How are YOU going to vote on the Nice Treaty?

DadaKopf

I don't want to sway anyone's opinions in any way, vote how you want but this is my stance and I'm curious to firstly start a debate on it because it's important and secondly to hear everyones differing opinions on the Nice Treaty.

Here's my opinion:

I've been slowly going through the whole white paper and if anything is to be noted, it's that over the next few years, there are far more negotiations to be done regarding the European Army, Enlargement, the inclusion of Turkey and so on, discussions would should have been finalised before this treaty. The whole thing is probably OK but it needs further negotiation (and the Irish government has actually had an instrumental role in copperfastening smaller countries together to campaign to the bigger ones for institutional change).

The most worrying change is that of the European Army. Even though Ireland would have an option to veto action, and crisis management actions would be by UN mandate, realistically this probably wouldn't happen, it'd be a Nato thing.

Separate from this, I will probably be voting 'no' for the simple reason that (even though in principle I am for it) if Ireland rejects it, it will force through sorely needed changes and considerations - primarily a rethinking of the European Rapid Reaction Force.

It's a strategic decision.

The full White Paper can be found at The Dept of Foreign Affairs website.

[This message has been edited by DadaKopf (edited 19-05-2001).]

harVee

I shall be voting NO.

Paladin

Ill be voting yes. That is assuming I get my voting slip.

Excelsior

I am voting Yes!

---

My Adolescent website:
http://www.iol.net/~mullent

DadaKopf

The European Rapid Reaction Corps will be operating within the European Army as far as I'm aware which will be replacing the pretty much defunct Western European Union. I'm not against mutual defence at all; what I'm worried about is the closeness the idea has to PfP. The organisation will be bloated and real 'rapid reaction' will be so politically based that chances to opt out or opt in may end up drastically curtailed in their efficacy. Moreover, does anyone really believe that the RRC or Euro Army won't kotwow to Nato? Who has control of the military infrastructure? Who has the international clout? Who has an agreement from the EU that any RRC or Euro Army actions will be sub-let by Nato (probably with a UN mandate)? I'm in full favour of increased independence from Nato and America but it's not likely to happen and this is just another layer in the complex constellation of alliances and secret deals between the countries of the world. Bush's administration is having parties in their pants about the potential income from the ney military supermarket.

But the Nice Treaty isn't just about the European Army. It's really about enlargement and the re-allocation of committee, council and parliament seats given expansion. This is generally OK since the weighting of seats etc. are more balanced and the larger countries lose the right to nominate a second member to the committee and each of the above cameras are more balanced along population lines.

The overall impression I get of the Nice Treaty is one of incompletness. There is still more work to be done and I still am in a mind to vote 'no' out of mere strategy to push further reforms though, not concessions for Ireland, reforms to affect the ehole EU. On the military issue, I don't like the idea of a new power block - an economic one was fine. For some reason, my mind is always taken back to the Dreikaiserbund.

Ronan|Raven

Quite simply actually im not gona vote politics has to interest top me at all really.

well tbh me dont undersatnd it !!

meglome

Is it just me or does anyone get what the hell the No Campaign posters are on about.

---

www.doesnotcompute.ie
www.gamire.com

androphobic

I'll be voting yes.

Belisarius

Ill be voting no , while i agree with a nuymber of issues in the treaty , or unique position to send a message to the rest of the Union compells me to reject it in favour of a revoised version ,Ill be voting to abolish Corporal punishment I think , Im not altogether convinced , we are after all a nation gripped in Terrorism and whatnot , though you'd hardly think it theese days .

---

Shrewgar!

Stephen

I'll be voting yes.

Dun

I still have no idea what half of it is about, but what i have heard, esp regarding defense, I don't like. So a no on this one.

androphobic

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by dun_do_bheal:
I still have no idea what half of it is about, but what i have heard, esp regarding defense, I don't like. So a no on this one.</font>

With all due respect, I don't think it's very wise to vote unless you inform yourself firstly on the issue on which you will be voting.

bugler

TBH, I would say that no more than a fraction of voters are ever truly aware of what it is they are voting for,relying on vague ideas and instincts than explanatory papers.

