Nice Treaty debate on Late Late Show

Typedef

Originally posted by Meh
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...

The divorce referenda were reworded and did not affect national soveringty. The abortion Referenda similary were reworded and did not affect Irish soveringty.

Proportional representation to be exact, was when DeValera tried to have the system of PR revoked by putting the issue to the people twice and twice he was defeated.

Dustaz

I have a question about the no2nice people. Does Justin Barrett represent the group? If so, why have they not condemmened his affiliations.

(Since the mistake has been made once or twice in the thread, im talking about the no2nice group, not No Voters.)

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.

That implies they will of course, I would be of the view that we could pull out of the E.U if it was proved our Economy was not benefiting from enlarged membership.I'm not expecting that though, you are.

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,

That says something about the effeciency of foreign fishing fleets.
I have issues with the CAP.
I will say one thing though , the U.S wouldn't be able to feed it self were it not for the widespread use of Growth hormones in it's beef herd or BST(not BSE now , the hormone) in it's Dairy cows.
The E.U banned them for reasons other than market related ones.
But this is not the thread to expand on that.
I have every faith in a little clever regionalisation to minimise any increased contributions we pay to the E.U
Anyhow if we have to contribute more surely thats a sign things are continuing to go well for us-on the other side if we play our busines right we can take advantage of the increasing and growing market in an enlarged E.U
It's a bit like having to pay more taxes, it's a sign your income has gone up, not necessarilly a bad thing.

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.

But the Treaty is about the arrangements for enlargement.
The referendum is asking the question, whether or not we are to ratify the Treaty, thats very democratic.
You mean upon examination of the ratification process not the Treaty.
Any other process would be unconstitutional.

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.

Of course it was about self Governance, but it was largely a religous issue in the sense that the natives were Catholics and the British were Protestant.
If the Monarchy in England were Catholic, most of the issues would not have arisen.
Please do not get me started on that one.
mm

Typedef

Originally posted by Man
That implies they will of course, I would be of the view that we could pull out of the E.U if it was proved our Economy was not benefiting from enlarged membership.I'm not expecting that though, you are.

First off I'm advocating non participation in political integration and thus a No vote to the Nice Treaty. Secondly Economic co-operation (like the UK participates in) is not analagous to political cooperation with the EU, so by way of the fact you seem to be conjoining the two I have to say I can't, won't and shouldn't accept your agrument, because as I've said political Union does not imply Economic co operation and vice versa.

That says something about the effeciency of foreign fishing fleets.

Actually what that says is that Ireland has 11% of the fishing space in the EU, but is only allowed to catch 3% of the catch by the EU, that's what that says, because that is the truth of the matter. Like I say, quid pro quo.

I have every faith in a little clever regionalisation to minimise any increased contributions we pay to the E.U

You have faith? Unfortunately for your faith, this State has agreed to become a 'net contributor' to the EU by 2007, added to which is the fact that Ireland has been allowing other EU states to take 75% of the fish catches from Irish waters since 1973 as well as the dictats from Europe via the CAP (where Irish farmers are paid for what the EU decides they might be able to produce (instead of having a proper capitalist system)) and all in all I see that of course Ireland has derived benefits from the Economic aspects of the EU, but it has also in the reality of the situation given up economic interests to the same, quid pro quo, you get nothing for nothing in this life. That is why I don't really accept the argument that Ireland owes the EU for handouts, because the EU most certainly has exploited Ireland in return.

Anyhow if we have to contribute more surely thats a sign things are continuing to go well for us-on the other side if we play our busines right we can take advantage of the increasing and growing market in an enlarged E.U

Get real first off there is no question Ireland is obliged to become a Net contributor end of story, net contribution that does not factor in the fishing of Irish territorial waters by the likes of the Spanish, so again 'net contribution' in that sense is entirely subjective. A salient point was made by another member it was, which do you think more likely, that relatively expensive Irish high tech goods will find millions of new consumers in Eastern Europe or that many people will avail of unrestricted access to the country from the moment of acession and will allow empolyers in this country to ignore wage increases so they can exploit cheap Eastern labour, or wose still large American corporations simply locate to Eastern Europe to the detrament of Ireland? I don't favour this argument, however others have made it and I will put it to you now. I'm not being racist, I'm just calling it as it is. Of course IBEC wants the Nice Treaty to pass, wouldn't you salivate at the prospect of millions of workers who will work for much less then your own national workers and thank you for giving them that opportunity? Of course you would. On principal I am in favour of those contries joining and I will compete toe to toe with them in the jobs market too, when the time comes, that part doesn't scare me. What I do think is that this Treaty is unfair to Ireland and unfair to the applicant countries and gives too much power for no good reason to large member States and that is one big reason I shall not vote in favour of it.

It's a bit like having to pay more taxes, it's a sign your income has gone up, not necessarilly a bad thing.

