Will you be voting yes in the referendum on the Nice Treaty?

androphobic · 16-04-2001 3:10pm #1

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2001/0416/breaking28.htm

The question is.. should we lose our neutrality? How important is it to us?

neuro-praxis · 16-04-2001 3:21pm

I am still not sure. I am currently reading up on it all over the place, and I am finding it tough to decide. It has benefits and drawbacks.

Maybe this thread will help me make up my mind. When I have fully decided, I will let you know.

Celt · 16-04-2001 3:34pm

I would vote yes, it's time we stopped this neutrality sh!t.

bugler · 16-04-2001 3:52pm

Our neutrality has always been a joke.
So it might signal the end of a charade,in some ways.

neuro-praxis · 16-04-2001 4:36pm

Androphobic, may I please take this opportunity to say that your name is wickedly clever and hilarious!

androphobic · 16-04-2001 5:40pm

thanks neuro

Imo the nice treaty is a difficult one. Apart from the neutrality issue there is the subject of the expansion of the European Union aswell as the issue of commissioners, etc.

According to the Green Party, the treaty would integrate defence issues into the EU, remove Ireland's automatic right to an EU Commissioner and create a two-tier Europe.

<snipped from the irish times>
Dublin Green Party MEP Ms Patricia McKenna said it was "misleading to say that the Nice Treaty is about enlargement . . . In fact the Nice Treaty is almost entirely devoted to transferring more power to the big EU memberstates at the expense of the smaller states such as Ireland".
</snip>

According to the Greens, Sinn Fein and the Socialists, the treaty tends towards "a military superstate".

However there is the argument that we cannot expect other countries to defend our shores any longer.

According to the Taoiseach: "The security and defence aspects of the treaty are minor technical details which allow the EU to live up to its responsibilities and to develop its capacity to undertake humanitarian tasks".

It has been said that the Treaty of Nice will not change the State's policy of neutrality and Irish peacekeeping troops will continue to serve only in operations authorised by the United Nations.
But is our neutrality a part of our identity or is it merely a farce anyway?

An enlarged EU would be a huge boost for business interests within Ireland.
Has participation in the SEM been the key to Ireland's economic success?

And do we have an obligation to agree to EU expansion considering how we have benefited from EU membership in recent years? Is it now the turn of other, less fortunate Europeans to benefit?

Okay enough questions for now me thinks

[This message has been edited by androphobic (edited 16-04-2001).]

bugler · 16-04-2001 5:51pm

Originally posted by androphobic:

But is our neutrality a part of our identity or is it merely a farce anyway?

Farce.We're neutral in theory.In practice we're just like any other moderately pro-large western powers country. I have seen US military planes stopping off to refuel from my window here in this room,would we have allowed yugoslavian planes/Iraqi planes(transferring war material) to stop off should they have fancied a flight over the US/UK? No.
Lets drop the idea we are impartial and unbiased.At the end of the day,the Irish government knows and always has known who butters our bread,and that is primarily the US.We won't run the risk of seriously upsetting them.Sorry to go off-topic somewhat.....

androphobic · 16-04-2001 5:57pm

bugler.. perhaps the US would be opposed to an EU army?

just a thought.

I think that if the referendum were tomorrow I would vote yes.. but we'll see.

[Goddamn I should really spellcheck

]

[This message has been edited by androphobic (edited 16-04-2001).]

Stephen · 16-04-2001 7:49pm

androphobia n : a morbid fear of men

boo!

androphobic · 16-04-2001 8:20pm

Originally posted by Stephen:
androphobia n : a morbid fear of men

boo!

*grins*

yossarin · 16-04-2001 8:28pm

Our neutrality has allways only been on paper - best place for it really.
DeValera sent fire engines to belfast,
Haughey sent guns (edit: shít ! "alledgedly")

"However here is the argument that we cannot expect other countries to defend our shores any longer."

defend them from what? [ zee germans?

] is it not enought that iff there is a situation our armies can then join and fight it? I may be being a bit naive but what threat is out there ? apart from english stag nights that is.

