Does loosing Sovereignty mean anything?

Cork

The Nice campaign has been uninspiring. We had an opportunity to discuss the Future of Europe. We blew it.

We were happy to think this treaty was about enlargement. This treaty had nothing to do with enlargement. Even Prodi stated that this treaty was not necessary for enlargement.

We had no discussion on what effect loosing our veto would have or our automatic right to a commissioner.

There was no great debate that the Council of Ministers are not accountable.

If we vote Yes to this treaty – Europe will no longer be a community of equals.

We are heading towards a federal Europe. But in the US – every state elects 2 senators. In Europe – thanks to Nice – We will plant the seed of inequality and dominance by the bigger states.

FF, FG and Labour all thought that the Euro was a good thing –When Ireland became the 2nd most expensive country in the EU – their silence is deafening,

I think that there is nothing in this treaty for Ireland. Their their silence will again be deafening.

Typedef

No doubt Cork people will pull apart your post rather soon.
However I would say that sovereignty is the most valuable asset the people of this country have in controlling their own destiny.

Arguably the re-run itself (for whatever reasons one chooses to believe the re-run has happened) is damaging to the process of Irish self determination and thus is damaging to the very lynchpin of Irish soveringty, because in a Republic like Ireland is, it's the constitution that shapes laws and the people who shape the constitution.

The Treaty of Nice has many, many provisos that go outside mere enlargement of the Union. It gives more power to large member States to the detrament of smaller States, it enunciates an unfair two-tiered power structure in Europe and brings a back door to Federalism that will preclude agreement by unanimity via Treaty for all member States, it brings more control over trade to the direct control of the EU as opposed to national governments and places Ireland's ability to shape important decisions regarding the European Union and regarding Irish soveringty in relation to that Union in jeopardy, a situation that will only become worse if ratification actually does take place.

For those brief reasons I have just outlined I do fundamentally believe that Irish soveringty it everything, it is hard won and the EU whether meaning to or not, is such a large and amorphous entity that is poses a significant threat to the quality of Irish life and soveringty and that opinion is not as many would have the public believe simply blinkered xenophobia, but pragmatism when you compare a nation of four million people and it's potential influence in a Union of four hundred million people to the vastly larger member States and their potential influence. I'm not a Federalist, I recognise some economic co-operation is in the Irish national interest, however I do not equate further political integration with continued economic cooperation.

Typedef.

Meh

Originally posted by Cork
There was no great debate that the Council of Ministers are not accountable.

The Council of Ministers is accountable to the national governments. In this country, ministers are accountable to the Dáil for their decisions as part of the Council of Ministers.

FF, FG and Labour all thought that the Euro was a good thing –When Ireland became the 2nd most expensive country in the EU – their silence is deafening,

The euro didn't make Ireland the most expensive country in the EU. It just allowed us to compare prices directly for the first time and see how we were being ripped off by the pharmacists, insurance companies and pubs.

Originally posted by Typedef:
compare a nation of four million people and it's potential influence in a Union of four hundred million people to the vastly larger member States.

Fair point, but our potential influence outside the EU would be even less. If we weren't in the EU, it would continue to make decisions on trade, immigration. agriculture and other issues that would affect us. The only difference is that as a non-member, we would have no say whatsoever in these decisions.

Cork

The euro didn't make Ireland the most expensive country in the EU. It just allowed us to compare prices directly for the first time and see how we were being ripped off by the pharmacists, insurance companies and pubs.

The Euro has led to massive price hikes across the EU.

What have our politicians done about this?

Sweet nothing.

The Euro has been a disaster for the Eurozone countries - leading to large scale rip offs.

But - We don't need tribunerals to tell us that.

PH01

Originally posted by Cork
The Euro has led to massive price hikes across the EU.

What have our politicians done about this?

Sweet nothing.

The Euro has been a disaster for the Eurozone countries - leading to large scale rip offs.

But - We don't need tribunerals to tell us that.

Take it easy there Cork. Prices have increased but they're by no means MASSIVE! If price increase were massive inflation would be in the double figures - the last time I looked they weren't.

Meh

Originally posted by Cork
The Euro has led to massive price hikes across the EU.

The Euro has been a disaster for the Eurozone countries - leading to large scale rip offs.

Well, some retailers took advantage of decimalization in 1972 to hike prices. Does that mean that decimalization was a "disaster" and we should have stayed with shillings and pence? Of course not -- the short term pain of price rises in some areas was outweighed by the long-term benefits of having a simpler currency. The potential long-term benefits of the euro are much greater than the benefits of decimalization.

Anyway, I think we're getting a bit off topic here. Nice has nothing to do with the euro.

mike65

I'm temtped to say "what soveignty" are the anti-Nice ppl trying to save? I tend to belive it an illusion bought on by too much nationalism.