Manach

No to the Nice vote - prefer strict neutrality.
Yes (very reluctantly) to absolish the Death Penalty.

Also any info on this courts part of the referendum?

Yossarian

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Magwitch:

I am in favour of a European Rapid Reactopn force to intervene in humanitarian and military crisis. Neutrality was once a valid option for Ireland, but frankly it is just an excuse these days for people and politicians to be non-commital.
</font>

The idea of the RRF was born out of the debacle that was EU policy towards the crisis in Bosnia. But i suppose we have all forgotten about that. After all, it will never happen again..never again..

The US views the creation of the RRF as a dilution of NATO. ITs creation in no way means big defence contracts for US companies as Europe has pretty big defence industry of its own.

Magwitch

You seem to think the Rapid Reaction Force and and Eurpoean Army are the same thing. There is no oficial European army as the result of any treaty. Just an understanding to work more closely together. This will circumvent NATO and stop relaince on America for intervention in Eurpoean affirs. Ironically those who always oppose American (what ever the reason) also oppose a plan that will see them out of Eurpoean affairs.

I am in favour of a European Rapid Reactopn force to intervene in humanitarian and military crisis. Neutrality was once a valid option for Ireland, but frankly it is just an excuse these days for people and politicians to be non-commital.

I agree 100% with expansion. I also agree with legislation in the EU in the moment to put a stay on freedom of worker movement for new members for 4-7 years.

I agree with the weighted voting system, it makes sence and Ireland will have to co-operate more with smaller EU countries rather than spend its time kissing England Ass. SO YES to Nice.

I am voting no to the removal of the constitutional provisions for the Death Penalty.

---

Keep your powder dry and your pants moist

harVee

Andy, how come you know so much about tanks and guns and armies. kinda worrying...

OSiriS

I will be voting NO. While I agree with most of the treaty, there are some issues I dislike.

---

http://clans.quake.ie/osiris
Fragnet

yossarin

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by harVee:
Andy, how come you know so much about tanks and guns and armies. kinda worrying...</font>

thats not me - mix up in the hospital

our names are kinda similar though...hmmmmm maybe its time i chose somthing different
the treaty: I'm probably going to be working in a voting centre (but not my one) so i wont get to vote - I'll be that scowling, cheerless face that checks your id + gives you your slip

Celt

Yes

zeemoud

well the e.u. army will be good if it does not turn into NATO 2 - we should be able to vote on it every 5 years so we can let the e.u. know about how much to spend on it. It should ONLY for humanitarian missions, like ireland in the lebanon.no stance what so ever.

enlargment is good from a moral point of view because many of theese smaller countries are like Ireland when we joined (poor, lack of facility's, poor trade allies) and look how we did. and it will broaden our choice as we can export and import with more friends.

weighted votes will be good as it will encourage better co-operation.

the death penalty is a sorta wierd issue. i will vote that out if life imprisonment is LIFE and not this pansy ass - **** like 12 years and get out after 8 if good. no it should be life with (only if they are good) access to facility's like library, schooling , craft. that way they can be confined but there basic liberties are not restricted.

androphobic

could someone explain about the vote on the death penalty to me?

correct me if i'm wrong but technically the death penalty is in the constitution right?

it's not like the courts are going to start executing people tomorrow..

so what's the issue?

DadaKopf

As far as I'm aware, the referendum on the Death Penalty is simply about removing any references to the death penalty in cases of treason, any action against the state. This isn't in line with European law, or something so it must be changed - just another little change we have to make. I don't think there's a sizeable population in this country who would actually be in favour of keeping references to the death penalty (in the constitution and in law). I could only find one consitutional reference to execution and it's here in Article 40.

Megatron

i tought the only case where the death penelty is enforced is when someone is convicted of Murdering a Garda !! ?

---

No !!!!! I will crush you with my Bare hands.
P.S. Avator fromerly know as Gamblor !!

Schwarzfahren

I am voting Yes. I agree with the propositions of the treaty and believe that we have, as a nation gotten a reasonable deal. While the deal could be better, what makes people think the wording will be any better 2nd time round? Do we really need a vote on the death penalty when it is never ( and most likley, for fear of international/national reprecussions, will never be) used. There are more important matters that should be taing up govt. time.

