductions in CAP. Nice will benefit them, as france and allot of other contries old and new want to keep it as it is, while germany wants changes.

Also the fact that there are going to be a whole host of other small countries in the union means that the most likely scenario will be that they will have comon agendas to us and so we will have alliances that way.

So why are we having this referendum again a second time? Well this is the first time that a referendum in ireland has had such a profound effect on 100's of millions of people outside the country and that's why it is so important. It's nothing to do with intelligence, but if you aren't a conservative or a right winger, I PERSONALLY cant see a reason not to be voting yes.

Without a yes, the EU will become over burdened and unworkable.

meglome

With so many countries in the EU(and joining) the veto is a bad thing but this doesn't say that the Nice treaty is the answer to it. I'm a democrat but the system of splitting the EU commissioners basically by country not by population seems to me to be a better idea. The reality being that often a country can have a massively different view to the country next door.

PH01

Great to see Justin Barrett get a-doing on the LLS last Friday night. It really showed the No2Nice people up to what they really are.

bonkey

Originally posted by PH01
Great to see Justin Barrett get a-doing on the LLS last Friday night. It really showed the No2Nice people up to what they really are.

No, it doesnt.

Barrett was a poor choice as a spokesperson for something so important, for two reasons.

1) His point of view is generally considered extreme, which means that many people will simply refuse to listen to him regardless.

2) It gives his opponents a very simple way of winning the media war - attack him and not the issue at hand.

To draw associations between Barrett and the No camp in general is ridiculous.

jc

ReefBreak

To draw associations between Barrett and the No camp in general is ridiculous.

Barrett is the leader of one of the No to Nice groups (No2Nice.org). Therefore, it is completely correct to draw an association between him and "No2Nice".

meglome

Originally posted by PH01
Great to see Justin Barrett get a-doing on the LLS last Friday night. It really showed the No2Nice people up to what they really are.

Hang on there a second... I can't stand Justin Barrett or his ilk, I am normally as far away from them in my opinions that it is possible to be. I can't believe that asshole is representing the No campaign in the first place. But this has no impact on my own opinions of the treaty. Basically I don't like your aspersions.

yankinlk

Flukey, thank you for your long and informative post. You have made up my mind for me. I will now vote YES.

Democracy is one person, one vote. Applied to the EU model it should be one country one vote. All countries should have the same influence, regardless of their size.

one person one vote = 1.5 million votes for ireland

one person one vote = however many million germans in germany...etc

I do not agree that translates to one vote per country, simple as that. Germany should get more votes and more representation otherwise all those millions of germans are not being represented.

meglome

As I pointed out already, in many cases whole countries have very similar views. But these views may not be the majority view of the country next door. Each European country has it's own education system and culture so IMHO it is not a good thing to have one person one vote.

yankinlk

huh, when's the last time a whole country's peoples had exactly the same views on anything?

Typedef

Originally posted by yankinlk
Flukey, thank you for your long and informative post. You have made up my mind for me. I will now vote YES.



one person one vote = 1.5 million votes for ireland

one person one vote = however many million germans in germany...etc

I do not agree that translates to one vote per country, simple as that. Germany should get more votes and more representation otherwise all those millions of germans are not being represented.

So umm, in a Federal European Union, why should Gerhard Schroder or Romano Prodi have a say in the governance of Ireland, when in reality only Irish people are interested in how Ireland is governed. This was the core of the Irish question when Ireland was under British rule, it was to have control over Irish self governance that Ireland broke away from Britain, because Irish people did not feel in control of their own destiny, so why should I as an Irish voter, willingly take this country into a Federal European Union where the rest of the people of this country will ultimately end up with less control over self governance then our ancestors had within the English parliment?

That makes no sense. Politicians I have spoken to have said 'tax harmonisation' will never come to pass, but in lieu of the fact Ireland is already putting up it's corporate tax rates by 2.5% to placate the EU, it doesn't really matter if there is an offical structure called 'tax harmonisation' the defacto policy already exists.

Let the Germans and Italians govern Germany and Italy, again I don't find any particular advantage to the people of this country in participating in a Federal European Union, sorry, the Free Trade area of the EU makes sense, however this is not the US and Europeans have major and intractable national differences and due to this I don't think the time has come where the EU can coalese and can trust everyone else in the Union not to abuse the dominant position their nation has by weight of numbers.

