Defeat!

basnik

Unfortunately I am currently damned pressed for time. That is why I cannot read all the contributions of this forum properly. But I am promising to do so later on.

Meanwhile I want to send you a big 'Vdaka Irsko - Thank you Ireland'. - I know that the debate about the Nice treaty in IReland was not that much about the EU-expension. But it would have stalled - if not killed - the whole expansion.

After all, the idea of a European Community, is the biggest peace project after WWII. ...


... and do not forget: The new members are small or middle-sized countries ... That is why many of us are also not interested in a United States of Europe but in a powerful community of sovereign states.

Again, thank you Ireland. The work ahead won't be the easiest but together we will master it. :cool:

bertiebowl

Well done to Daithi for having the grace to accept defeat without complaint (unlike the green party whingers)

To Cork and TypeDef and others who are forecasting the coming of the apocalypse/pestilence etc.etc with the YES vote, I say just wait and see..........Europe has been incredibly beneficial to our country and will continue to be so.

Never let it be said that I will hide behind Bonkey:D

You are entitled to your opinions, but so are the rest of the voters who turned out on Saturday.
Of course they didn't clinically examine word for word , line for line what was in that Treaty.
In no Democracy are you going to find an electorate that will do that, it will be too boring for them.
Are you saying the Referendum commission did a bad job in explaining the treaty?
Clearly most of those that voted yes on this instance, took the view that on balance more good things than bad things might arise in the future as a result of implimenting the Treaty of Nice.

If they were as worried as yourself about the referendum bringing about future conscription to European armies, loss of sovereignity in commercial negotiations, an impending U.S of Europe and such like,they could have voted no.

The debate here on the whole was excelent by the way, withsome very valid points made by you some I agreed with, some I didn't and yet all polls here consistantly showed a majority yes vote.
mm

Typedef

What has the Referendum Comission got to do with it?

Answer me this one question what (aside from the desire of the government) makes the vote that just took place more valid then the one before it? The fact that the government got it's result bfeider?

I remember Yes campaigners calling the first Referendum effectively 'invalid' because people were uninformed, so then tell me given the fact that most people as you have already admitted Man don't in fact have any real grasp about what is in the Treaty text, what makes a Yes result returned in an admitted ignorance (by you) any more valid then the first No result returned in the same ignorance?

Exactly, nothing but, the government's desire to make it so.
Thus discressionary democracy.

Thanks for calling

Bard

Originally posted by Typedef
what makes a Yes result returned in an admitted ignorance (by you) any more valid then the first No result returned in the same ignorance?

I, for one, believe that the Irish people were less ignorant of the meaning of the treaty and the issues involved in it this time around.

Just because it didn't go the way you wanted, Typedef, doesn't mean that the Irish people still "don't understand".

Typedef

Ok Bard so by that criteria, the more supposedly informed an electorate is about a vote, the more that vote counts?

Then why not have ten such votes, by the tenth iteration the public would be exponentially more informed, why not have twenty, who decides on the logic?
The government? To my mind that is simply discressionary democracy in lieu of the American dream, in lieu of what 'democracy' is mean to be.

What do people think that it is only in those 'other' countries that the government is prepaired to step all over it's people, that somehow by virtule of the fact Ireland is 'western' that this country is immune to Authoritarian governance, nor oppression ? You think that enough American television cleanses the government manipulating the electoral process and in doing so, passing a Treaty by hook or by crook that has serious implecations for Irish soveringty? I don't, because in those 'other' countries, the people are just like the Irish and that is how I know that Irish politicians are just as capable of abusing their power to the detrament of democracy as any other politicians the world over.

What did the Oracle say to Neo in the Matrix? Here have a cookie, it'll be fine hmm?

Bard

Originally posted by Typedef
Ok Bard so by that criteria, the more supposedly informed an electorate is about a vote, the more that vote counts?

Then why not have ten such votes, by the tenth iteration the public would be exponentially more informed,

Quite possibly...

but I've already explained why we can't have a re-run of the referendum again (in my post above with the bullet points). Pay attention, ffs

Meh

Originally posted by Typedef
Then why not have ten such votes, by the tenth iteration the public would be exponentially more informed, why not have twenty, who decides on the logic?
The government? To my mind that is simply discressionary democracy in lieu of the American dream.