[This message has been edited by yossarin (edited 16-04-2001).]

androphobic · 16-04-2001 8:35pm

Originally posted by yossarin:

defend them from what? [ zee germans? ] is it not enought that iff there is a situation our armies can then join and fight it? I may be being a bit naive but what threat is out there ? apart from english stag nights that is.

hehehe sorry i meant that there is the argument if there is some sort of international crisis we should stand up for ourselves and not hide behind our neutrality while others fight.

[Disclaimer: This is not necessarily my view, I was just putting both sides of the argument forward

]

Keeks · 16-04-2001 10:08pm

On the subject of neurality, are we really a 'Neutral' country and if so where in the constitution does it say so? Or how do we know we are a neutral country rather than ppl just saying we are?

Yossarian · 16-04-2001 10:14pm

Originally posted by androphobic:
hehehe sorry i meant that there is the argument if there is some sort of international crisis we should stand up for ourselves and not hide behind our neutrality while others fight.

[Disclaimer: This is not necessarily my view, I was just putting both sides of the argument forward ]

I think this part of the Nice treaty has its roots in the complete and utter mess that was the EU attempt at brokering a peace in Bosnia, (which consisted of two old farts ****ing about in front of cameras). The lesson learned from that was that the EU did not have the capability to efficiently deploy troops in a situation like that. From this was born the idea of the rapid reaction force.
Neutrality has become an ideal that means standing ideally by whilst genocide is practised. The phrase "Never again" has often been muttered since the second world war. Well "never again" has happened again in Europe and the EU has been shown to be incapable of preventing it. From what i can see this treaty is trying to change that.

The US is opposed to the RRF, as they see it as diluting NATO. Basically the US moaning about loosing influence over European Military matters.

bugler · 16-04-2001 10:27pm

I'm for a "European army",let us deal with our own problems.Those american troops should fúck off home.Keep the americans out of our matters.Thing is,it would probably just be NATO minus US,and still be a biased and selfishly motivated force.Still,the reduction in US influence would be welcome.

GreenHell · 16-04-2001 10:54pm

hmmm neutallity nope not of it not realistic anyway sense we all hold opinions on differant issues eg "don't kill those people Sadam"

Nice Treaty hmm haven't really read up on it yet but from what I hear I'm for it its for not just our own good but for the good of europe that greater links are encouraged and democracy becomes more european than mainly what each country thinks.

and if anyone haas read up does this treaty give more power to the eu parliment?

neuro-praxis · 16-04-2001 11:03pm

Hrm.

I don't want an armed police force in Ireland. I realise that it has been successful in other European countries and they have lower crime rates but...our police aren't exactly renowned for non-corrupt qaulities...

I also do not want to raise my children in a country where conscription occurs when they hit 20. If we keep our neutrality, then anyone who wants to fight, can go accross the border and do so.

We will have less votes than other more powerful countries. That means we have a quieter voice and can be out-voted on policies.

I am veering towards saying no, I *think*. But it would be a real achievement to make apeaceful union between so many different countries...

I do realise the benefits - but are they worth it? And will the newer members suffer economically at our expense?

I just don't know.

Give me back my towel. I'll sue.

androphobic · 16-04-2001 11:11pm

Originally posted by Keeks:
On the subject of neurality, are we really a 'Neutral' country and if so where in the constitution does it say so? Or how do we know we are a neutral country rather than ppl just saying we are?

I couldn't tell you where in the constitution it says it..

but Smith, the Minister for Defence, has said that the Treaty of Nice will not change the State's policy of neutrality.. so I guess we must have had one to start with

androphobic · 16-04-2001 11:18pm

Originally posted by GREENHELL:
and if anyone haas read up does this treaty give more power to the eu parliment?

If it is ratified, we would lose the automatic right to a Commissioner and there would be a reduction in voting power in the European Parliament.
A new system of "qualified majority voting" would be introduced in the Parliament.

In the European Council we would have 7 votes instead of 3 (which we have at the moment), but UK, Germany and a few others would have 29. That's why it has been said that the larger states would be gaining control.