---

"Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est"
-Francis Bacon
Schwarzfahren.net

adnans

yes. it will make life more interesting.

Canaboid

I shall be voting no, purely to cancel out Excelsior's yes vote.

Excelsior

But Canaboid, I anticipated your response.
You'll end up voting no alongside me.
I don't like Nice. Or any city in France for that matter.

---

My Adolescent website:
http://www.iol.net/~mullent

JustHalf

From the "Alive!" newspaper which is scattered around our college, a "Christian" (read Catholic) "newspaper for all the family."

It's a bit long, sorry in advance:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Big 4 to run EU if Ireland says Yes
Campaigners call for a 'No to Nice'

After 80 years of independence Irish people will vote away their right to govern themselves if they accept the Treaty of Nice. And having surrendered their right to shape their own future, they will get nothing in return, say opponents of the highly controversial pact.
The Treaty, they claim, radically changes the EU, turning it into a super-state controlled by Germany, France, Britain and Italy. While giving greater power to this core group of states, it drastically reduces the role of the other governments, even in their own countries.
A referendum on the Treaty will be held here in early June.
"Our fundamental objection is that Irish people would become second-class citizens in Europe," said one campaigner for a 'No' vote.

More powerful
"The Treaty is not really about expanding the EU to include other European countries, but about making some states more powerful than others," said Professor Gerard Casey of the Christian Solidarity Party.
And while the main political parties support the treaty, individual politicians have been very outspoken about its flaws.
Mr Ruairi Quinn TD described it as "a disaster", "an appalling set-back" which will damage "not only Ireland's interests but those of every small state."
In the Dail John Bruton, then leader of Fine Gael, agreed with the Reuters news agency, that "the main outcome [of Nice] was to increase the weight of the four big countries, Germany, Britain, France and Italy."
As a result, decisions in which we have no say, could be imposed on the country, regardless of the political, economic and social damage they may cause.
Ireland is the only country in Europe where the citizens have a constitutional right to accept or reject EU treaties. But the Irish are now being asked to abandoned this right, according to Mr Pat Buckley of Neart, the coalition of family, life and women's groups.

No say
If we accept Nice, he said, "we will have no say in the 2004 treaty, when a critical decision has to be made on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. We will have voted away our right to decide."
Already there has been much criticism of this charter. Lawyers in Britain have predicted that its article on 'the right to freedom of expression' may guarantee a right to hardcore pornography, as happened in the US with its constitutional right to free speech.
The European bishops have also criticised the Charter, for its refusal to acknowledge Europe's religious heritage, and its weakness regarding religious liberty.
According to Anthony Coughlan of the National Platform, there is a general resentment all over Europe at the way German and French politicians forced Nice onto other countries. "We have to fulfil our obligation to democracy and to the rest of Europe, by rejecting this divisive and unbalanced treaty. A No to Nice is a Yes to something better," said the Trinity College professor.
Dana Rosemary Scallon has called for "a full and frank debate" on the Treaty of Nice, with the complete text of the treaty freely available to voters. The MEP for Connacht-Ulster also called on the government to set up a Referendum Commission which would outline the main arguments for and against Nice.</font>

JustHalf

Full text of Nice treaty:
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/treaties/dat/nice_treaty_en.pdf

Bard

I've no intention of voting until I find out more about it. I'll probably read the full text of the treaty itself before deciding whether it's worth voting on and whether I can make an informed decision on it.

As for the other referendum, I'll more than likely be voting for the removal of the death penalty- but that pretty much seems like nothing more than a formality ...

---

Bard

---

First motorbike in the bible ???? - a Triumph! - 'And yea verily did Moses strike down the ammmanites, - and all the land did hear the roar of his triumph !!!'

[This message has been edited by Bard (edited 23-05-2001).]

WhiteWashMan

its private.
im not saying

smoke.me.a.kipper

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bard:
I've no intention of voting until I find out more about it. I'll probably read the full text of the treaty itself before deciding whether it's worth voting on and whether I can make an informed decision on it.

As for the other referendum, I'll more than likely be voting for the removal of the death penalty- but that pretty much seems like nothing more than a formality ...