Ireland isn't a democracy (and neither is the USA). It's a republic.

And under the republic set up by the Constitution, the government has absolute discretion over what referendums to hold and when to hold them. We, the electorate, have absolute discretion over who to vote for in a general election. And a majority of us voted for the government, knowing that they promised to rerun the Nice referendum. In fact, something like 80% of us voted for parties that promised to rerun Nice.

Want a third referendum on Nice? That's fine, vote for Sinn Fein/Greens/Socialist Party at the next general election. That's the way the system works.

Originally posted by Typedef
What has the Referendum Comission got to do with it?

Answer me this one question what (aside from the desire of the government) makes the vote that just took place more valid then the one before it? The fact that the government got it's result bfeider?

I remember Yes campaigners calling the first Referendum effectively 'invalid' because people were uninformed, so then tell me given the fact that most people as you have already admitted Man don't in fact have any real grasp about what is in the Treaty text, what makes a Yes result returned in an admitted ignorance (by you) any more valid then the first No result returned in the same ignorance?

Exactly, nothing but, the government's desire to make it so.
Thus discressionary democracy.

Thanks for calling

Ehh???
Any government is entitled to hold a referendum, when they like, and in this case, based on what they thought most peoples concerns were,at the last referendum on this Treaty.
They were put there to Govern and the second Referendum together with the "Seville provisions" was their decision. If People don't like what they do, people throw them out next time.
If the people think that holding the second referendum was bad governance, they can throw the government out.
It's not discressionary Democracy, it's just the system
In answer to your question, in law this result supercedes the last one because it is the Current opinion of the people.
It's just like my last will and testament supercedes the one I did before that.
And Regarding:

I remember Yes campaigners calling the first Referendum effectively 'invalid' because people were uninformed, so then tell me given the fact that most people as you have already admitted Man don't in fact have any real grasp about what is in the Treaty text, what makes a Yes result returned in an admitted ignorance (by you) any more valid then the first No result returned in the same ignorance?

You are implying too much into what I have said , if you are saying that I think that people who vote based on what information they get from the referendum commission implies ignorance on their behalf.
mm
mm

Typedef

In answer to your question, in law this result supercedes the last one because it is the Current opinion of the people.

I don't really think you are answering the question, or maybe you aren't understanding it. Vote A (against the government (needs a re-run)) Vote B(with the government so it stands).

Kindly point out how logically Vote A should be worth more then Vote B, or vice versa.

Since logically there is no way one Referendum should be re-run while another shouldn't it is discressionary to the government most certainly. So to my mind that is not democracy, but rather government policy exponenciated through democracy. Ie the government uses democracy to advance it's own agenda, but cherry picks which democratic votes count. What mental barrier is there that prevents people from recognising that the Irish government isn't really that democratic, it at best has the facade of democracy, but that facade is convienent, quite obviously the government is not above manipulating democracy to suit it's own ends and thus actually does not qualifty as a particpant and subect of democracy, but rather it's puppet master.

Notice the difference between the two.

Do you not understand my answer??
mm

swiss

Typedef, we discussed article 133 already on boards. Your views on the issue have already been made known.

I cannot speak for any other voter, but I feel that I understand the ramifications of Article 133 in relation to common commercial policy, and although I have some reservations, I feel it is on balance in the spirit of more equitable trade relations. (And before I drag this thread furthur off topic - this is just to demonstrate that not all yes voters were 'ignorant' of the issues.)

The ignorance argument swings both ways. During the first Nice referendum, when people voted 'No', those who campaigned for the vote called it 'the will of the people' whilst those who campaigned for a yes vote put it down to many factors, one of which was the general misinformation campaign perpetrated by the No camp and a lacklustre campaign by Yes parties.

Now that the vote is reversed, the 'No' side are now effectively taking the stance of the 'yes' side in relation to voter awareness of the issues. It's a rather amusing irony, if I may say so.

