expansion

conchubhar1

belarus, ukraine, moldova, slovenia, boznia and herzgovenia, serbia, montenegro, albania and russia (kosova?)

what is the status of these countries in respect to wanting to join the eu

is it likely the 5 african states, azerbijan,israel, syria, lebanon? and jordan? will join in the future too?
in relation to their curent relationship and c op with the eu - not just randon countries

cfcj

the next set of countries that are most likely to join are Rep. of Macedonia & Croatia, but both have been held up due to the EU negotiations with Turkey. Turkey is the most high profile and recently got an endorsement from Barrack Obama of all people. Being a muslim country there is a lot of controversy and apathy to Turkey joining. The UK are keen on it, if only to save their bacon with the muslim world.

The European Commission puts together a report called a monitoring report which it details research on various countries then feeds back into Parliament and to the Council. I think its a mutual approach though I believe Turkey made the first move with their case.

I can't see any of the countries you listed in joining. Israel joins Europe with sporting and even the Eurovision because of their, outcast, relationship with their neighboring Arab states. But given their track record and whats happening there now I doubt, and hope, there will never be EU membership.

conchubhar1

they receive funding and have a close relationship with the eu

search up - israel and the eu - europa.ec.eu the commissions website gives info on them

cfcj

Ohhh I wouldn't worry, more chance of China joining. I would put it down to a subtle push from Washington that is trying to get rid of the burden of Israel from its payroll.

conchubhar1

well

any more opinions or comments?

KINGVictor

conchubhar1 wrote: »

belarus, ukraine, moldova, slovenia, boznia and herzgovenia, serbia, montenegro, albania and russia (kosova?)

what is the status of these countries in respect to wanting to join the eu

is it likely the 5 african states, azerbijan,israel, syria, lebanon? and jordan? will join in the future too?
in relation to their curent relationship and c op with the eu - not just randon countries

5 African countries.... azerbijan,israel, syria, lebanon? and jordan???????.....none of these are African countries at all.


Coming to your question...I personally feel that EU has to apply political wisdom in accepting new members instead of blindly granting membership just to increase followership...Up till today Brussels has concerns with a number of EU member nations notably Romania,Bulgaria in terms of Corruption,rule of law etc...such actions IMOH could pose very compilcated difficulties in future.

conchubhar1

sorry i only presumed people would know that comma meant it seperated them

the 5 northern african countries and those mentioned by name above

Mario007

iceland and greenland are the likely candidates actually...iceland and eu now both want iceland in...and greenland is under home rule from denmark but it opted out of eu at first...right now the early negotiations have started between eu and greenland...no kidding

cfcj

It will be interesting to see what happens with Iceland in general. I don't think they will seek to join the EU, though the IMF might try set up something to help them out of their economic crisis, it really is unchartered territory. They did try and adopt the Euro without membership but were told they would need full membership. And of course after the Sweden situation any new membership and the Euro are mutually required. With an 18% inflation rate at the moment I'm not sure anyone is going to touch them for a few years. Also there is a little international concern that the Icelandic government aren't taking on any of the foreign debts that their failed banks had accumulated, probably might come back to bite them

djpbarry

conchubhar1 wrote: »

belarus, ukraine, moldova, slovenia, boznia and herzgovenia, serbia, montenegro, albania and russia (kosova?)

Slovenia is already a member. I can see the Ukraine being a likely candidate for membership in the not-too-distant future.

cfcj wrote: »

Being a muslim country there is a lot of controversy and apathy to Turkey joining. The UK are keen on it, if only to save their bacon with the muslim world.

That tops the list of benefits of Turkish membership?

cfcj

benefits? who is discussing benefits of Turkey's application to joining the EU?

conchubhar1

well, people would prefer benefits of new members joining

not just baggage

petronius

If Lisbon reduces our say in Europe to less than 1/2 of a percentage how much less will we have when Iceland, Croatia, or especially a big country like Turkey join?

oscarBravo

petronius wrote: »

If Lisbon reduces our say in Europe to less than 1/2 of a percentage...

It doesn't.

Iwasfrozen

djpbarry wrote:

That tops the list of benefits of Turkish membership?

Oh, I'm sorry. Are there benefits of Turkish membership ?

free to prosper

While EU barometer polls show that only 29% of Irish people support Turkish accession to the EU, it is a fact that both Fianna Fail, Labour and Fine Gael party leaders do so.

Demonstrating a big democratic deficit, the majority of people in the EU are also opposed to Turkey’s entry while the EU elite support it leading the EU Commission to open up talks to facilitate the EU entry of Turkey, a country of 75 million people, mostly Sunni Muslims.

The reasons usually given for opposition to Turkish accession include:
Turkey has a terrible human rights record regarding its treatment of the Kurds and its Christian minority (according to Amnesty reports) , and still occupies northern Cyprus.

On top of this it has a very unstable democracy-

its governing party has deep roots in the radical Islamist movement; and its EU membership would bring Iran, Iraq, Syria to the doors of the EU. Culturally and geographically it is not part of Europe.

A populous giant of 75 million people, Turkey remains an economic pigmy, ensuring its accession would mean a huge drain on resources to other EU member States, taking a high percentage of CAP funds available to farmers.

It could also mean the free movement of Turkish workers throughout the EU, with guaranteed open-access to Ireland and the UK.
Both the Fine Fail and Fine Gael leaders support Turkish Accession, and Irish Government will not veto its entry to the EU.

Because Lisbon is a vote on an ever closer, ever expanding EU, the only practical opportunity that Irish people have to express their opposition to Turkish accession is to vote ‘No’ to the Treaty of Lisbon. It will send a clear message to the elites that the people should decide on important matters.
Turkish accession was an issue in the last French referendum when the electorate voted NO.

We now have a golden opportunity to show our support for the people of France and Holland who voted NO. They need all the support they can get so come on Dustin, Don’t be a Turkey, vote No to Lisbon.

oscarBravo

Any chance of an answer to this question?

Scofflaw

Because Lisbon is a vote on an ever closer, ever expanding EU, the only practical opportunity that Irish people have to express their opposition to Turkish accession is to vote ‘No’ to the Treaty of Lisbon. It will send a clear message to the elites that the people should decide on important matters.
Turkish accession was an issue in the last French referendum when the electorate voted NO.