Yes you are right, to protect the interests of nations, numbers based democracy suffers, and since I am in favour of numbers based democracy and don't want to see it disrespected, and moreover since I want to see Ireland as a soverign nation I don't think Ireland should participate in European political Union. So that basically only the people who live in Ireland, get to decide what happens in Ireland, the way it should be, because only 4 million people live here, that's why the other four hundred million people in the EU really don't need to participate in Irish democracy nor governance, and similary four million Irish voters really don't need a say in how the other four hundred million people in the EU are governed, that is an issue for their respective national parliments and I most certainly wouldn't presume to attempt to tell those people how to govern themselves nor how to vote and all I ask in return is the same curtosy extended to me and to this country.

Simply, that is my basic argument against Federalism.

So umm, in a Federal European Union, why should Gerhard Schroder or Romano Prodi have a say in the governance of Ireland, when in reality only Irish people are interested in how Ireland is governed. This was the core of the Irish question when Ireland was under British rule, it was to have control over Irish self governance that Ireland broke away from Britain, because Irish people did not feel in control of their own destiny, so why should I as an Irish voter, willingly take this country into a Federal European Union where the rest of the people of this country will ultimately end up with less control over self governance then our ancestors had within the English parliment?

I know , but times change, we didn't have companies from the U.S and elsewhere coming in here providing thousands of jobs for people back in the 1920's, in fact the people were moving to GB and the U.S en masse for to find jobs.
A limited degree of federalism as we have at the moment is doing the country more good than harm.
I for one would vote no if , a referendum, to abolish the Dáil and our constitution was held.
But that will never happen.

That makes no sense. Politicians I have spoken to have said 'tax harmonisation' will never come to pass, but in lieu of the fact Ireland is already putting up it's corporate tax rates by 2.5% to placate the EU, it doesn't really matter if there is an offical structure called 'tax harmonisation' the defacto policy already exists.

So does that mean that if we pulled out of the E.U and say, reduced corporation taxes for foreign companies to Zero, that they would stay here to sell to the E.U and suffer import duties(which the E.U would impose, probably citing us as having an uncompetitive advantage).
I don't think so.

Let the Germans and Italians govern Germany and Italy, again I don't find any particular advantage to the people of this country in participating in a Federal European Union, sorry, the Free Trade area of the EU makes sense, however this is not the US and Europeans have major and intractable national differences and due to this I don't think the time has come where the EU can coalese and can trust everyone else in the Union not to abuse the dominant position their nation has by weight of numbers.

Thats exactly the reason why I do not think that ultimately the E.U will go completely down the road of federalism U.S style as it would be complete folly.
Creating the Euro currency, and now creating the best negotiated conditions for E.U enlargement via the Nice Treaty is sensible though in my view.

Yes you are right, to protect the interests of nations, numbers based democracy suffers, and since I am in favour of numbers based democracy and don't want to see it disrespected, and moreover since I want to see Ireland as a soverign nation I don't think Ireland should participate in European political Union. So that basically only the people who live in Ireland, get to decide what happens in Ireland, the way it should be, because only 4 million people live here, that's why the other four hundred million people in the EU really don't need to participate in Irish democracy nor governance, and similary four million Irish voters really don't need a say in how the other four hundred million people in the EU are governed, that is an issue for their respective national parliments and I most certainly wouldn't presume to attempt to tell those people how to govern themselves nor how to vote and all I ask in return is the same curtosy extended to me and to this country.

Fair enough, but our sovereignty as it stands at the moment is not diluted by this treaty, we still govern our land.
The Dáil could if it so wished take us out of the E.U
And we have an independent army,Gardaí etc.
mm

Typedef

Originally posted by Man
I know , but times change, we didn't have companies from the U.S and elsewhere coming in here providing thousands of jobs for people back in the 1920's, in fact the people were moving to GB and the U.S en masse for to find jobs.
A limited degree of federalism as we have at the moment is doing the country more good than harm.
I for one would vote no if , a referendum, to abolish the Dáil and our constitution was held.
But that will never happen.

What is happening is a creeping Federalism, each Treaty the public is asked to ratify is taking Ireland further and further into the EU. Some politicians are open and honest and admit that these treaties are moves towards a Federal Union or a United States of Europe, some are not or delude themselves into believing otherwise, however the general concensus is that a Federal Union is in the offing for willing participants sometime in the not so distant future.