But what really annoys me is that Irish people allow the government to step all over them and don't say a damned word about it. Corrupt government Ministers, discressionary democracy and cherry picked Referenda, Justice Ministers who allow the authority of the State be undermined by not persuing paedophile clerics, because lets face it, that's not how pulpit politicians derive support. Perhaps this propensity to simply accept abuse from the elite in society stems from six hundred years of colonial rule from England. Whatever the reason it doesn't really make me angry as sorry for the Irish people.

I take it by "saying a damned word about it" you mean "voting No". As for the rest of this post, what exactly does this have to do with nice, or is this an unrelated tirate about the evils of the government and society? Can we have less of that please?

Bard

Originally posted by Meh
Ireland isn't a democracy (and neither is the USA). It's a republic.

Article 5 of the Constitution of Ireland states specifically that "Ireland is a sovereign, independent democratic state."

see for yourself, here (page 5)

It's a minor point, but the words "democratic state" seem to indicate to me that we do indeed live in a democracy.

Meh

Originally posted by Bard
Article 5 of the Constitution of Ireland states specifically that "Ireland is a sovereign, independent democratic state."

It's a minor point, but the words "democratic state" seem to indicate to me that we do indeed live in a democracy.

There are two meanings of the word "democracy". Ireland is more accurately described as a republic.

Typedef was complaining that the government deciding to hold a second referendum was undemocratic -- of course it was, under one of the definitions of democracy. But that definition of democracy doesn't apply to this country, and it never has.

bonkey

OK, I'm gonna explain this one time more. Clearly some people are more interested in complaining than in learning how the system works, so lets clear up a few myths for you guys.

0) The government exercised its right as the governing body of this nation to call for a referendum. The people voted, and said No.

1) The government abided 100% by this result. The public stated that they did not wish to change the law, [/i]and the law was not changed[/i].

2) The government exercised its right as the governing body of this nation to call for a referendum. (see similarity to point 0?).

There is no law saying that a referendum cannot have the same text as a previous referendum. This time the people voted, and said Yes. If you see this as "bad form" or "against democracy" then thats your right, but not only did the government not break any laws, they got re-elected whilst saying they would hold a second referendum. If ever the people had a chance to display their disapproval with this allegedly undemocratic move of the govt, they had a chance to do something about it after the first Nice referendum, and before the second Nice referendum. What did this public do? They re-elected these people - in effect giving a stamp of approval to the actions of the government of the day. Complain all you like, but a nation cant democratically vote in a government, and then claim that one of their election-platform promises was undemocratic.

In short, the general election showed in the clearest, most democratic sense possible that the majority public did not have a serious problem with the notion of a second referendum. And if the majority of the public are content, who can gainsay them? Remember - this is a democracy

3) The government abided 100% by the result of this second referendum. The public stated that they wished to change the law, and the law was changed.

At no time was the first referendum called invalid, "to be put aside", or anything like this by anyone who had half a clue about what they were saying. It was voted, and the outcome was abided by.

Now - why cant we re-run the Maastricht Treaty? Simple - the law has been changed by the result of the acceptance of the Maastricht treaty. It was changed the moment the original referendum was over. You could have a referendum to remove the changes made by accepting Maastricht, but thats a completely different issue.

Nice was not "re-run", no matter what any pundit tells you. The people were asked the same question twice, and in each case, the vote of the people determined the state of the constitution following the referendum. The government of the day abided by the vote of the people.

There could not be an identical third Nice referendum. To do so would require that we not abide by the legal requirement to change our constitution following the success of a referendum. We could have a new referendum to back out the changes just made, but that is, again, a completely different issue.

You can complain about the lack of democracy all you like, but there isnt a nation on the world which is run by democracy. They are run by laws or rules. The government didnt break any of these.

You want to prevent a re-occurrence, then acknowledge that the rules are at fault and seek to have them modified.

jc

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

dathi1

I've narrowed this down a bit for the board but it makes interesting reading:
DANISH MEP JENS-PETER BONDE ON THE NICE TREATY REFERENDUM RESULT:

WHEN WILL THE IRISH VOTE ABOUT NICE?
The majority of Irish voters voted Yes in the referendum 19 October. The Nice
Treaty is now adopted in all Member States. But it has only been approved
by less than one third of the electorate in the most EU positive country.