Or they could oppose it by opposing Turkish accession, much as has successfully been done for the last 20 years. Admittedly, that leaves you without a convenient red herring, but I'm sure there's plenty more in the well-stocked fish shop of the No campaigns.

cordially,
Scofflaw

cfcj

free to prosper wrote: »

While EU barometer polls show that only 29% of Irish people support Turkish accession to the EU, it is a fact that both Fianna Fail, Labour and Fine Gael party leaders do so.

Demonstrating a big democratic deficit, the majority of people in the EU are also opposed to Turkey’s entry while the EU elite support it leading the EU Commission to open up talks to facilitate the EU entry of Turkey, a country of 75 million people, mostly Sunni Muslims.

The reasons usually given for opposition to Turkish accession include:
Turkey has a terrible human rights record regarding its treatment of the Kurds and its Christian minority (according to Amnesty reports) , and still occupies northern Cyprus.

On top of this it has a very unstable democracy-

its governing party has deep roots in the radical Islamist movement; and its EU membership would bring Iran, Iraq, Syria to the doors of the EU. Culturally and geographically it is not part of Europe.

A populous giant of 75 million people, Turkey remains an economic pigmy, ensuring its accession would mean a huge drain on resources to other EU member States, taking a high percentage of CAP funds available to farmers.

It could also mean the free movement of Turkish workers throughout the EU, with guaranteed open-access to Ireland and the UK.
Both the Fine Fail and Fine Gael leaders support Turkish Accession, and Irish Government will not veto its entry to the EU.

Because Lisbon is a vote on an ever closer, ever expanding EU, the only practical opportunity that Irish people have to express their opposition to Turkish accession is to vote ‘No’ to the Treaty of Lisbon. It will send a clear message to the elites that the people should decide on important matters.
Turkish accession was an issue in the last French referendum when the electorate voted NO.

We now have a golden opportunity to show our support for the people of France and Holland who voted NO. They need all the support they can get so come on Dustin, Don’t be a Turkey, vote No to Lisbon.

Although I am in the undecided camp with regards to Lisbon I think that what you have drolled out is typical scaremongering on behalf of the NO campaign, similar to what Scofflaw has indicated. And basically not helpful to people actually trying to determine what is a right and wrong decision on Lisbon. I have no opinion either way on Turkey joining the EU, as I believe it that negotiations are ongoing and explorations are being made by EU diplomats and that, no doubt, a report will be presented of their findings to the council and a debate will follow.

free to prosper wrote: »

While EU barometer polls show that only 29% of Irish people support Turkish accession to the EU, it is a fact that both Fianna Fail, Labour and Fine Gael party leaders do so.

I have searched for evidence of this and haven't been able to find it so please supply a source

free to prosper

Bit of a give away in the sentence:

While EU barometer polls show that only 29% of Irish people support Turkish accession to the EU,

They stopped asking this question about 2 years ago - so go to EU barometer reports before that.

Hitman Actual

free to prosper wrote: »

Bit of a give away in the sentence:

They stopped asking this question about 2 years ago - so go to EU barometer reports before that.

Without speaking for cfcj, you said it's a "fact" that the leaders of the three main parties support the accession of Turkey to the EU. I assume you have sources for these "facts"?

View

free to prosper wrote: »

Because Lisbon is a vote on an ever closer, ever expanding EU, the only practical opportunity that Irish people have to express their opposition to Turkish accession is to vote ‘No’ to the Treaty of Lisbon. It will send a clear message to the elites that the people should decide on important matters.
Turkish accession was an issue in the last French referendum when the electorate voted NO.

Voting No to Lisbon won't alter the chances Turkey joining or not joining the EU by one iota. Membership (for any state) is via an Accession Treaty. As such, the EU leaders could scrap Lisbon in the morning and agree to admit Turkey in the afternoon. After that, it is then up to the individual member states to approve or reject that accession treaty.

free to prosper

It is FF policy to support Turkish accession, as it is for FG and Labour.

There is stacks of proof that it is Fianna Fail publicly stated policy to support Turkish accession to the EU:

The National Forum on Europe*****-*****Forum debates the case for Turkish Membership of the European Union -with Turkey's chief negotiator - debate on Turkish accession. Nov 2, 2006.
FF, FG and Labour in favour of Turkish accession.

Forum debates the case for Turkish Membership of the European Union -with Turkey's chief negotiator
Turkey’s Chief Negotiator in accession talks with the European Union, Minister Ali Babacan, has told the National Forum On Europe that Turkey is currently seeking ways with the Finnish Presidency of the EU to resolve the thorny issue of Cyprus.....

During the Forum session, the Minister for European Affairs, Noel Treacy TD, reiterated Ireland’s strong support for European Union enlargement and said that all aspiring countries should be granted equality of opportunity in relation to EU membership. However, on Cyprus which joined the EU in 2004, Minister Treacy insisted that the integrity of each Member State was “absolute and sacrosanct” and urged Turkey to open its ports to Cypriot vessels. Minister Treacy also felt that that legal reforms in Turkey were not being implemented as fast as they should.

Fine Gael’s Charlie Flanagan, while expressing concerns about human rights in Turkey, in particular the use of torture, said that Turkish membership was very much in the interest of the EU. “Our party firmly supports your entry”, he said, adding that he believed Turkish membership would help to fight the scourge of terrorism and to eradicate the “terrible trade” of people trafficking.

The Labour party’s spokesman, Joe Costello TD, said that Turkey had always been a bridge between East and West and that he believed it was time “we reached that bridge”. He believed that a “little bit of Euroscepticism” was understandable after the accession of ten Member States in 2004 and the imminent accession of Romania and Bulgaria in January 2007. Mr Costello cautioned Minister Babacan against undue pessimism facing into what could be a long accession process. “Ireland had to wait twelve years for accession,” he pointed out “And now they wouldn’t like us to leave.” He also voiced his party’s worries that workers in Turkey did not have the right to organise, strike or bargain collectively.