So does that mean that if we pulled out of the E.U and say, reduced corporation taxes for foreign companies to Zero, that they would stay here to sell to the E.U and suffer import duties(which the E.U would impose, probably citing us as having an uncompetitive advantage).
I don't think so.

Right I advocate Irish political independance, this means non-participation in the political aspects of the EU. To my mind participation in the Free Trade aspects of the EU should not imply Ireland has to participate in a policy of slow erosion of Irish soveringty to EU institutions. Why should it? Is Ireland so desperate to have some mythical 'access' (where the term varies considerably depending on the context and person using the word) to European markets that we feel the need to cede soveringty to Brussels? Why must the then European Economic Community, become the European Union (aka embryonic United States of Europe)? No look at the British, the British enjoy the economic benefits of EU membership, but have negotiated significant opt-outs for themselves on the political Union front, so to my mind should the Irish, because in my view political integration is not in the interests of Ireland and political integration is too high a price to pay for membership of a European Free Trade area.
Basically though it is in the interests of the EU to have Ireland as an 'economic member' only, because that increases the market the EU can sell to and do commerce with and so on and to be honest you will have quite a job convincing me that political union and economic cooperation are analagous concepts.

Fair enough, but our sovereignty as it stands at the moment is not diluted by this treaty, we still govern our land.
The Dáil could if it so wished take us out of the E.U
And we have an independent army,Gardaí etc.
mm

You don't think Irish soveringty is diluted? Look at how the government has raised corporate taxes from 10% to 12.5% under EU pressure. Under enhanced co-operation the more ardently federalist countries in the Union will make a tax harmonisation pact, make no mistake about that, it is high on the Federalists agenda. So if Ireland is 'already' caving into pressure from the EU on taxes 'before' the enhanced cooperation on Tax issue is even attemptedly enunciated by the Federalist faction of the Union, how likely do you think it will be once EU institutions are used for making tax policy for France, Germany and other Federalist countries before Ireland falls into line, considering Ireland is 'already' falling into line, despite platitudes from leading politicians that Irish tax rates won't be affected by further political integration?

Make no mistake the Nice Treaty is about further political integration in part, that is why it has to be voted on by the People, because the courts in Ireland have said that further political integration must be voted on by the people.
Thus the act of having a vote on Nice already proves that Irish soveringty is diluted by the Nice Treaty.

Typedef.

Meh

Originally posted by Typedef
You don't think Irish soveringty is diluted? Look at how the government has raised corporate taxes from 10% to 12.5% under EU pressure.

Uh, Irish corporation taxes are being lowered (from 32% to 12.5%). The special 10% tax rate for multinationals is being ended, and from now on, all companies will be taxed at 12.5% -- a much fairer situation for Irish companies. Under EU rules (which Ireland agreed to, by the way), we're allowed to have whatever tax rates we like, as long as they are the same for foreign and domestic companies.

So if Ireland is 'already' caving into pressure from the EU on taxes 'before' the enhanced cooperation on Tax issue is even attemptedly enunciated by the Federalist faction of the Union, how likely do you think it will be once EU institutions are used for making tax policy for France, Germany and other Federalist countries before Ireland falls into line, considering Ireland is 'already' falling into line, despite platitudes from leading politicians that Irish tax rates won't be affected by further political integration?

I think it's extremely unlikely that Ireland will "fall into line" and harmonize taxes. A single tax rate of 12.5% for foreign and domestic companies is good for the Irish economy; EU tax harmonization would not be good for the Irish economy. I can't see an Irish government agreeing to this any more than I can see an Irish government increasing income tax to 80%.

Thus the act of having a vote on Nice already proves that Irish soveringty is diluted by the Nice Treaty.

I don't understand your point here. If we weren't having a vote on Nice, would that mean Irish sovereignty wasn't being diluted?

What is happening is a creeping Federalism, each Treaty the public is asked to ratify is taking Ireland further and further into the EU. Some politicians are open and honest and admit that these treaties are moves towards a Federal Union or a United States of Europe, some are not or delude themselves into believing otherwise, however the general concensus is that a Federal Union is in the offing for willing participants sometime in the not so distant future.

Thats ok, you are basicically crying Stop to what you see as creeping Federalisation.
I on the other hand am prepared to take each measure on it's merits.I've already said roughly where I personally would draw the line and a Federal europe completely U.S style is not my cup of tea.Whether the Irish people are willing to take this Treaty on it's merits, we will see after Saturday.