Do you actually pay tax? I do, the government takes oh, about €250 of of me each month for PRSI alone, now my rent is €350 a month, my bike insurance for (3rd party only) is €2500, my living expenses are around €400-€500 a month on top of my rent, are you catching my drift yet? Higher taxes will be of no benefit to me. Look at the useless job the government does of maintaining the roads, despite the fact it taxes the importation of cars to the hilt in this country, buy by your logic, that situation is somehow a good thing? Hmm, I don't concer.

But the Treaty is about the arrangements for enlargement.
The referendum is asking the question, whether or not we are to ratify the Treaty, thats very democratic.

I hate to say this yet again, but if the Treaty were exclusively about enlargement the government could ratify it 'without' putting it to the people. It is precisely because that Treaty effects Irish soveringty (to which extent is debatable) that the Treaty must be put to the people, that has been Irish law since 1987.

Of course it was about self Governance, but it was largely a religous issue in the sense that the natives were Catholics and the British were Protestant.

Largely true, however Douglas Hyde for example was an Anglican. Padraig Pearse was half English, James Connolly was Scottish, the Irish question is and was so much more robust then a simple numbers game fractured on religious lines.

If the Monarchy in England were Catholic, most of the issues would not have arisen.

I think you are quite wrong on that front, I would view Anglo-Irish relations not so much as a clash of Religion, but as a clash of competing national interests.

First off I'm advocating non participation in political integration and thus a No vote to the Nice Treaty. Secondly Economic co-operation (like the UK participates in) is not analagous to political cooperation with the EU, so by way of the fact you seem to be conjoining the two I have to say I can't, won't and shouldn't accept your agrument, because as I've said political Union does not imply Economic co operation and vice versa.

Whereas I am advocating taking issues negotiated in E.U Treaties step by step.
Thats fine,I respect your viewpoint.

Actually what that says is that Ireland has 11% of the fishing space in the EU, but is only allowed to catch 3% of the catch by the EU, that's what that says, because that is the truth of the matter. Like I say, quid pro quo.

Well aren't Irish fishermen entitled to fish under any E.U countries flag provided they spend the money necessary to do that.

You have faith? Unfortunately for your faith, this State has agreed to become a 'net contributor' to the EU by 2007, added to which is the fact that Ireland has been allowing other EU states to take 75% of the fish catches from Irish waters since 1973 as well as the dictats from Europe via the CAP (where Irish farmers are paid for what the EU decides they might be able to produce (instead of having a proper capitalist system)) and all in all I see that of course Ireland has derived benefits from the Economic aspects of the EU, but it has also in the reality of the situation given up economic interests to the same, quid pro quo, you get nothing for nothing in this life. That is why I don't really accept the argument that Ireland owes the EU for handouts, because the EU most certainly has exploited Ireland in return.

Most of what you say there is quite correct.The quid pro quo as you put it , I would see as the compromise.

Do you actually pay tax? I do, the government takes oh, about €250 of of me each month for PRSI alone, now my rent is €350 a month, my bike insurance for (3rd party only) is €2500, my living expenses are around €400-€500 a month on top of my rent, are you catching my drift yet? Higher taxes will be of no benefit to me. Look at the useless job the government does of maintaining the roads, despite the fact it taxes the importation of cars to the hilt in this country, buy by your logic, that situation is somehow a good thing? Hmm, I don't concer.

I was referring to the fact that if you are given a pay rise, you pay more tax because you earn more income.
Don't get carried away now I'll never argue for an increase in tax rates:D
The job done on the roads would be a lot worse, if the government had to fork out for the myriad of by-passes built in the last 20 years.

my bike insurance for (3rd party only) is €2500

Trust me it wouldn't be that high, in most of the rest of the E.U or GB, if it's any consolation, I also suffer from that problem , except my total insurance bill is €4.5K:eek:

I hate to say this yet again, but if the Treaty were exclusively about enlargement the government could ratify it 'without' putting it to the people. It is precisely because that Treaty effects Irish soveringty (to which extent is debatable) that the Treaty must be put to the people, that has been Irish law since 1987.

I could hazzard a guess as to where you think Irish soverignty is diluted by this Treaty, but I would rather you tell me.

I think you are quite wrong on that front, I would view Anglo-Irish relations not so much as a clash of Religion, but as a clash of competing national interests.

Not for this thread but for the record, land was handed out in this country under Brittish rule on the basis of Religion.
Not too many Catholics attended Trinity back then either.
But thats history.
It was largely religion but other issues aswell as you say.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
Secondly Economic co-operation (like the UK participates in) is not analagous to political cooperation with the EU, so by way of the fact you seem to be conjoining the two I have to say I can't, won't and shouldn't accept your agrument, because as I've said political Union does not imply Economic co operation and vice versa.

And yet one of your favourite examples of our loss of sovereignty is about TAX RATES which are inimicably economic in nature.

If you dont have a problem with economic union, stop harping on about tax rates and go find something non-economic to complain about whilst talking about our lack of sovereignty.

jc