Statement to the Dáil by the Taoiseach, Mr. Bertie Ahern T.D. on the outcome of the December European Council (14 and 15 December, 2006) on Wednesday, 7 February, 2007
Department of the Taoiseach*****-*****Statement to the Dáil by the Taoiseach, Mr. Bertie Ahern T.D. *****on the outcome of the December European Council (14 and 15 December, 2006) on Wednesday, 7 February, 2007

I attended the European Council in Brussels on 14 and 15 December 2006. I was accompanied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dermot Ahern T.D.
The conclusions of the European Council have been laid before the Houses.

While clearly this development marks a set-back for Turkey’s accession process, I remain confident that this accession will take place in due course. Nobody is predicting an early conclusion to the process. However, having met the Turkish leadership and having visited the country, I am convinced that Turkey has a true European vocation and is making the economic and political progress necessary for accession. Turkish accession in accordance with the requirements for membership which must be met by every applicant and, indeed, every existing Member State, will not only be in Turkey’s interest but the interest of Europe and the wider region.
Department of the Taoiseach




It is FF policy to support Turkish accession:
The Minister [of Foreign Affairs] also stated that Ireland would be as helpful as possible regarding Turkey's desire to begin accession negotiations subject to certain criteria being met. - Bertie Ahern

Dil ireann - Volume 559 - 18 December, 2002 - Ceisteanna – Questions. - EU Summits.
Dil ireann - Volume 559 - 18 December, 2002 - Ceisteanna – Questions. - EU Summits.


It is Fine Gael policy to support Turkish accession.

“Coveney welcomes Turkish accession talks progress
December 17, 2004
Simon Coveney TD MEP, a member of the European Parliaments Foreign Affairs Committee today welcomed the further progress towards the opening of formal accession talks with Turkey.
“Potential Turkish membership of the European Union is a subject that has resulted in much energetic debate within the European Parliament. The EPP Group, to which Fine Gael is affiliated, is literally split down the middle on whether Turkey should be offered European Union membership at any stage in the future” said Coveney.
“My position and the position of the Fine Gael group is quite clear in relation to Turkey. We support the recommendation that the European Union open formal accession talks with Turkey but we also insist that the European Union take a tough line in relation to insisting that Turkey makes all the necessary changes to meet the Copenhagen criteria in preparing itself for European Union membership”.

The basis of the Fine Gael position is as follows:

So in short, we recommend the opening of accession talks but with a tough approach being taken with Turkey in relation to the need for them to continue their reform process on human rights issues, the respect of minorities and the creation of a normalised European democracy” concluded Simon Coveney

:: simoncoveney.ie ::

free to prosper

What are the arguments against Turkish accession?
Here are some of them:

• It could lead to mass immigration, job displacement of Irish workers and increased organised crime

• Workers from poorer countries take jobs from richer ones causing a race to the bottom in working conditions.
Companies relocate to countries like Turkey with lower labour costs and worse social protection

• The richer EU member states cannot afford to pay huge Farming and structural subsidies to Turkey.

If Turkey joined the number of farmers in the EU would double overnight, therefore CAP payments would roughly half.

• Turkey would wield huge political power because of its 80 million population, soon to be bigger than Germany.


As Sarkozy et al have said - Turkish accession cannot take place unless Lisbon is passed. And I'm voting no again.

View

free to prosper wrote: »

As Sarkozy et al have said - Turkish accession cannot take place unless Lisbon is passed. And I'm voting no again.

Sarkozy et al have said that won't allow any state (not Turkey specifically) to join prior to Lisbon coming into force. Obviously they remain free to change their mind should they so want.

Hence voting yes or no to Lisbon will not make the slightest difference on any decision on Turkish membership.

PS To the best of my knowledge, discussion about Turkey joining the EU has bubbled away since at least the early 70s. I wouldn't hold your breath about it happening anytime soon!

K-9

free to prosper wrote: »

What are the arguments against Turkish accession?
Here are some of them:

• It could lead to mass immigration, job displacement of Irish workers and increased organised crime

• Workers from poorer countries take jobs from richer ones causing a race to the bottom in working conditions.
Companies relocate to countries like Turkey with lower labour costs and worse social protection

• The richer EU member states cannot afford to pay huge Farming and structural subsidies to Turkey.

If Turkey joined the number of farmers in the EU would double overnight, therefore CAP payments would roughly half.

• Turkey would wield huge political power because of its 80 million population, soon to be bigger than Germany.


As Sarkozy et al have said - Turkish accession cannot take place unless Lisbon is passed. And I'm voting no again.

Could you not wait until the Turkish accession Treaty?

Martin 2

free to prosper wrote: »

While EU barometer polls show that only 29% of Irish people support Turkish accession to the EU, it is a fact that both Fianna Fail, Labour and Fine Gael party leaders do so.

Demonstrating a big democratic deficit, the majority of people in the EU are also opposed to Turkey’s entry while the EU elite support it leading the EU Commission to open up talks to facilitate the EU entry of Turkey, a country of 75 million people, mostly Sunni Muslims.

free to prosper, I don’t know what Turkey’s potential membership of the EU has to do with Lisbon, I searched the treaty and I didn’t find a single mention of Turkey. As other posters have already said here Turkey’s accession can be approved or rejected irrespective of whether we ratify Lisbon II or not. I think you’re really scraping the barrel if you’re trying to make this an issue for Lisbon II.

BTW, religion is not a criterion for entry into the EU so I don’t know why you see the need to mention that Turkey is mostly Sunni Muslim.

FutureTaoiseach

I can't see Turkish EU membership for the forseeable future. President Sarkozy, Chancellor Merkel and the Austrian govt claims to be opposed to full EU membership. However, Sarkozy pushed a law through the national assembly some months ago reversing a constitutional amendment that required a referendum on Turkish EU membership so you have to wonder is he playing a double-game. I don't see Austria backing-down because of the threat of the Far Right vote (29% at the last General Election) for whom this is a big deal. I think there is a possibility of a reversal of the German position after the September election, provided the Social Democrats can overcome their traditional objections to coalition with the Left party (a merger of the former Communist PDS with former SPD Finance Minister Oskar Lafontaine). The SPD supports Turkish EU membership.