No look at the British, the British enjoy the economic benefits of EU membership, but have negotiated significant opt-outs for themselves on the political Union front, so to my mind should the Irish, because in my view political integration is not in the interests of Ireland and political integration is too high a price to pay for membership of a European Free Trade area.

That is a very valid point, the most significant opt out being of course the Euro.
Of any country in the World, Great Britain would be the one, I would expect to have most difficulty with degree's of federalism.
It's Economy is big enough to survive and prosper on it's own, irrespective of whether it might be better taking the Euro.
Whether they join remains to be seen, but their Government is not urging us to vot no to the Nice Treaty.

You don't think Irish soveringty is diluted? Look at how the government has raised corporate taxes from 10% to 12.5% under EU pressure. Under enhanced co-operation the more ardently federalist countries in the Union will make a tax harmonisation pact, make no mistake about that, it is high on the Federalists agenda. So if Ireland is 'already' caving into pressure from the EU on taxes 'before' the enhanced cooperation on Tax issue is even attemptedly enunciated by the Federalist faction of the Union, how likely do you think it will be once EU institutions are used for making tax policy for France, Germany and other Federalist countries before Ireland falls into line, considering Ireland is 'already' falling into line, despite platitudes from leading politicians that Irish tax rates won't be affected by further political integration?

You will have to argue corporation taxes with Charlie McCreevy, he is not famed for towing the line with Brussels on Tax and as you know has been reprimanded by them for his attitude.
The reprimand being for persuing Economic policies that seemed to the commission to be heading Ireland towards a breaking of the conditions for entry to the Euro.
He basically ignored their viewpoint and carried on regardless.

Thus the act of having a vote on Nice already proves that Irish soveringty is diluted by the Nice Treaty.

Again that is a matter of opinion, as the people are sovereign, we have the right to decide what goes into our constitution.
mm

Typedef

Originally posted by Meh
A single tax rate of 12.5% for foreign and domestic companies is good for the Irish economy;

Since when has a 2.5% increase in corporate tax rates precipitated by EU pressure been good for inwards investment?

http://www.no2nice.org.
Do not let the process of Irish Referenda become subservient to a Supra National Federalist edict. Requantify Ireland's democratic voice and vote No the the Nice Treaty.

Cuidado con el gato baby

Typedef

Originally posted by Man
by me

Thus the act of having a vote on Nice already proves that Irish soveringty is diluted by the Nice Treaty.

Again that is a matter of opinion, as the people are sovereign, we have the right to decide what goes into our constitution.

No sorry you are missing my point.

The Irish courts have deemed that further political integration with Europe must be passed via Referenda, thus since Ireland is having a Referenda, this proves that the Treaty of Nice is not only about expansion of the Union, but further political integration.
Thus the claim the Treaty of Nice is 'only' about expansion of the Union is in fact spurious.

http://www.no2nice.org.
Do not let the process of Irish Referenda become subservient to a Supra National Federalist edict. Requantify Ireland's democratic voice and vote No the the Nice Treaty.

Cuidado con el gato baby

No I haven't missed your point, I already conceded several times that the E.U has taken and is continuing to take some federalist steps which , well is political, theres no other way to describe it.
I agree with them so far.
The point where the line is drawn as to how far Ireland goes down that route will ultimately be decided by the people.
mm

Typedef

It is admirable that you are prepared to admit that you support European Federalism, up to prorouging of the Dial into a entity similar to a County Council.
I do not support a Federal European Union, if it were a case of coalesing with the Americans and British (countries Ireland has a common culture with, if at sometimes an antagonistic relationship) I 'might' and I emphasise might have a different opinion on Federalism.

However to ratify Nice I would also have to agree that further Federal integration or integration that affects Irish soveringty is good for this country, which currently no one has given me a convincing air tight argument for. I don't accept that what is good for the EU is necessarily good for Ireland and for me Ireland always comes first, without question. So I would ask how do you think Federal integration is in the national interest of Ireland? Try to avoid implying that non-Federalism will rain the wrath of Greco-Euro Gods on Ireland, because I don't feel particularly afraid of their wrath. Perhaps if Zeus split the sky as I typed that it would be different, but he hasn't and it's not.

Do you think that the EU influencing taxation in Ireland is a good thing, considering Irish taxes are so low and the EU would really prefare if Ireland increased tax, convince me that tax harmonisation (which is implied by federalism) is good?