And even here the electorate were asked to approve everything else but the
content in the Treaty.

The mixed elite of media and politicians in Dublin succeeded in making the
referendum a "moral choice" for and against the poor Applicant countries.
They convinced the majority that enlargement would fail without an Irish
Yes.

The politicians and the business world also succeeded in convincing the
Irish that jobs would be at stake if they voted No and that a Yes would
safeguard Irish neutrality.


YES TO JOBS, NEUTRALITY AND ENLARGEMENT
You get answers according to the questions posed. The Irish have now said Yes
to jobs, neutrality and enlargement. The good question is then: When will
they vote on the Nice Treaty?
The Nice Treaty has very little to do with jobs, neutrality and
enlargement. Enlargement will be based on Declaration No 20 whether the
Irish voted Yes or No. This Declaration is NOT part of the Nice Treaty, but
was decided at the summit in Nice as a "common position" making it possible
to offer seats and votes to the Applicant countries.

After the Irish vote the figures will now be inserted in the different
Accession Treaties. They will be finally negotiated at the summit in
Copenhagen in December, signed in February or March next and approved by
the European Parliament in March or April. Then the Accession Treaties will
go to the national parliaments for ratification. When all countries have
ratified the treaties EU membership will start in 2004 for 10 Applicant
countries.

If the Irish had voted No to Nice the procedure would have been exactly the
same!

Accession treaties are never put to referendums in Ireland. The No side in
Ireland did also unanimously support enlargement. It was very unfair to
make the referendum a "moral choice" about the Applicant countries. Even
the time schedule for enlargement would have been the same after a No vote
in Ireland.


IRISH TAX RULES MIGHT NOW BE QUESTIONED
It is also difficult to find differences in the number of jobs after a Yes
and a No. The only possible connection is the proposed change to qualified
majority voting for enhanced cooperation, which might now question the
Irish tax rules attracting foreign investments.

It was very unfair to put on all billboards in Dublin the slogan: "Vote Yes
to jobs". But the majority of voters believed this threat because it was
repeated through all media channels. The vote for neutrality was asked for
by the Government, which proposed two different amendments to the Irish
Constitution at the same time.


THE COMMON DEFENCE CLAUSE
The electorate have now also voted Yes to a clause demanding a referendum
if Ireland should join a common defence in the EU. To combine a vote for
the Nice Treaty with the other vote on neutrality doesn't look like a good
idea in a
democracy. Vote for Nice and good weather! Vote No to your job and EU
enlargement and get the bad weather as well!

There ought to have been two different questions since you both can vote No
to Nice and Yes to neutrality, or No to neutrality and Yes to Nice.


20 TIMES MORE MONEY ON THE YES SIDE
Now, the Irish Government has got its wanted Yes. The unanswered questions are:
What is the Irish position on the content in the Treaty of Nice? What do
they think about the 34 new areas for qualified majority decisions? What
do they think about enhanced cooperation? Are they happy with the new rules
for the appointment of EU Commissioners?

We will never know it after a referendum campaign where the Yes side had,
according to No campaigner Anthony Coughlan, at least 20 times as much to
spend than the No side. The Yes side succeeded in having items outside the
Treaty put to the vote and avoided discussing the changes in the Nice
Treaty.

What was discussed was not in the Treaty. What was in the Treaty was seldom
discussed. The Government majority changed the law obliging the neutral
Referendum Commission to inform the public both for and against. Now the
Referendum Commission misinformed people, together with the Government.


DIFFICULTIES IN ACCEPTING THE COMING EU STATE CONSTITUTION
Given the strength in relations between the forces behind a Yes and a No,
the real surprise was the No vote. Leading No campaigners expected less.
The result shows that it might be difficult to get the Irish to accept the
coming EU State
Constitution.