At a personal level, I believe the last Enlargement has been a disaster for the economy, though I blame the politicians for that. It contributed to the housing-bubble, as Finance Minister Brian Lenihan had to admit on The Last Word on Today FM as reported by the Mail. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. The Irish labour-market is in crisis at the moment, and is not prepared for a repeat of 2004. There is also a risk of racial-tensions if Irish people interpret another influx as posing the risk of displacement in the context of a recession.

BlitzKrieg

At a personal level, I believe the last Enlargement has been a disaster for the economy, though I blame the politicians for that. It contributed to the housing-bubble, as Finance Minister Brian Lenihan had to admit on The Last Word on Today FM as reported by the Mail. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

My god you have got to have the quickest turnaround I have ever seen from a *pro european but anti lisbon* voter I have ever seen.

Tuesday night you say:

I'm voting no primarily because of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Lisbon I was my first no vote in an EU referendum having voted yes in the previous 3 EU referenda.

By tonight you have borderline come out and attacked pretty much every aspect of the EU, rarely backing any of your points and soapboxing to your hearts content and yes its still pathetic that even after being told the different institutions twice you still mix them up. and you have been debating Lisbon for ages on Politics.ie how the hell do you get away with it?

Hitman Actual

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

My god you have got to have the quickest turnaround I have ever seen from a *pro european but anti lisbon* voter I have ever seen.

Tuesday night you say:



By tonight you have borderline come out and attacked pretty much every aspect of the EU, rarely backing any of your points and soapboxing to your hearts content and yes its still pathetic that even after being told the different institutions you still mix them up. and you have been debating Lisbon for ages on Politics.ie how the hell do you get away with it?

There has been an interesting (and very obvious) P.ie "No" propaganda machine spinning here in the last few days alright. Not just by FT.

Scofflaw

Hitman Actual wrote: »

There has been an interesting (and very obvious) P.ie "No" propaganda machine spinning here in the last few days alright. Not just by FT.

Yes, that's been rather noticeable - it seems to have coincided with the rather huffy departure of certain very vociferous posters. While there's no bar on anyone joining the forum, a sudden influx of politics.ie posters all with the same viewpoint inside a 48 hour period is slightly suspicious. People are welcome to post and engage, but if the intention is to flood this forum with a particular viewpoint, that is not welcome, and will be stamped on.

moderately,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

My god you have got to have the quickest turnaround I have ever seen from a *pro european but anti lisbon* voter I have ever seen.

Tuesday night you say:



By tonight you have borderline come out and attacked pretty much every aspect of the EU, rarely backing any of your points and soapboxing to your hearts content and yes its still pathetic that even after being told the different institutions twice you still mix them up. and you have been debating Lisbon for ages on Politics.ie how the hell do you get away with it?

My opposition to the Treaty is based on the contents of the Treaty. But this thread is about Enlargement, and hence I posted on the impact Enlargement (imho) had on this country's economy. I am pro-European, but I refuse to be a compliant European. Democracy depends on dissent. Uniformity and democracy are not compatible. I am concerned about the democratic-deficit and I do not believe any political-organisation has a right to sacred-cow status, to be places above criticism. That includes the EU.

ChocolateSauce

In the short-to-medium term, enlargement is usually good for the new members and bad for the old ones, but in the long run everyone will prosper from the security and larger markets. But enlargement isn't just about what is good for the economy; it's about trying to bring people together, and this I think is worth the economic ups and downs.

Regarding Turkey specifically, it does present many problems, most of all IMO the fact that it is a more conservative country than even Poland, and with a voting weight similar to Germany, it would be a very loud voice in the EU opposed to gay rights among other issues. As it stands, civil liberties in Turkey, notably the freedom to criticise the state, are not up to scratch. That being said, they have made progress recently and I'm not intrinsically opposed to their membership, just not soon. Maybe in 30 years.

There are also many benefits that having Turkey would bring. A market of 70 million people would open up for one. We'd also get land boarders with several middle-eastern countries, which would make them more accessible.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

My opposition to the Treaty is based on the contents of the Treaty. But this thread is about Enlargement, and hence I posted on the impact Enlargement (imho) had on this country's economy. I am pro-European, but I refuse to be a compliant European. Democracy depends on dissent. Uniformity and democracy are not compatible. I am concerned about the democratic-deficit and I do not believe any political-organisation has a right to sacred-cow status, to be places above criticism. That includes the EU.

Nothing should be above reasonable criticism, but emotive and irrational criticism is not only not useful, but actually counter-productive, since it polarises the debate. There are probably only handfuls of people who are blindly supportive of the EU, but I suspect that your personal experience is that people who are pro-EU are uncritical of it. Have you ever wondered why that might be?

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

Nothing should be above reasonable criticism, but emotive and irrational criticism is not only not useful, but actually counter-productive, since it polarises the debate. There are probably only handfuls of people who are blindly supportive of the EU, but I suspect that your personal experience is that people who are pro-EU are uncritical of it. Have you ever wondered why that might be?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Since I am pro-EU but anti-Lisbon, I don't share the analysis that those who are pro-EU are uncritical of it.

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Since I am pro-EU but anti-Lisbon, I don't share the analysis that those who are pro-EU are uncritical of it.

I don't think that was what Scofflaw was getting at.

View

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Since I am pro-EU but anti-Lisbon, I don't share the analysis that those who are pro-EU are uncritical of it.

Well FT, offhand, you don't seem to accept any of the principles the EU is based on much less any of its institutions.Indeed, you don't give the impression that you'd have voted Yes in refenda on the original ECSC/EAEC/EEC Treaties nevermind any of the subsequent modifications to those treaties.

It would appear to an abuse of the English language to describe yourself as being pro-EU, unless by doing so you mean pro-"A hypothetical EU that doesn't exist", as opposed to the more usual understanding of the phrase as in pro-"this EU" (imperfect as it maybe).

Do feel free to enlighten me as to how you are pro-"the post-Nice EU"...

FutureTaoiseach

View wrote: »

Well FT, offhand, you don't seem to accept any of the principles the EU is based on much less any of its institutions.Indeed, you don't give the impression that you'd have voted Yes in refenda on the original ECSC/EAEC/EEC Treaties nevermind any of the subsequent modifications to those treaties.