Hope that helps somewhat

GreenHell · 16-04-2001 11:30pm

hmmm of course thats reflects population differances aslong as its flexible in that if our population goess up we get more seats etc

But that system is going to be reality in a more intergrated europe.

androphobic · 16-04-2001 11:32pm

Originally posted by neuro-praxis:

I do realise the benefits - but are they worth it? And will the newer members suffer economically at our expense?

I just don't know.

Yeah I would agree that it is a complex issue.. one minute I think I will vote yes, the next no... hmm who can say.

But. I would definitely agree with Yossarin -

Neutrality has become an ideal that means standing ideally by whilst genocide is practised.

While I would be pro-neutrality, I don't see how it can work much longer. We have to take some sort of responsibility I think.. I mean we can't just reap the benefits of the EU and then step back when they bring up the issue of neutrality. Or can we?

I don't particularly want an armed police force in Ireland either. I think we're better off without one.. but this could be done without one, I would say. And I would say no to conscription.. so hmmmm

We will have less votes than other more powerful countries. That means we have a quieter voice and can be out-voted on policies.

That is a drawback.. that's putting me off. I mean 7 -v- 29? It seems that we would be very much outvoted. Would this go against us? It could easily do so.

But I don't think newer members would suffer economically at our expense. I think it would be the opposite.. look at the funding we have received from the EU in the past - and still are! (afaik the Irish government are trying to keep Objective 1 status for the Border-Midlands-West counties). Newer members could benefit as we have. There are many people who would say that participation in the SEM has been the key to Ireland's economic success.. and it would be hard to argue with them, I believe. I think the aim is to expand the EU to include 26 countries.. the new countries would be Eastern European ones etc.. poor countries which have not much to give us economically but which have heaps to give us socially and culturally, I would think.

androphobic · 16-04-2001 11:36pm

Originally posted by GREENHELL:
hmmm of course thats reflects population differances aslong as its flexible in that if our population goess up we get more seats etc

But that system is going to be reality in a more intergrated europe.

hehehe yea but population growth takes time.. unless we all go have a few babies now.. triplets should do it

GreenHell · 16-04-2001 11:43pm

we better starting working away so.

GreenHell · 16-04-2001 11:46pm

hmmm I suppose the real question is are you pro or anti EU?

androphobic · 17-04-2001 12:01am

Originally posted by GREENHELL:
hmmm I suppose the real question is are you pro or anti EU?

yea i guess it is..

personally.. i think.. yea im pro.

Manach · 17-04-2001 12:07am

No - for petty minded nationalist reasons.

amp · 17-04-2001 12:57am

I'm pro-Europe but getting increasingly worried about the institutionalised corruption that seems to pervade the whole EU political structure. There's nothing in the treaty to reassure me otherwise.

I'm not in favour of a European army either. The only other example of a large army is the US army. And that gets sent only to wars it can win and ones that effect the US's oil reserves (gulf war).

It'd be nice (har) to actually be able to read the treaty. Anybody find a copy on the web? I couldn't.

Lunacy Abounds! Play GLminesweeper!
art is everything and of course nothing and possibly also a sausage

androphobic · 17-04-2001 1:02am

Originally posted by amp:

It'd be nice (har) to actually be able to read the treaty. Anybody find a copy on the web? I couldn't.

apparently they're sending out copies to every household.. or summaries of it or something..

Yossarian · 17-04-2001 8:36am

Originally posted by neuro-praxis:

I also do not want to raise my children in a country where conscription occurs when they hit 20. If we keep our neutrality, then anyone who wants to fight, can go accross the border and do so.

The only European nation (that i know of )that has conscription is Germany, as an option in national service . And there scraping it. I dont think the Treaty of Nice will introduce conscription as this would be a step backwards that even the military wouldnt want.
Modern military forces tend to be small professional armies, unlike the large unwieldy conscription based armies favoured in the past.

Blitzkrieger · 17-04-2001 9:17am

Originally posted by yossarin:

I may be being a bit naive but what threat is out there ? apart from english stag nights that is.

The lack of any threat is more down to our position than our size. There's **** loads of countries who would subjugate a small country like ours given half a chance.