Mike.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
The Nice campaign has been uninspiring. We had an opportunity to discuss the Future of Europe. We blew it.

In what way? We havent discussed it? I would hazard that on boards, at least, there have been more posts in more threads at a faster rate than has been generated by any other single topic.

I would also say that it has been the prime focus of the various media in terms of political coverage, and has been a lively topic of debate by "the man in the pub".

So what did we blow? That the result of this discussion wasnt overwhelmingly in support of your stance?

We were happy to think this treaty was about enlargement. This treaty had nothing to do with enlargement. Even Prodi stated that this treaty was not necessary for enlargement.

Ok - here we go with the deliberately ambiguous terminology again.

The Nice treaty is not required for some form of expansion. It is most definitely required (well, it or some renegotiated replacement) for the enlargement which the EU wishes to undertake.

You can mince words all you like, but the simple fact is that without Nice or some as-yet-unnegotiated replacement treaty, the EU cannot expand in the manner it is seeking to.

Therefore to claim this treat has nothing to do with enlargement is absolutely and totally untrue. To claim that enlargement can take place without it is true but misleading.

This has been pointed out before and I'm sure if you run off to another thread and try and bring it up there as some brilliant new piece of information, it will be pointed out again.

We had no discussion on what effect loosing our veto would have or our automatic right to a commissioner.

Again - who is we? I have seen several discussions about these issues, both here on boards and in the main-stream media.

There was no great debate that the Council of Ministers are not accountable.

The accountability of the CoM does not significantly change under Nice. So what exactly has this to do with the Nice Treaty?

If we vote Yes to this treaty – Europe will no longer be a community of equals.

I suggest you try and prove how it is currently a community of equals. The EU (not Europe, please make at least that distinction) has never been a community of equals. In fact, if you look closely enough, the EC and EEC were never communities of equals either.

We are heading towards a federal Europe. /b]

Yes, we are heading towards a federal Europe. We have been doing so since the signing of the Maastricht Treaty a decade ago, so whats your point?

But in the US – every state elects 2 senators. In Europe – thanks to Nice – We will plant the seed of inequality and dominance by the bigger states

Because as everyone knows, the US model is the only possible model which could work. NOT.

Also, dominance by the bigger states would first of all require unanimity between said bigger states - something which categorically is not the case in the vast majority of cases. Look at the big 4. Are they all even in the Euro? No? Didnt think so. And yet somehow they will unite to dominate the rest of us. Sheah.

I would also point out that they can only dominate us when we oppose them. If all the smaller states are opposed to something, then the big 4 do not have the weight to carry the day. In short, they are still reliant on forging alliances and coalitions, which ultimately means that they are vulnerable.

Yes, a controlling faction could emerge from a smaller number of states than if we had one vote per nation, but do you seriously think that the rest of the EU will ever permit that? As has been pointed out time and time again, we still have the ability to walk away. Should the EU turn into a franco-german empire, or any other empire, we can simply leave.

FF, FG and Labour all thought that the Euro was a good thing –When Ireland became the 2nd most expensive country in the EU – their silence is deafening,

Their silence is far from defeaning. They have explained their case, and are fed up being asked the same questions when the answer hasnt changed.

Look at the facts already presented (decimilisation had the same short-term effects).

Consider also that the cutover to the Euro couldnt have come at a worse time - when the global economy was grinding to a halt which is when European nations traditionally had their currencies shafted anyway.

Also consider that Ireland was warned that its giveaway budgets would lead to uncontrolled spending, leading to larger-than-healthy inflation, leading to a degree of economic meltdown.

This has all come to pass, and yet we still hear glib little remarks about how its all the Euro's fault.

Anyone who is blind enough to blame a single factor for the recent effects witnessed in our economy deserves nothing but the deafening silence you are hearing.

Bottom line is that the Euro isnt doing significantly better or worse than any other currency out there, and that in and of itself shows that it hasnt been a failure - it has been a break-even case at worst.

Sure, you can rant on about how much stronger the Irish currency would have been had we stayed out, but the simple fact is that you cant offer a shred of proof to back this up.

As for our sovereignty.....we are not losing it. We are choosing to relinquish some aspects of it on a temporary basis, with-holding the right to take these aspects back at a later date should we so wish. Then again - thats just my opinion.

Saying we're losing it is like saying that I've lost my spare stereo if I loan it to a mate telling him he can do what he likes with it as long as I can have it back when I ask for it.

jc

Sand

You seem to have a different opinion of sovereignty than I do. If you wish to consider yourself Irish first and foremost, and argue that Irelands interests are the interests we have to protect then you seem to be underestimating the incredible variety of views and the huge amount that people in Ireland dont have in common - subsidy farmers have a lot more in common with farmers across the union that they do with PAYE workers in Dublin, or child carers in Cork and vice versa.