Do you support the creation of a two tiered Europe using enhanced cooperation and qualified majority voting and can you demonstrate to me that in such a structure of which Ireland would be irrelevant whether participating or no, would ultimately be to the benefit of Ireland, despite the fact that Ireland would have no palpiable influence on the shape of such enhanced cooperation areas due to the fact Qualified Majority Voting will be prevailent to all new co operative areas in this structure?


In a wider sense don't you regard Federalism as the Irish question revisited except the EU has supplanted the English and in this context of the revisitation of the Irish question don't you see Federalism as effectively making representative democracy meaningless to this State as Irish voters would have no substancial say over how the Union is governed and consequently no sunstancial say over how Ireland is governed?

I realise most people don't claim to be so rabid a Federalist, however from where I sit, the EU is moving towards an entity that will with a Common Foreign and Security Policy and a single Currency, be effectively a supplantry body for national governments in many key areas like taxation, foreign policy and security, which if you look up the meaning of a 'Federation' is traditionally what the term Federalism implys.

To my mind issues like this haven't been addressed. On the one hand the government has acknowledged a Referendum is required on the Nice Treaty, by way of the fact it brings a Federal Union closer to fruition and on the other hand the same government is attempting to lie to the public and say the Treaty is solely about expansion of the Union. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.

"Hey I think this guys is a couple of cans short of a six pack"

Meh

Originally posted by Typedef:
Since when has a 2.5% increase in corporate tax rates precipitated by EU pressure been good for inwards investment?

The EU didn't tell us to increase the tax rate, they just told us to level the playing field and make the tax rate the same for foreign and domestic companies. We could have made the tax rate 5% for all companies and satisfied them. It was the Irish government who chose the 2.5% rise for multinationals, not the EU. It may seem like a small point, but it's an important one.

In a wider sense don't you regard Federalism as the Irish question revisited except the EU has supplanted the English...

No, I think this is a false analogy. English government of Ireland was never based on the consent of the people of Ireland. In contrast, we have consistently voted in favour of EU membership in referendum after referendum over the last 30 years (Yes, I know Nice was rejected last time, but nobody is interpreting that as meaning the Irish want to withdraw from the EU. Even most of the No side say they are in favour of EU membership).

As well as that, we have elected pro-Europe governments in every single general election since EEC accession. In fact, I can't think of a single TD who has been elected after standing on a "withdraw from the EU" platform.

Typedef

No, I think this is a false analogy. English government of Ireland was never based on the consent of the people of Ireland. In contrast, we have consistently voted in favour of EU membership in referendum after referendum over the last 30 years

Except somehow in the last Referendum, as if by magic, that thirty year streak came to an end. No I'm not saying it is akin to military occupation or the forced dissolution of the national parliment, however clearly the government is acting in an extraneous manner, outside what it would normally do for a Referendum that concerned Ireland alone. It is not coercion, however it is most certainly not an example of the supposed vaunted Referenda process of Ireland that the Irish are so proud to pat ourselves on the back about.

Thus if the decision is reversed by a questionable re-run I believe Irish democracy and thus Irish soveringty will have been damaged to the benefit of a foreign power, so in many senses this would be akin or analagous to the Irish quesiton revisited.

Well, I don't think we would have taxes as low as they are , were it not for the fact that we got billions more from the E.U than we gave them.


In reply to DeVore, by saying:

If you are of the view that, the E.U is a great big steam roller on the way to a complete United states of Europe with one constitution and with the Dáil having the power of a county council

I am simply stating that anyone steadfast in that view can only vote no.It doesn't imply that I think that that is what is going to happen.

However to ratify Nice I would also have to agree that further Federal integration or integration that affects Irish soveringty is good for this country, which currently no one has given me a convincing air tight argument for. I don't accept that what is good for the EU is necessarily good for Ireland and for me Ireland always comes first, without question. So I would ask how do you think Federal integration is in the national interest of Ireland? Try to avoid implying that non-Federalism will rain the wrath of Greco-Euro Gods on Ireland, because I don't feel particularly afraid of their wrath. Perhaps if Zeus split the sky as I typed that it would be different, but he hasn't and it's not.