I think the US vs EU army stuff is mostly political. The US military would love more help defending the west's economic interests.

The Gardai already have an armed response unit, but I agree that I wouldn't want our local bent coppers to have guns.

Sweeden has conscription too.

There might be a lot of corruption in the EU parliment but what else is new? Corrupt politicians are a law of nature.

I don't really have an opinion yet - have to make one soon

azezil · 17-04-2001 9:58am

ireland neutral a joke, yes i think so they or rather we, play both sides of the fence n get away with it!

eg. ww2, on one side allied planes n ships refuleing in our ports, and on the other makeing deals with the germans and offering our condolences to germany when hitler committed suicide!

but ne way back to the point, yeah we should remain neutral, but do what sweeden do, every able-bodied man between 18 and 50 (afaik) hav to give at least 2 weeks to the military each yr.

we need to upgrade our military, for fe<k sake we've only 3 tanks from ww2!! which are too heavy to take out on the roads..so they sit gathering dust. the majority of our equipment is over 30 yr's old, we need to update, if we are to remain neutral we need to be able to defend ourselves in the case of some superpower trying to take advantage...

"just because ur not paraniod, doesn't mean they're not after u!"

bugler · 17-04-2001 10:16am

The though of anyone trying to attack Ireland is a little hard to visualize,even in the distant future.
The Irish army just bought 40 APC's,which is a start to modernising.It should be restructured.I want to be an army officer,but have been unsuccessful thus far. I find it hard to be disappointed however,as last year 5% of the candidates were accepted. I spose its the lot of wanting to be an officer in a very small army.If I wanted to be in the British army I probably would have been commisioned already.Anyway, arming the police will happen eventually.They should start integrating that now,as part of a gradual process IMO. Maybe just arming the police in certain areas. Would you begrudge the police in some of the more infamous inner city areas in Dublin/Limerick an effective means to defend themselves? Mind you its probably going to take a few abductions/murders of cops before any action on this matter is taken.

GreenHell · 17-04-2001 10:27am

Originally posted by azezil:

we need to upgrade our military, for fe<k sake we've only 3 tanks from ww2!! which are too heavy to take out on the roads..so they sit gathering dust. the majority of our equipment is over 30 yr's old, we need to update, if we are to remain neutral we need to be able to defend ourselves in the case of some superpower trying to take advantage...

I believe the aim of the irish army is to be a small professional army which is perfectly fine , the air corps are a joke and the navy is as stronge as it needs to be.

As for the tanks who needs tanks wars are fought in the skys these days none the less the defense forcess have scorpian tanks light weight tanks designed for speed .... how many I dunno but I do believe aa bit more than 3.

As for an EU super army well so what it won't be some huge foreign bad ass army it'll be our army and more than likely used for european interests.

Yossarian · 17-04-2001 12:22pm

Originally posted by azezil:

but ne way back to the point, yeah we should remain neutral, but do what sweeden do, every able-bodied man between 18 and 50 (afaik) hav to give at least 2 weeks to the military each yr.

No! This would be a complete waste of money and time. The correct thing is the creation of a small professional armed forces, which is what we have.

we need to upgrade our military, for fe<k sake we've only 3 tanks from ww2!! which are too heavy to take out on the roads..so they sit gathering dust. the majority of our equipment is over 30 yr's old, we need to update, if we are to remain neutral we need to be able to defend ourselves in the case of some superpower trying to take advantage...

Modern tanks cost approximatly 1million quid each (not counting the running costs). For tanks to be of any use large numbers of them have to be availible. Spending this amount of money (in the region of 1 billion for the force to be effective)on tanks for the irish army would be a waste of money. They are not required.
What is reuired is modern basic equipment for a mechanized infantry force. This has been realised and is already being acted on, 40 new APC have been purchased, standard infantry rifle is the Steyr AUG. The only other adition i can think of is a modern portable anti-tank weapon (ala RPG).

The tank that the army currently has is the Scorpian light tank (also some Panhard armoured cars), This tank dates from the late seventies, not WW2.

Celt · 17-04-2001 12:51pm

AFAIK there highly advanced apc's that can survive nuclear fallout. That comment about tanks being useless, go read some military manuals and information sites please and kindly get a clue.