It would appear to an abuse of the English language to describe yourself as being pro-EU, unless by doing so you mean pro-"A hypothetical EU that doesn't exist", as opposed to the more usual understanding of the phrase as in pro-"this EU" (imperfect as it maybe).

Do feel free to enlighten me as to how you are pro-"the post-Nice EU"...

Only I know how I voted in those referenda and I always voted yes until Lisbon I. Do the math. 860,000+ voted no to Lisbon, compared to the usual 500,000 that vote no in EU referenda. Clearly many felt as I do, that the Lisbon Treaty takes the EU in a direction that displeases them. For my own part, I would put it like this: If I condemn the current govt for its mismanagement of the economy, does that mean I am "anti-Irish"? Of course not. So it is with the EU. If I condemn decisions the EU has made, the culture of corruption in Brussels as found by the suppressed Galvin Report on the European Parliament expenses system - a report suppressed by a decision of the EP Budgetary Control Committee - does that mean I am "anti-European"? Of course not. I am merely holding the EU institutions to account just as I and others do with respect to our institutions here in Ireland.

Sometimes it takes the coming into force of a measure to impress on someone that the measure was wrongheaded in the first place. In particular, it has become apparent to me that the unelective status of the Commission has contributed to the democratic-deficit in Europe. EMU, which seemed a good idea at the time, has contributed to the Irish recession by imposing an excess of cheap-credit on the Irish economy which fuelled a construction-bubble and made an eventual crash inevitable, with or without a global recession. I can accept the concept of a common currency, but have reservations about the common interest-rate. So much water has gone under the bridge, constitutionally, to roll it all back and I am not calling for it to be. What I want to know from our political-leaders is "where is this leading?". The Irish electorate do not want a Federal United States of Europe, whether in name or otherwise, and a perception that we are being bamboozled into one, at the cost of everything sacrificed for in 1916 and the War of Independence undoubtedly was a factor in the no vote. If the political-elites want to create a Federal Europe, then let them come out with it and tell us straight. Then we debate that question and have a referendum on it. I believe that is where Lisbon is taking us and were I and the people to accept this destination, it would mean that 1916-21 and centuries of struggle to gain independence were for nothing - an appalling prospect from my point of view.

The rejection of changes in the rules governing the EU do not necessarily constitute a belief in the perfection of the status-quo. Rather, I consider the latter to be preferable to Lisbon, for several reasons. I am opposed to the new "ordinary legislative procedure" because I am concerned that it makes the Big States too powerful. A blocking-minority of 4 member states including over 35% of the EU's population means that 4 Big States will effectively have a veto on measures decided by Qualified Majority Voting/ordinary legislation procedure. A particular cause of concern in relation to this are the passerelle-clauses of Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union as amended by Lisbon, which allow for the further transfer of competences from unanimity to QMV. The fact that the rotating-presidency of the European Council is being abolished in favour of a 2.5-year presidency that will be an office for which the candidate will be chosen by QMV effectively gives 4 Big States the power to block all candidates that do not please them. It symbolises the drift of power from the small states to the Big States and concerns me as an Irish citizen as to the risk of renewed dominated by Big States as in the past. I am most opposed to the provision of Article 6 of the Treaty on the European Union which states that the Charter of Fundamental Rights is enshrined into EU law with the same legal-value as the Treaties. I oppose this because in the light of recent rulings in particular, I do not trust the ECJ to interpret this in a manner that respects the principle of subsidiarity. I regard the Chen and Metock cases as examples of this.

BlitzKrieg

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

he culture of corruption in Brussels as found by the suppressed Galvin Report on the European Parliament expenses system - a report suppressed by a decision of the EP Budgetary Control Committee

A report that has been dated since 2005:

A common salary for MEPs

A single Statute for Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) was approved in June 2005 by an overwhelming majority.

From June 2009, all MEPs are to earn around €7,665 a month, thus ending the wide pay disparities that result from the current system of MEPs earning the same as national MPs in their home countries. The rules set MEPs’ salaries as 38.5% of the salary of a European Court of Justice judge.

MEPs will pay income tax to the EU budget, though Member States also retain an option to apply in addition taxation up to the level of national rates.

The agreement allows for a transition period during which, for MEPs elected by its citizens, each Member State may continue to apply different rules from those of the Statute. Current MEPs who are re-elected may also opt to continue their existing national arrangements.

More transparency on expenses and pensions.

The new Statute will also change the way in which MEPs' travel expenses are refunded: rather than a flat-rate tariff, reimbursements will reflect only the costs actually incurred.

MEPs will also join a common pension scheme, with contributions paid by Parliament. All payments from Parliament's budget to MEPs are made monthly in euro or, (at the MEP's request), in the currency of the Member State where he or she is domiciled.

New rules on assistants' pay

New rules on MEPs' allowances for paying assistants will also take effect for the new Parliament, to address weaknesses identified in the system.

From June 2009, the contracts of MEPs' assistants working in the Member States will be managed by certified paying agents, specialising in fiscal and social security aspects of employment contracts, who will be responsible for compliance with the relevant national social security and tax provisions. It will be possible for an MEP to use up to 25% of the parliamentary assistance allowance for services such as research studies or other advisory work.

Brussels-based assistants, meanwhile, will be covered by a new addition to the statute which covers EU officials and other employees. The contracts of and salary payments to the assistants will be handled by Parliament's services, but the MEPs will be entirely free in their choice of assistants, the tasks to be assigned to them and the duration of the labour contracts.

The EP has also decided that in future, MEPs may not employ close family members as their assistants.

Mandatory public register of lobbyists

A mandatory public register of lobbyists, common to the Council, Commission and Parliament and providing for "full financial disclosure", was proposed by the European Parliament in May 2008. Lobbyists would need to register only once to have access to Parliament, the Commission and the Council. The three institutions have set up a joint working group to prepare a proposal on the common register as soon as possible.

from here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/thematic_note_page/008-46723-019-01-04-901-20090120TMN46722-19-01-2009-2009/default_p001c009_en.htm

While personnally I wouldnt agree with the supression, I can bloody understand why when maroons like yourself, libertas and any other person with a bone to pick with the EU would use a report which the EU had already addressed and solved but had to wait until the new term to apply the changes. But hey we wont let that get in the way of a good auld rant now will we?