Particularly if those who became active during the No campaign, now decide
to continue their work and inform themselves broadly about the EU
constitutional process.

Cork

IRISH TAX RULES MIGHT NOW BE QUESTIONED

We can take this as a given. The big states such as France and Germany are breaching the stability pact. Will they put the EUs monetary interests before their states self interest?

I think that the NICE campaign had little to do with the treaty.

I think that the campaign has been a learning process - but the campaign was the coming together of Official Ireland.

I think that by Voting Yes - we have shot ourselves in the foot - but democracy has got to be respected.

Meh

THE COMMON DEFENCE CLAUSE
The electorate have now also voted Yes to a clause demanding a referendum
if Ireland should join a common defence in the EU. To combine a vote for the Nice Treaty with the other vote on neutrality doesn't look like a good idea in a democracy. Vote for Nice and good weather! Vote No to your job and EU enlargement and get the bad weather as well!

There ought to have been two different questions since you both can vote No to Nice and Yes to neutrality, or No to neutrality and Yes to Nice.

But weren't the No campaign telling us that a vote for Nice was a vote against neutrality? Didn't you see those "Goodbye UN, hello NATO" posters?

In that case, it seems that linking acceptance of Nice with a clause protecting neutrality is a perfectly reasonable idea. Or were the No campaign's claims about Nice's effect on our neutrality untrue?

dathi1

I agree...the stability pact is now about to be changed specifically to suit Germany and France because they cant make the 3% GDP deadline. We were told "no way" recently on our financial meanderings.(and we will get the "but their bigger states with bigger problems bull")
As I said last week watch this space before Christmas for the first salvos by France on our 12% C Tax rate.

Typedef

Originally posted by Meh
In that case, it seems that linking acceptance of Nice with a clause protecting neutrality is a perfectly reasonable idea. Or were the No campaign's claims about Nice's effect on our neutrality untrue?

You know full well that with or without the ammendment to the constitution requiring a Referendum on joining a Common EU defence pact that Ireland is already a member of the Rapid Reaction Force.

A Force which incidentially President George Bush welcomed because he saw it as a means to strengthening NATO. Perhaps Meh you'd better inform the Americans that the Rapid Reaction Force will not be allied to NATO, because the President of the United States seems to think otherwise.

Meh

Originally posted by Typedef
You know full well that with or without the ammendment to the constitution requiring a Referendum on joining a Common EU defence pact that Ireland is already a member of the Rapid Reaction Force.

So Nice doesn't affect our neutrality? Those "Hello NATO, goodbye UN" posters were untrue?

Typedef

Of course it does.

Article 2.2 gives a mandate to the Rapid Reaction Force, without which the force cannot be used by the European Union for the purposes detailed in Article 2.2 of the Nice Treaty. As you well know.

Meh

Originally posted by Typedef
Of course it does.

Article 2.2 gives a mandate to the Rapid Reaction Force, without which the force cannot be used by the European Union for the purposes detailed in Article 2.2 of the Nice Treaty. As you well know.

Well then the article daithi1 quoted is wrong and it's perfectly reasonable to link a neutrality clause to the treaty, since Nice and neutrality are related. Q.E.D.

Typedef

No the clause refers to article 2.1 "A proposed Defence" whilst it does not pertain to article 2.2 which sets out how the Rapid Reaction Force may be used.

I'm not laywer, however clearly article 2.1 makes reference to a 'proposed defence', which is what the Irish will vote on whether or not to join. Now since Ireland 'already' participates in the Rapid Reaction Force and article 2.2 of the Nice Treaty gives that force a mandate, the best course of action would have been to vote No to the Treaty as the revised Treaty would have contained gaurantees about Neutrality anyway, and the work of the Rapid Reaction Force (with Irish participation) would at worst have been filibustered.

A point you are delibrately missing ?

how exactly does Ireland "already" participate in the Rapid Reaction Force?
In what way are they participating,outside a U.N mandate?

What emblems are on the Uniforms the Irish participants are wearing in the Rapid Reaction force.
where are the troops based exactly and how many did we send?
Is Charlie Bird out there with them?:D
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
Article 2.2 gives a mandate to the Rapid Reaction Force, without which the force cannot be used by the European Union for the purposes detailed in Article 2.2 of the Nice Treaty. As you well know.