Evil Phil · 17-04-2001 1:14pm

I haven't read the treaty yet. But it's on the Dept. of Foreign Affairs website at:

http://www.gov.ie/iveagh/nice/default.asp

As for being invaded, the British and the Yanks had plans for invading Ireland during ww2, as I'm sure did the Germans, and as I'm sure the Yanks and many other people still have. We are responsible for air traffic control of the West Atlantic (shared with Iceland) for a reason. We're in quite a strategic position. Which I merely mention as food for thought, not as an opinion.

and finally:

... standard infantry rifle is the Steyr AUG

counter-terrorists win

Paladin · 17-04-2001 1:37pm

I don't want an armed police force in Ireland

Neither do I, but that surely isnt any part of the treaty is it?

Yossarian · 17-04-2001 2:15pm

Originally posted by WhiteLancer:
AFAIK there highly advanced apc's that can survive nuclear fallout.

Who is the manufacturer? I know there were Swiss and US firms included in the bidding.

That comment about tanks being useless, go read some military manuals and information sites please and kindly get a clue.

Tanks do have there limitations, the biggest one being operating in a urban enviroment where they are very suceptible infantry units armed with anti-tank weapons(RPG's).
Also for tanks to be usefull they should be employed in large numbers. They should never be employed piecemeal. For the Irish Army to have an effective Tank force would require spending excessive amount of money (excessive for this country). Spending a fraction of that money on a small Tank force would not result in a effective force. The money would be better spent on other defence equipment/training.

[This message has been edited by Yossarian (edited 17-04-2001).]

PostmanPat · 17-04-2001 2:53pm

It has nothing to do with neutrality, it's just a further enhansment of the EU i.e. the first step to a constitution for the whole EU. I'll be voting No.

Did we fight for independace for over 700 years just to give it back??

A controversial operation to transplant the whole head of a monkey onto a
different body has proved a partial success.

bugler · 17-04-2001 2:59pm

Originally posted by GREENHELL:

As for an EU super army well so what it won't be some huge foreign bad ass army it'll be our army and more than likely used for european interests.

Yeah if by European interests you mean UK/French/German interests.Sorry to be pessimistic,but thats the way I'd see it.Us smaller and less military significant countries will get a symbolic vote,of no real importance in the bigger matters.

GreenHell · 17-04-2001 5:23pm

Its that sort of narrow minded nationalism thats going against the EU. I don't really see how an EU army changes anything its not like our army does anything on a major scales or would have the man power to do so.

I'll be voting yes because this treaty is mainly there to streamline the EU for inlargement a couple old eastern block countries are getting ready to join in the next few years.

azezil · 17-04-2001 5:35pm

well ok getin a load of tanks isn't a realist option for us, i guess ur rite a small elite force probably would do a better job!

"just because ur not paraniod, doesn't mean they're not after u!"

androphobic · 17-04-2001 5:49pm

Originally posted by PostmanPat:
It has nothing to do with neutrality, it's just a further enhansment of the EU

Enlargement and enhancement are also factors but neutrality does come into play aswell. The Nice Treaty affects several different issues.

Originally posted by azezil:
but ne way back to the point, yeah we should remain neutral, but do what sweeden do, every able-bodied man between 18 and 50 (afaik) hav to give at least 2 weeks to the military each yr.

I wouldn't really be in favour of that.. though two weeks doesn't seem like a long time, but at the same time it seems a bit backwards - people should have a choice, and there's the money issue.

Germany doesn't have conscription exactly.. people can choose between joining the army for a year or else they can do "Zivildienst" (Civil Service) which is where they spend 18 months working in an old folks home or something similar.

Originally posted by bugler:
Would you begrudge the police in some of the more infamous inner city areas in Dublin/Limerick an effective means to defend themselves?

That would be so controversial; can't see it happening.

Originally posted by PostmanPat: Did we fight for independace for over 700 years just to give it back??