View

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Only I know how I voted in those referenda and I always voted yes until Lisbon I.

The only referenda Ireland held on the original ECSC/EAEC/EEC Treaties was the Accession referendum held in 1972. I presume you aren't hold enough to have voted in it and I find it hard to believe you'd have voted Yes in it since you object to so much about the EU.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

If I condemn the current govt for its mismanagement of the economy, does that mean I am "anti-Irish"? Of course not. So it is with the EU. If I condemn decisions the EU has made, the culture of corruption in Brussels as found by the suppressed Galvin Report on the European Parliament expenses system - a report suppressed by a decision of the EP Budgetary Control Committee - does that mean I am "anti-European"? Of course not.

This might be a credible analogy were it not for the fact that your "condemnations" of the EU are not just condemnations of policies that you disagree with, rather they are frequently attacks on the concepts that underlie it and the actual institutions of it - by which I mean, their powers, composition and arguably even their existence

For instance, you:
- are completely hostile to the "ever closer union amongst the peoples of Europe" concept,

- don't accept the principle of free movement of EU citizens within the EU (to which EU citizenship is directly tied),

- have frequently referred to the ECJ, EP and EC as "foreign" institutions - which is not a position you would adopt if you accepted either that once we agreed to join the 3 European Communities in 1973 those institution became our institutions, or, the idea of common EU citizenship,

- don't accept judgments of the ECJ as being acceptable/valid even when the ECJ is just doing its job of interpeting the actual explicit text of the Treaties,

- use phrases such as decisions being "imposed" on Ireland, which clearly implies Ireland had no say in the matter - whereas the decisions made are frequently made with the consent of Ireland and in accordance with standard EU legal procedures,

- frequently seek to compare Ireland's continuing voluntary membership of the EU with it being forced into having English/British rule where the option to leave peacefully was completely denied - such an analogy can't be just dismissed as mere over excitement on one occasion on your part either since you have repeatedly used it


Hence, I believe, it is pretty clear you don't accept the basic principles or form that the EU has. As such, if you dislike and disagree with the EU so much, why do you claim to be "pro-EU" (as in the current, not some hypothetical EU)?

FutureTaoiseach

View wrote: »

The only referenda Ireland held on the original ECSC/EAEC/EEC Treaties was the Accession referendum held in 1972. I presume you aren't hold enough to have voted in it and I find it hard to believe you'd have voted Yes in it since you object to so much about the EU.

I was old enough to vote for Amsterdam, Nice I, II and Lisbon I, and Lisbon I was my first no vote.

This might be a credible analogy were it not for the fact that your "condemnations" of the EU are not just condemnations of policies that you disagree with, rather they are frequently attacks on the concepts that underlie it and the actual institutions of it - by which I mean, their powers, composition and arguably even their existence

For instance, you:
- are completely hostile to the "ever closer union amongst the peoples of Europe" concept,

It depends how that term is interpreted. I favour an ever closer union in terms of social-interaction and mutual understanding between the peoples of Europe. Political-union is another matter entirely.

- don't accept the principle of free movement of EU citizens within the EU (to which EU citizenship is directly tied),

I accept it with respect to countries that are similarly wealthy as ourselves, and in a context where what one country allows in this respect is the same for all. What I reject in particular is a situation whereby our govt chose to be one of just 3 EU-15 countries to open our labour-markets to the EU-10 countries that acceded to the EU in 2004. As Hillary said (approximately) years after voting for the war in Iraq, 'when the facts change, I change my mind'. So it is with me. I think freedom of movement worked before Enlargement in 2004. Since 2004, it has become a rule that we are expected to abide by while Germany and Austria - and for many years the rest of the EU other than us, the UK and Sweden - did not abide by. Granted, the Accession Treaties allow for this transition period. But I can produce the exact quote in which Dick Roche, as Europe minister in the Nice II referendum, claimed that it was "inaccurate" for the no side to claim that Ireland would be one of only 3 member states to open our klabour markets to the new member states. Well it turned out to be true. For the first time in the history of EU referenda, the no side had been proven correct on a major prediction on the impact of an EU treaty. I am very sure that played a huge role in the no to Lisbon I. It certainly did for me. I also believe the issue became linked in voters' mind with the race to the bottom in wages and conditions as typified by the Irish Ferries dispute.

- have frequently referred to the ECJ, EP and EC as "foreign" institutions - which is not a position you would adopt if you accepted either that once we agreed to join the 3 European Communities in 1973 those institution became our institutions, or, the idea of common EU citizenship,

I'm not sure I referred to them as foreign so much as that I may have mentioned they were primarily run by foreign officials. I am not opposed to the concept of EU citizenship provided it doesn't displace national citizenship or supersede it.

- don't accept judgments of the ECJ as being acceptable/valid even when the ECJ is just doing its job of interpeting the actual explicit text of the Treaties,

Several EU elder statesmen, including former German President Roman Herzog, and former Danish PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen and former Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schussel have condemned the ECJ for encroaching on national competences. I am far from alone with respect to this matter. The reality, which we have learned from bitter experience in cases such as the C Case and the X Case, is that when the letter of the law is vague, the judiciary will decide what it means. Hence we end up with rulings handed down from the activist-court such as Metock and Chen. The fact that Ireland was supported in Metock last August by govts such as those of Germany and the UK underlines that we are not alone in terms of feeling that the ECJ is encroaching too much in national affairs. And yet the same govt which defended itself against such encroachment in Metock and Chen is now asking the Irish people to further expand the jurisdiction of the ECJ via measures such as the enshrinement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into EU law, and the EU acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights. It is clear that the way is being cleared for an eventual merger of the ECJ with the ECHR. That is the only way we can logically interpret the effective enshrinement of the ECHR into EU law via the EU acceding to the ECHR. The Charter and the EU acceding to the ECHR constitute the final steps on the road to the ECJ becoming a Federal Supreme Court. Such a transfer of power to unelected bureaucrats in the ECJ is, for me, the main problem with the Lisbon Treaty. I would go as far as to say that, had Ireland a UK/Poland-style optout from the Charter, I would seriously consider voting yes.