Ok, how many times will you need to be told that the the existing article (Article 17 of the Treaty of Amsterdam) contains an identical, already-ratified text.

Therefore, the Nice Treaty does not change anything which gives a mandate to the Rapid Reaction Force, without which the force cannot be used by the European Union for the purposes detailed in Article 2.2 of the Nice Treaty. As you well know.

Well - at least you should know because others have pointed this out in at least two threads where you have been on about this already.

Allow me to illustrate.

Article 2 of the Treaty of Nice states that article 17 of the Treaty of Amsterdam will be replaced in its entirety by a new text.

Article 2.2 in the Treaty of Nice , which you are making such a deal of, says exactly the following :

2. Questions referred to in this Article shall include humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking.

Compare this with article 17.2 of the Consolidated Treaty of European Union , which is what is being replaced. Heres the exact text of 17.2 :

2. Questions referred to in this Article shall include humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking.

Now, maybe I'm missing something, but these are identical. Not similar, not close, not almost the same. They are word-for-word identical. Which means that this issue has absolutely nothing to do with the treaty of Nice. Never had, never will. As you well know.

(I've even supplied the links to the treatys from the EU's own site, just in case anyone doesnt want to take me at my word.)

the best course of action would have been to vote No to the Treaty as the revised Treaty would have contained gaurantees about Neutrality anyway

Would you care to supply links to this re-negotiated treaty, or are you just making blind assumptions here?

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by dathi1
I've narrowed this down a bit for the board but it makes interesting reading:

Yup - about as interesting as any entirely-one-sided piece from either side has made. Which means...not very interesting at all. Yet another litany of one-sided spin with pretty much nothing original in it at all, and several deliberately misleading facts.

And even here the electorate were asked to approve everything else but the content in the Treaty.

We do not require a referendum to approve the content. Ergo, we should not have a referendum to approve the content.

We required a referendum to make constitutional changes to allow the Treaty to be ratified by our nation.

Sure, we could make that choice based on the content, but as both sides ably showed during the discussion, they were more interested in mud-slinging, spurious point-scoring, side-issues, etc.

Now, the Irish Government has got its wanted Yes. The unanswered questions are:
What is the Irish position on the content in the Treaty of Nice? What do they think about the 34 new areas for qualified majority decisions? What do they think about enhanced cooperation? Are they happy with the new rules for the appointment of EU Commissioners?

Well, one would assume that if the Irish government wasnt in favour of the content of the Treaty, they would have backed the initial rejection 100%.

I mean, lets assume that they agreed to the initial Treaty negotiations despite being unhappy with it. Then they were co-erced into supporting it in the first Treaty referendum. They still had an out when the people rejected it.

The ferventness with which the Irish administration have followed this course can only logically imply that they support the content of the Treaty.

Well - either that, or they are utter morons, which while tempting as an idea is almost definitely untrue.

Given that the people have voted for Nice, and re-elected FF along the way, it seems only reasonable to assume that either our public approves of the choices our government is making for us, or approves of our government enough to let them make the decision.

The Yes side succeeded in having items outside the Treaty put to the vote and avoided discussing the changes in the Nice Treaty.

Riiiiiight.

I spent the last few weeks, supporting this Treaty trying to encourage both sides to stop bringing up irrelevant information.

To lay blame on one side shows how utterly biased this article truly is.

I mean, its not like the No side werent rampaging up and down the nation telling us all how undemocratic this was. I dont remember the democratic nature of holding a second Referendum on the same issue being something that was in the Treaty of Nice. I also dont remember it being one of the major arguments that the Yes side were inclined to bring up.

jc

Typedef

Therefore, the Nice Treaty does not change anything which gives a mandate to the Rapid Reaction Force, without which the force cannot be used by the European Union for the purposes detailed in Article 2.2 of the Nice Treaty.