I mostly agree with you there, but I am not arguing for federal integration, I do agree with some federalist steps such as the Euro.
I'm not all for Europe, you know, just a comprimise so we can get the best out of it.It's step by step with me,taking each issue on it's merits.Our Government negotiated this treaty with the E.U agenda for the effecient running of an enlarged Europe in mind.
If it is passed and It can be proven that our Country goes to pot over the next 10 years then lets throw out the government at the next election and the one after that and let the Cast iron case against Europe if there is one be set then.
It's the not knowing that would kill me:D

Do you support the creation of a two tiered Europe using enhanced cooperation and qualified majority voting and can you demonstrate to me that in such a structure of which Ireland would be irrelevant whether participating or no, would ultimately be to the benefit of Ireland, despite the fact that Ireland would have no palpiable influence on the shape of such enhanced cooperation areas due to the fact Qualified Majority Voting will be prevailent to all new co operative areas in this structure?

Well thats back to how an effecient Enlarged E.U is going to be run.To enlarge the E.U and give all the members a veto on everything would stagnate the process.
The people either buy into that on Saturday or they don't.
I'm confident that to date we have done well out of the E.U

In a wider sense don't you regard Federalism as the Irish question revisited except the EU has supplanted the English and in this context of the revisitation of the Irish question don't you see Federalism as effectively making representative democracy meaningless to this State as Irish voters would have no substancial say over how the Union is governed?

Nope, as that was largely a religous question

To my mind issues like this haven't been addressed. On the one hand the government has acknowledged a Referendum is required on the Nice Treaty, by way of the fact it brings a Federal Union one step (whatever that means) closer to fruition and on the other hand the same government is attempting to lie to the public and say the Treaty is solely about expansion of the Union. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.

we will have to agree to disagree on that premise as I am accepting certain federalist steps for the more effecient running of an enlarged E.U and you want it to stop.
Ultimately the decision is with the people on Saturday and if they say no I will accept that(But it will still kill me if not knowing what would happen if the Treaty was passed:D )
mm

Meh

Originally posted by Typedef
clearly the government is acting in an extraneous manner, outside what it would normally do for a Referendum that concerned Ireland alone.

Hasn't the government rerun referendums before? Proportional representation, divorce...

Not intending to restart the argument about the rights and wrongs of rerunning referendums, just to point out that there is precedent...

Typedef

Originally posted by Man Well, I don't think we would have taxes as low as they are , were it not for the fact that we got billions more from the E.U than we gave them.

Oh great back to the entire Irish thing of beating ourselves up over nothing hmm? Ireland has given up 75% of it's fishing recources, it has complied with the CAP and when the Americans pumped billions of dollars into Germany after the war, there was no question of Germany repaying the favour with National soveringty, if anything Germany has become even more independant, despite it's complete military defeat in 1945.
Quid pro quo agent Starling, six hundred years of English misrule don't do your economy any favours, yet still you think Ireland should be beholdant to the EU now, when clearly Ireland will end up being a 'net contributor' to the EU and is likely to remain that way. I wonder if the self abasing arguement about structural funds will hold quite as much influence with the public then? It might, but I doubt it.


I am simply stating that anyone steadfast in that view can only vote no.It doesn't imply that I think that that is what is going to happen.
I mostly agree with you there, but I am not arguing for federal integration, I do agree with some federalist steps such as the European integration the government and opposition are attempting to sell the notion the Treaty is exclusively about enlargement, an argument proved to be a total lie by virtue of the fact a Referendum is required.

taking each issue on it's merits.Our Government negotiated this treaty with the E.U agenda for the effecient running of an enlarged Europe in mind.

Again here is the misconception that the only issues involved in the Treaty are about expansion, where on examination one finds that because a Refendum is required due to the integrationist aspects of the Treaty, it can not be claimed that Treaty is exclusively about expansion.

Well thats back to how an effecient Enlarged E.U is going to be run.To enlarge the E.U and give all the members a veto on everything would stagnate the process.

So by your argument, give the large nations a veto by virtue of their size in a Qualified Majority Vote and take the veto away from Ireland in the interests of expaditing EU work? Sorry, that doesn't really fit in with my model of protecting Ireland first, that sounds like protecting large EU member states first and making sure their agendas get passed while small countries like Ireland can't do a damn thing to stop them.

Nope, as that was largely a religous question

I think you will find the Irish question was about Irish self governance, since the Anglican Church was disestablished in 1869 coming into force in 1871. The Irish question as far as I studied it was all about self determination, a process that has been interfered with by the government of Ireland to benefit the EU, thus the Irish question revisited.