</font>

i feel very much the same.

---

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">"It is hard enough to remember my opinions, without also remembering my reasons for them!"
-Nietzsche</font>

amp

No to Nice, it just feels wrong.
Yes to the rest.

Plus I believe we should invade the UK and force them to drink proper lager.

---

Lunacy Abounds! GLminesweeper RO><ORS!
art is everything and of course nothing and possibly also a sausage

yossarin

from online.ie:
http://online.ie/news/nice/
and their debate in brief for all of teh lazy people
http://online.ie/news/viewer.adp?article=1261291

DadaKopf

Hehehehe, there was a quote back there in the ALIVE! article by Gerard Casey. I have him as a philosophy lecturer - he teaches Aristotle, Eastern philosophy and philosophy of religionzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

All's I can say is you cant trust anything said in Alive! I read it religiously for the laugh, one issue denounced Darwinism and the head-honcho Neo-Darwinist, Richard Dawkins (Cool Dude extraordinaire) while in another issue, the front page headline read: "Society being ripped apart by 'choice'!" I wouldn't believe a word they say.

As for this gubbins about the Nice Treaty giving more power to the larger countries, I don't quite believe this since in fact, it is removing the right of the larger countries to nominate a second member to the council and/or commission. Plus, the EU Parliament seats are being re-weighted pending expansion.

I'm still voting no, though, not out of hot-headed anti-establishment but for the reason I started out with: strategy - much work to be done, voting no will force the EU to re-think the whole thing because there are many flaws and dangers with the treaty. The two most worrying features of the treaty are the potential creation of a new, cohesive military bloc and various issues regarding beurocracy and transparency.



[This message has been edited by DadaKopf (edited 24-05-2001).]

Thorbar

I'll be voting yes for getting rid of the death penalty and also for the international crimes court. As to Nice I'm still undecided, in principal I agree with letting in smaller nations and distributing the power more fairly between the big and small nations. But as dada has pointed out it seems incomplete.

DadaKopf

Ireland.com is running a poll - 'yes' or 'no'. The results may be surprising depending on which way you look.

Vote and see the results at: http://www.ireland.com/special/nice/

---

"I collect spores, moulds and fungus."

[This message has been edited by DadaKopf (edited 27-05-2001).]

Magwitch

But half the people on these here boards cannot vote anyway. They will be away goggling at school girls (a worthy pass time)and burstig zits on the big day.

---

Keep your powder dry and your pants moist

gandalf

I have the summary document which I have glanced over and I have the full treaty which I will look over this weekend. My initial feeling is that I will vote No. I feel that this is been rushed into a referendum without proper full & frank discussion. I have not noticed any major articles in the national press. I did watch the Questions & Answers show the other nice and some very good points were brought up in that regarding the Rapid reaction force. Also the European Parliament report about the Treaty of Nice was not exactly glowing.

Regarding voting if you have any doubt at all you should vote No, if you don't understand what the treaty is about, I feel you should vote No, only if you understand fully what your been asked and agree with it then you should vote Yes. Remember if theres a No vote they can ask to the country again, if theres a Yes well they won't.

Gandalf.

Trojan

I haven't heard half enough discussion on this, and the ads on tv are pretty sad.

Having looked at http://www.refcom.ie/ and http://www.afri.buz.org/the-treaty-of-nice/the-treaty-of-nice.htm amongst maany other sites, I think I'll be voting No.

I wonder how accurate the ireland.com online poll really is...

Alastair.

El_Presidente

I'm too lazy to vote but if I was going to vote I would have voted yes.

So I propose this. If anyone out there was going to vote no I'll make them a deal. You don't vote and I won't vote and it will have the exact same effect as if we had both voted but will involve less effort for us both.

Any takers?

Greenbean

"quote:

---

Originally posted by dun_do_bheal:
I still have no idea what half of it is about, but what i have heard, esp regarding defense, I don't like. So a no on this one.

---

With all due respect, I don't think it's very wise to vote unless you inform yourself firstly on the issue on which you will be voting."