You're basically contradicting yourself there. You acknowledge that the Rapid Reaction Force can't be used for the purposes outlined in the Treaty of Nice without Nice's ratification but claimed prior to that, that the Treaty does not change the force's mandate. Never mind.

---

the best course of action would have been to vote No to the Treaty as the revised Treaty would have contained gaurantees about Neutrality anyway

---

Would you care to supply links to this re-negotiated treaty, or are you just making blind assumptions here?

Had the people defeated the Treaty (again) and the Nice Treaty had been put through the re-negotiation process do you think it likely that Neutrality would have been the first and most fundamental item on the Irish government's agenda in a re-negotiation scenario?
Lets examine that hypothesis. Since the government appended a constitutional requirement for a vote on joining a proposed Common Defence (persuant to Article 2.1 of the Nice Treaty) I propose that in a re-negotiation scenario that the government would have sought Treaty based gaurantees from the EU to Irish Neutrality as an impetus to ratification by the Irish electorate, since as I have demonstrated the government identafied Neutrality as the biggest obstacle to Nice's ratification.

If as you propse this is a spurious assumption then I wonder if you can quantify why the government felt the need to append the Neutrality Referendum requirement to the constitution and whether or not you propose that given the weight of import place on Neutrality by the government you can prove that it is ilogical to propose that in a hypothetical re-negotiation scenario the government wouldn't seek Treaty based Neutarlity assurances, considering the Treaty would be in the process of negotiation due to Irish rejection?

Typedef.

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
You're basically contradicting yourself there. You acknowledge that the Rapid Reaction Force can't be used for the purposes outlined in the Treaty of Nice without Nice's ratification but claimed prior to that, that the Treaty does not change the force's mandate. Never mind.

I'm not contradicting myself.

The Rapid Reaction Force can do nothing without a mandate.

Nice contains such a mandate.

However....they already had a mandate before the existence of the Nice Treaty.

Nive does not even change this mandate. It re-iterates it word for word.

Thus, while the mandate is stated in Nice, the failure to ratify Nice would have had no impact, because the previous treaty has an identical mandate, which would remain in effect had Nice been discarded.

Had the people defeated the Treaty (again) and the Nice Treaty had been put through the re-negotiation process do you think it likely that Neutrality would have been the first and most fundamental item on the Irish government's agenda in a re-negotiation scenario?

OK, so yes, you were making assumptions. The renegotiated treaty does not exist, and therefore no-one, including yourself can state for a fact what it would contain.

since as I have demonstrated the government identafied Neutrality as the biggest obstacle to Nice's ratification.

The government may have felt that Nice didnt give us enough guarantees of neutrality, which is a fair point, but Nice does not affect our neutrality, which is what you have been consistently trying to claim it does.

These are two very different things, and you seem to be taking one to mean the other.

Nice does not affect our Neutrality.
Our government were concerned that because it didnt offer additional protection to our Neutrality, that people may have a problem with it.

Again fair point.

However, the fact that they hadnt managed to negotiate it into Nice indicates that either they were thick (only realising it was important after they signed off on everything in the negotiations), or that there were problems having what they wanted included, and they were willing to live with this.

In the case of the former assumption (our government are thick) we cannot make logical assumptions about what they definitely would or would not have insisted upon in a renegotiation, because they'll still be thick.

In the case of the latter assumption, one would assume they would have the same difficulty second time around.

So, your conclusion that Neutrality would have been in the renegotiated Treaty is by no means certain. Given that Neutrality was not even the most vocally debated issue during the second referendum, it would be also fair to assume that our government post-referendum may have revised their stance.

I mean....did it ever occur to you that the government were playing a clever game of spin? Tell the people that Neutrality was their biggest concern, thus making ppl get up in arms about it...and then come back and show them how Nice has absolutely nothing to do with Neutrality closer to the event?

Would scupper the argument, and have diverted attention from other more contestable points.

Media management, I'd call it. Its not like you'd have a problem believing that the government actually said something it didnt believe to suit its own purposes.

In short...you were stating for a fact what is nothing more than supposition backed by contestable arguments. Which is all I was taking issue with.

Its not fact - dont present it as such.

jc