When you talk about Ireland, youre talking about the government of the day - Fianna Fail and Ahern. These are better representitives of your view ? Youd choose them because they were Irish over, say , some Belgian version of your party of choice because they were belgian? If so youre denying the basic reality of the union - you can move throughout the union, and work there freely; in a very real way were European - Irelands interests (vaguely defined as they might be) are unimportant to an individual- if a particular area is humming with economic prosperity and the rest isnt people will move there anyway - Dublin is a case in point in Ireland. Whats the difference if people move to Frankfurt or Barcelona as opposed to Blackrock?

If we vote Yes to this treaty – Europe will no longer be a community of equals.

The larger states have had double the commissoners afforded to a small state. Is that equal?

We had no discussion on what effect loosing our veto would have or our automatic right to a commissioner.

We lose our veto in *some* areas - tax harmonisation isnt going to happen without our say so and the benefit of a low tax regime is very apparent to Irelands policy makers.

And were far from the only state to lose their automatic right to a commissoner.

paddymee

Because as everyone knows, the US model is the only possible model which could work. NOT.

I'm curious why you think the US model does not work.

Is it because of the last election for President and the Electrol College system? If so the system worked correctly. The US votes per state, not per person. This gives the smaller states a better say.

Also each state gets 2 senators. This is balanced by the house of reps. that is divided up by population. Again this is to give balance between large and smaller states?

Isn't this what the people in Europe want or are they happy with the larger states dominating things. Not that it is any different from now

Paddy

Shinji

He didn't say the US model doesn't work - simply that other models can ALSO work.



(Although, that said, the last election certainly brought the validity of the US electoral college system into question. Whatever about giving smaller states a bigger voice (why?), having a president elected despite winning less of the vote than his rival is a bit bloody ridiculous.)

bonkey

Originally posted by Shinji
He didn't say the US model doesn't work - simply that other models can ALSO work.

Exactly.

(Although, that said, the last election certainly brought the validity of the US electoral college system into question. Whatever about giving smaller states a bigger voice (why?), having a president elected despite winning less of the vote than his rival is a bit bloody ridiculous.)

Not to mention that there is no absolute or legal requirement for the electoral collegiates to actually vote for the party who had the majority in their state. Its just assumed that they will, given that they're hand-picked by the victors.

However, should a state have a 99% democrat majority, and the democrat collegiates decide to vote for a republican presidential candidate on the day, there is absolutely nothing preventing them from doing so.

jc - just waiting for the "well obviously we wouldnt take those aspects of the system" replies.

paddymee

Originally posted by Shinji
He didn't say the US model doesn't work - simply that other models can ALSO work.

True. I misinterpreted what he said. However the statement isn't exactly flattering to the US hence my misunderstanding.

Originally posted by Shinji
(Although, that said, the last election certainly brought the validity of the US electoral college system into question. Whatever about giving smaller states a bigger voice (why?), having a president elected despite winning less of the vote than his rival is a bit bloody ridiculous.)

Because the US started as a union of independant states. The smaller states wanted a voice in the new Union and not be totally dominated by the larger states.

Does this sound familiar?

The way to look at the US system is to treat it like the Premiership football leauge. To win a game you must score more goals. But to win a season you must win the most games. It does not matter if you score the most goals. Treat a vote as a goal and a state as a match. You win the most states, you are president.

The EU hasn't got this far but people are already worried about the voice of their states in the Union, hence the issues over Nice.

Originally posted by bonkey
Not to mention that there is no absolute or legal requirement for the electoral collegiates to actually vote for the party who had the majority in their state. Its just assumed that they will, given that they're hand-picked by the victors.

That true. I don't know what situation was in the past where they thought this was a good idea. Seems to me that maybe they didn't trust the voters for some reason. I think I remember reading something about this but I cant remember what it was.

Paddy

Meh

Originally posted by paddymee
That true. I don't know what situation was in the past where they thought this was a good idea. Seems to me that maybe they didn't trust the voters for some reason. I think I remember reading something about this but I cant remember what it was.

There was a powerful anti-populist element among the drafters of the US constitution. They didn't want the president elected directly by popular vote, as they thought this would lead to mob rule and election campaigns based on spin and soundbites rather than serious debate.

paddymee

Originally posted by Cork
There was a powerful anti-populist element among the drafters of the US constitution. They didn't want the president elected directly by popular vote, as they thought this would lead to mob rule and election campaigns based on spin and soundbites rather than serious debate.

That sounds like what I read. Which is quite funny considering how elections are run today.

Paddy

Cork

Every State in the US has 2 senators.

In Europe - we don't have equality.

Germany is going to breach the conditions under the stabilility & growth pact.