- use phrases such as decisions being "imposed" on Ireland, which clearly implies Ireland had no say in the matter - whereas the decisions made are frequently made with the consent of Ireland and in accordance with standard EU legal procedures,

I assume you mean the 2.1% "say" under Qualified Majority Voting, reduced to a 0.9% population-weight under Lisbon. In any case, the fact that the veto is rarely used by the Irish govt doesn't mean it shouldn't be. In any case, the existence of the veto, and the possibility of it being invoked, constitutes considerable leverage in negotiations in Brussels on proposed legislation, and we would be foolish to give it up via the surrender of 34 vetoes and the possibly surrender of 16 more if the govt invokes its prerogative under the Twenty Eighth Amendment to the Constitution Bill 2008 to surrender them in favour of QMV. Dermot Ahern has publicly stated when he was Foreign Minister that the govt intended to "review" the Protocol that allows us to opt out/in on a case-by-case basis within 3 years i.e. 2011.

- frequently seek to compare Ireland's continuing voluntary membership of the EU with it being forced into having English/British rule where the option to leave peacefully was completely denied - such an analogy can't be just dismissed as mere over excitement on one occasion on your part either since you have repeatedly used it

I would contend that the requirement of a Qualified Majority for agreements on secession from the Union constitute a de-facto veto to other member states, when the complications of leaving the Union with respect to trade etc. are borne in mind. I have no wish to leave the Union, but it is reasonable to compare the lack of influence of Ireland in the House of Commons, where we had 20% of the seats, with that of Ireland in Europe, where we are a mere 2.1% of the vote presently in the European Parliament and a mere 0.9% on the Council of Ministers under Lisbon. For me, however, the most convincing analogy to make is between the motives e.g. patronage, money of those who voted in Grattan's Parliament for the Act of Union in 1800, and the possible motives of some in Dail Eireann who support Lisbon. Already, names including Irish figures are being floated as possible Commissioners or President of the European Council etc.

Hence, I believe, it is pretty clear you don't accept the basic principles or form that the EU has. As such, if you dislike and disagree with the EU so much, why do you claim to be "pro-EU" (as in the current, not some hypothetical EU)?

I like the EU, but despise the Lisbon Treaty and the anti-democratic response to the French and Dutch no votes. I like Ireland too, but I dislike the corruption exposed in our politics in the Tribunals and the mismanagement of our economy by the present govt. Does that make me anti-Irish? If not, then I have every right to proclaim I am pro-European.

djpbarry

free to prosper wrote: »

What are the arguments against Turkish accession?
Here are some of them:

• It could lead to mass immigration, job displacement of Irish workers…

Free movement is part and parcel of EU membership.

free to prosper wrote: »

• Workers from poorer countries take jobs from richer ones causing a race to the bottom in working conditions.

Indeed; working conditions in this country have deteriorated quite drastically since we joined the EU.

free to prosper wrote: »

If Turkey joined the number of farmers in the EU would double overnight, therefore CAP payments would roughly half.

This point is somewhat moot, seeing as the CAP is in dire need of reform anyway. Personally, I don’t think a reduction in subsidies would necessarily be a bad thing.

free to prosper wrote: »

• Turkey would wield huge political power because of its 80 million population…

I would say that’s a pro-Lisbon argument right there.

djpbarry

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I can't see Turkish EU membership for the forseeable future.

Probably because it’s not going to happen any time soon, so arguments about current conditions (social, economic, etc.) in Turkey are somewhat meaningless.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

However, Sarkozy pushed a law through the national assembly some months ago reversing a constitutional amendment that required a referendum on Turkish EU membership…

He did what now?

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

At a personal level, I believe the last Enlargement has been a disaster for the economy, though I blame the politicians for that.

So which is it? Enlargement of the EU or political (mis-)management of the economy? Personally, I’m going to go for the latter.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

There is also a risk of racial-tensions if Irish people interpret another influx as posing the risk of displacement in the context of a recession.

Pandering to racism doesn’t strike me as a sound basis for long-term decision-making.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

If I condemn decisions the EU has made … does that mean I am "anti-European"? Of course not.

You claim that, prior to Lisbon, you voted ‘Yes’ to every other EU treaty? Perhaps you could outline some of the reasons why you voted ‘Yes’ in the past? Seeing as how your not “anti-EU”, there should be quite a few reasons.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The Irish electorate do not want a Federal United States of Europe, whether in name or otherwise, and a perception that we are being bamboozled into one, at the cost of everything sacrificed for in 1916 and the War of Independence undoubtedly was a factor in the no vote.

Maybe, but hardly a significant factor.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I am opposed to the new "ordinary legislative procedure" because I am concerned that it makes the Big States too powerful. A blocking-minority of 4 member states including over 35% of the EU's population means that 4 Big States will effectively have a veto on measures decided by Qualified Majority Voting/ordinary legislation procedure.

That is an obvious concern, particularly given the history of France, Germany, Italy and the UK agreeing on absolutely everything at EU level.

ChocolateSauce

I accept it with respect to countries that are similarly wealthy as ourselves, and in a context where what one country allows in this respect is the same for all. What I reject in particular is a situation whereby our govt chose to be one of just 3 EU-15 countries to open our labour-markets to the EU-10 countries that acceded to the EU in 2004.

Ireland had a disproportionately large influx for two main reasons: We're small, so influxes are more noticeable, and we were one of only three countries to open our boarders. I'm very proud of the fact we did, and the new countries of the EU won't forget that we welcomed them when other much larger countries which should have been more able to absorb them did not. I would have harder feelings towards Germany and France than towards Poland or our own country over the immigration. If every country in the old EU-15 had opened their boarders, we'd have fewer eastern Europeans here and thus fewer perceived problems.

bill_ashmount

Can someone point me to the survey done by the European Union on Turkeys entry into the EU.

I can't find it, I know it exists somewhere because I've read it before.

Cheers

Scofflaw

bill_ashmount wrote: »

Can someone point me to the survey done by the European Union on Turkeys entry into the EU.

I can't find it, I know it exists somewhere because I've read it before.