This is never true. Always vote. If you have the slightest opinion vote and you will make a difference. If you care then research the information at hand and make a decent decision. The reason why people should vote even if undecided is that they are worth something - their vote counts for something. If you don't vote you are worth nothing to those polling for peoples votes (and thus will not try to appeal to you).

I feel a no vote coming on - this will send a message that in future these votes should be properly described and I shouldn't be considered a dummy who just votes Yes because it sounds positive and pro-european. The treaty sounds over-weighted (too many different changes) with a vague direction. I'm all for one country one vote. Another vote can always be offered, but a yes vote takes away this option and are you happy with everything in the treaty?

I take it like an employeer looking at potential candidates; if theres any doubt reject the candidates - this is the only time you can discriminate; afterwards you have no ability to discriminate. If you take on a bad candidate its extremely tricky to do much about it later.

DadaKopf

Let's put it this way: if we ratify the Treaty of Nice, we give up assured membership of the council - the EU law making executive. Allegedly, because of the problems with expansion and practicality, the only recourse is for the membership of the council to be a revolving membership so at any one timew, certain countries have no say at executive level. With an organization so vast and influential as the EU, I see this as a terrible threat to democracy. What's worse is that the UK, Germany, France and Italy have permanent seats.

Maybe it's just me but if/when expansion goes ahead, I can't see how the Eurocrats can't comission a bigger room!

Romano Prodi isn't a bad person, nor does he have a trick up his sleeves. I'm in England at the moment and they're all talking about Euro taxes over here; that's just a plan to replace the complicated process of country contributions, to make the EU funding system more transparent.

Like I said, and like I think most people view the issue, the Nice Treaty is a work in progress. It's not safe to implement something unfinished. We can always vote it in the next time. At least it'll show the Eurocrats that the smaller member-states should be taken seriously.

---

"I collect spores, moulds and fungus."

Kix

I'll be voting yes for Nice. I'm a committed federalist in my political leanings anyhow. Europe has to pull together.

My hope is that rather than strengthing NATO, closer EU defense ties might weaken that body.

I'm not anti-american by any stretch of the imagination but I strongly dislike the US's influence over the UK and their intelligence presence there. The way that the UK government colludes with the US's monitoring of european electronic traffic makes my blood boil. It's an inequitable relationship yet the UK seems obsessed with this idea that they're somehow equal partners... Dumb.

I'll be voting for the abolition of the death penalty too.

Dun

After much confusing and time consuming research - nobody seems to want to give a clear answer, I've decided on a definite no. The Treaty seems good on some grounds and bad on others.
I'm going to vote no, because they can always redo the treaty to make it more acceptable, but once we are in, there's no going back.

androphobic

I read the Treaty a few weeks ago and decided to vote yes.

Now I think I've changed my mind.
The only thing I dislike about the Treaty is that we will have fewer votes than a large country.
We do only have 3.5 millionish inhabitants so I guess its fair in a way, but I would much prefer if each country had one vote.

I don't know if that's enough to change my vote around though.

I think that Nice is gonna be voted down.
The sad thing about that is, I don't know if it will be genuinely voted down. By that I mean, there are people all over the country who will vote no because they have read the Treaty and have made a conscious decision to vote no because they oppose it, etc.

And that's fine. But there are people around the country who have swallowed the story that the Treaty of Nice is going to result in the formation of a huge European army - a European military superstate as Sinn Fein and the Greens seem to be calling it.
Because of this, a lot of people will vote no.

At this stage my vote is neither a definite yes nor a definite no, but I don't want the Treaty voted down because people *think* something is going to happen. If it is voted down because people are genuinely unhappy with it, that's fine.

I'm having a hard time making myself clear tonight.. I hope y'all can find my point in there somewhere.




[This message has been edited by androphobic (edited 03-06-2001).]

gandalf

3 Interesting articles in todays Irish Times about the treaty. One Pro & 2 against.

I definately will be voting No to this treaty I feel its a bad thing for Ireland and the whole of Europe including the new proposed countries coming in. It basically is setting up a 2 tier Europe with Germany, France, UK & Italy the driving force.

Gandalf.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2001/0605/hom17.htm
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2001/0605/hom5.htm
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2001/0605/hom6.htm