That's the way some people see the EU. Personally, I don't. While on the outside it does look in ways like we have given away what people have fought for, at the end of the day we are still an independent state. While we are part of the EU, we can pull out, I guess (can't see that happening but nevertheless..). I don't know.. I see where you're coming from but I don't think it's giving away our independence.

And even if you think it is, it's done now. The Nice Treaty is the next step in the development of the European Union. This referendum is about helping ourselves as members. At least thats the way I see it. We're part of the EU now so we have to concentrate on how to better it.

Also Ireland is the only country which will be voting on this issue. The other European countries are not putting it to the people. And the Nice referendum cannot go ahead unless it is ratified by every state. If the Irish people vote no and the Treaty is not ratified because of that, will the consequences be worth it? (Trade, etc.) Just a thought. I still haven't fully made up my mind.

neuro-praxis · 17-04-2001 5:59pm

Greenhell, it isn't nationalism that makes me wary of signing the treaty, as I don't believe in patriotism...there are other factors to be considered.

Paladin, as far as I am aware from what I have read, the EU will have the power to send in the Europolice if they see fit - and that is an armed organisation. I need to go read the actual treaty now - I have been trying to track it down for ages, and now somebody has kindly provided a link.

androphobic · 17-04-2001 6:03pm

Originally posted by neuro-praxis:
I need to go read the actual treaty now - I have been trying to track it down for ages, and now somebody has kindly provided a link.

Be warned, neuro.. it's *long*.
*Almost* finished.

azezil · 17-04-2001 6:06pm

i personally don't think its giving away our freedom, and as for the people that say we're looseing our identity from it WAKE UP!

we will never forget who we are, just because we join some european union doesn't mean we're looseing who we are, we're mearly opening up new opertunities... when one thinks about it have you never watched a film/tv show n come away mimicing the actors! and thus possibly mimicing the people of another culture! that doesn't make you any less irish, so what if you act like some american twat

ur still irish underneath and that's what counts.....

sorry to deviate from the topic there androphobic but i felt the need to voice my opinion

"just because ur not paraniod, doesn't mean they're not after u!"

Celt · 17-04-2001 6:07pm

Yoss, depends completely on the kind of tank for the situation, artillery tanks, rocket launcher, tank killers, mine thrashers, there is a lot of different uses for tanks and a lot of different tactics.

azezil · 17-04-2001 6:19pm

Originally posted by WhiteLancer:
Yoss, depends completely on the kind of tank for the situation, artillery tanks, rocket launcher, tank killers, mine thrashers, there is a lot of different uses for tanks and a lot of different tactics.

brings back the good awld days of c&c retaliation, two PS's goin head to head

almost brings a tear to my eye LOL

"just because ur not paraniod, doesn't mean they're not after u!"

GreenHell · 17-04-2001 6:44pm

Originally posted by WhiteLancer:
Yoss, depends completely on the kind of tank for the situation, artillery tanks, rocket launcher, tank killers, mine thrashers, there is a lot of different uses for tanks and a lot of different tactics.

tsk who cares tanks didn't do sadam much good now did they there an out moded system of warfare.

As for giving away our independance ... well we're voting to that its now exactly being taken by force. Anyway we'll still be a country and nothing will change that.

Paladin · 17-04-2001 7:13pm

Just read most of that treaty (boooooooring) and I will be voting yes.
Most of the changes are bureaucratic, about the voting system. The changes make sense I think. We wont necessarily be giving up neutrality either. We will still have the full choice of co-operation if we want to.

There will be no armed police force in Ireland either. Dunno how that came into the equation. Leave Garda unarmed. Fewer guns, or justification for guns in this country, the better.

bugler · 17-04-2001 8:35pm

Ugh.Greenhell,you have a loose definition of nationalism,and narrow mindedness.I suppose you think NATO are all sugar and light and only act out of humanitarian concern?
I'd be very very wary of a Euro army,especially on how the war council/security council of it would be run.
I'm sure it would be along the lines of the farcical UN security council which we now have a "valuable" seat in.It could easily just be a NATO substitute(minus the US,which I'm happy about as I've said above)which only serves to protect the interests of the major players.

Will you be voting yes in the referendum on the Nice Treaty?

Comments