Cheers

This is the most recent Eurobarometer that included the question - Autumn 2006.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

djpbarry wrote:

He did what now?

Yes, the French changed their Constitution in 2008 to remove the requirement for a referendum on Turkish EU membership:

Euractiv.com wrote:

The French Senate voted on Tuesday (24 June) to drop a constitutional requirement to hold a popular vote before a new country can enter the EU, removing a key irritant in its relations with Turkey.

View

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

View wrote: »

The only referenda Ireland held on the original ECSC/EAEC/EEC Treaties was the Accession referendum held in 1972. I presume you aren't hold enough to have voted in it and I find it hard to believe you'd have voted Yes in it since you object to so much about the EU.

I was old enough to vote for Amsterdam, Nice I, II and Lisbon I, and Lisbon I was my first no vote.

Interesting that you don't dispute my comment that I find it hard to believe that you'd have voted Yes to the original ECSC/EAEC/EEC Treaties (or its proxy here - the Accession referendum).

The freedom of movement principle was there in those treaties. So was the ECJ. And European Political cooperation on CFSP issues had first begun in 1969 (which eventually was formally included in the SEA). All issues/institutions you seem to have problems with.

So, would you have voted No?

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

View wrote: »

For instance, you:
- are completely hostile to the "ever closer union amongst the peoples of Europe" concept,

It depends how that term is interpreted. I favour an ever closer union in terms of social-interaction and mutual understanding between the peoples of Europe. Political-union is another matter entirely.

Since no one is actually proposing that we decide today what the final form of an ever closer union is, the issue can be left aside for a future decision. It is not for us today to say to future generations (or even ourselves in the future) "No, you shall not do this" in relation to future possible EUs. As such, the phrase is a compromise.

Your position is a bit akin to someone circa 1910 taking issue with the the concept of "An independent Ireland" because it might mean a socialist Ireland.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

View wrote: »

- don't accept the principle of free movement of EU citizens within the EU (to which EU citizenship is directly tied),

I accept it with respect to countries that are similarly wealthy as ourselves,

In other words, you don't accept the free movement principle even though it is a corner stone of the EU.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

What I reject in particular is a situation whereby our govt chose to be one of just 3 EU-15 countries to open our labour-markets to the EU-10 countries that acceded to the EU in 2004.

All of which happened because the FF/PD government excerised Ireland's sovereign right to make an "independent" decision - and copied what the British did.

So this is not an EU issue, hence your anti-EU sentiments in this area are baseless.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

For the first time in the history of EU referenda, the no side had been proven correct on a major prediction on the impact of an EU treaty.

Even stopped clocks are right twice a day. All of which would be okay, if the the freedom of movement principles was something new introduced in Nice. It wasn't though.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

View wrote: »

- have frequently referred to the ECJ, EP and EC as "foreign" institutions - which is not a position you would adopt if you accepted either that once we agreed to join the 3 European Communities in 1973 those institution became our institutions, or, the idea of common EU citizenship,

I'm not sure I referred to them as foreign so much as that I may have mentioned they were primarily run by foreign officials. I am not opposed to the concept of EU citizenship provided it doesn't displace national citizenship or supersede it.

Without checking, I believe you have referred to the institutes as foreign on repeated occasions. It is hard to see how you could be said to accept the concept of EU citizenship, if you regard the staff/members of the EU's institutions as "foreign officials" (And I would imagine those EU citizens working there who also are Irish citizens would not appreciate the insult).

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

View wrote: »

- don't accept judgments of the ECJ as being acceptable/valid even when the ECJ is just doing its job of interpeting the actual explicit text of the Treaties,

Several EU elder statesmen, including former German President Roman Herzog, and former Danish PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen and former Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schussel have condemned the ECJ for encroaching on national competences.

It is perfectly reasonable to have arguments over what should be an EU competence or not - ultimately though that (political) decision rests with the member states. Offhand, I can't think of any ECJ rulings (or the basis thereof) that the member states subsequently changed. Can you?

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

View wrote: »

- use phrases such as decisions being "imposed" on Ireland, which clearly implies Ireland had no say in the matter - whereas the decisions made are frequently made with the consent of Ireland and in accordance with standard EU legal procedures,

I assume you mean the 2.1% "say" under Qualified Majority Voting, reduced to a 0.9% population-weight under Lisbon.

No, I don't mean that. If Ireland agrees to (or has agreed) decision making procedures for the EU, then either you accept those decisions are valid or not (even if you as an individual don't always like them).

As such the use of phrases such as "imposed decisions" would seem to imply that you don't accept the validity of the decision making process (either under post-Nice or proposed post-Lisbon rules).

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

View wrote: »

- frequently seek to compare Ireland's continuing voluntary membership of the EU with it being forced into having English/British rule where the option to leave peacefully was completely denied - such an analogy can't be just dismissed as mere over excitement on one occasion on your part either since you have repeatedly used it

I would contend that the requirement of a Qualified Majority for agreements on secession from the Union constitute a de-facto veto to other member states, when the complications of leaving the Union with respect to trade etc. are borne in mind.

There is already precedent for a state leaving the EU. Greenland did so in the 1980s (albeit slightly delayed due to incompetence on the part of the Oireachtas) when they acheived home rule.

This stands in complete contrast to Ireland's relationship with the English/British where independence wasn't even countenanced by the British for literally hunderds of years.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

View wrote: »

Hence, I believe, it is pretty clear you don't accept the basic principles or form that the EU has. As such, if you dislike and disagree with the EU so much, why do you claim to be "pro-EU" (as in the current, not some hypothetical EU)?

I like the EU,

:rolleyes:

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I like Ireland too, but I dislike the corruption exposed in our politics in the Tribunals and the mismanagement of our economy by the present govt. Does that make me anti-Irish?

You are confusing proper attacks on mismanagement, bad policies, normal politics etc. with attacks on the institutions of the state where you either question their legal right to make decisions or even exist.

Offhand, I don't recall you as having ever attacked the institutions of the state in the same manner as you attack the EU's. Were you to do so, I would think that in the absence of an alternative label - such as, rejectionist maybe, or modern day Irish Unionist or some such - then "anti-Irish" probably would be justified.