Will they be punished for this?

No.

If Ireland - breached these rules -

We'd be lectured upon & fined.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
Germany is going to breach the conditions under the stabilility & growth pact.

Will they be punished for this?

No.

If Ireland - breached these rules -

We'd be lectured upon & fined.

And your proof for this is what?

This is soooo funny.

On one hand, the No camp tell us that Europe wont do a damn thing against Ireland if we fail to ratify Nice, because we're protected somehow....

and yet come up with baloney like this to show the uber-power of those damn krauts (and the frogs next door probably) when it comes to giving us a good kicking and getting away with the same stuff themselves.

Make up your mind. Either we are at the beck and call of Europe, or we're not, but stop picking and choosing our importance to suit your "not-shot-down-a-million-times-just-yet" argument of the moment.

jc

Typedef

In fairness Portugal has breached the stability pact and will be censured for this.

The rumourmill has it that Germany and Italy are close to breaching the stability pact and are arguing that because their respective economies are so large in terms of the rest of the Union that for example Germany should be given more leway within the framework of the stability pact.

If Germany, Italy or any other large member State is given more leway in lieu of this argument it would be legitimate to point to the economic structure of Europe being tilted in favour of large member States. This is an argument I would exponenciate anyway due to the fact that the interest rates on the Euro are set to the benefit of Germany where the German economy which accounts for around $2.5 trillion worth the the European economy (give or take) with the entire Eurozone economy being roughly $8 trillion (again give or take). Because Ireland's economy is not in convergance with the German economy nor the French economy Ireland just has to lump the interest rate set to the benefit of the two largest economies within the Union.

One could argue till the cows come home whether or not that equals a two tiered Europe or not, it is a fact.

Again clearly whilst there are economic benefits to Europe there are also consequences and since Ireland's participation in the Euro is a political move as opposed to a move impelled by economic necessity I would postulate that further political moves towards Ireland's participation in integration in Europe is not in Ireland's long term interests, instead I think Ireland should take a leaf out of Biritain's book and move towards further integration in Europe on the economic benefits alone. Currently I don't see any benefit to Ireland in accepting the treaty of Nice. Many people harp on about 'currying favour' when in my opinion currying favour in Europe is a pathetic supplicant for national soveringty.

Regards
Typedef.

Meh

Originally posted by Typedef
the interest rates on the Euro are set to the benefit of Germany and the German economy

Untrue

According to the European Commission, three countries (Germany, France and Austria) should have had lower interest rates than delivered by the ECB in 2001, only two (Belgium and Italy) experienced the appropriate rate, and the rest (seven countries) should have had higher interest rates.

Typedef

Strange that you had better tell RTE that the European Central bank has reversed it's policies vis-a-vis the Euro so.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2000/0228/euro.html

Finance ministers from the 11 members of the Euro Zone have indicated that they fully support the strategy of the European Central Bank in relation to the euro. The Minister for Finance said that it was clear that current euro policies are helping growth in the major European economies, including France and Germany. Charlie McCreevy said that this was good news for Ireland. At one stage today, the euro slumped to 94 US cents.

Yet still more evidence of favoritism

February 12, 2002

(13:08) European finance ministers meeting in Brussels have decided not to issue a formal warning to Germany over its budgetary plans. This will be seen as a setback to the European Commission, which recommended the warning that the country was in danger of breaching spending and borrowing guidelines laid down for the Eurozone members.

http://wwa.rte.ie/news/2002/0212/economy.html

Cork

What more proof do you want - If we vote Yes to Nice - Germany, UK & France will be the big boys of Europe. We will be of very little consequence.

The Yes crowd says that we can be a leader of small nations.

This is wishful thinking.

A Yes to Nice will lead to a more militarised EU.

Originally posted by Cork
What more proof do you want - If we vote Yes to Nice - Germany, UK & France will be the big boys of Europe. We will be of very little consequence.

The Yes crowd says that we can be a leader of small nations.

This is wishful thinking.

A Yes to Nice will lead to a more militarised EU.

Cork, you are implying that those three agree all the time.
France agree with us more often than not, and aren't too happy with British Beef:D
Germany hasn't persuaded the U.K to join the Euro either.
mm

Cork

The big boys will agree on common areas of meutual interest.

Germany will have more influence in a post NICE situation.

& once they have increased influence - they'll use it.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
The big boys will agree on common areas of meutual interest.

Like they agree on the Euro?
Oh - no wait. They dont.

Musnt be of mutual interest then.

If the single currency isnt of mutual interest, I find it tough to see what other areas of mutual interest are cast in stone in your world.

Germany will have more influence in a post NICE situation.

& once they have increased influence - they'll use it.

No - Germany will have less influence. It may not lose as much influence as other nations, but it will still have less then it has at the moment.

jc