Nice - Should I feel insulted at this comment?

Victor

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2001/0609/breaking19.htm

Now commissioners are promising to make more effort to explain and simplify the EU's workings - implying that the Irish would not have delivered a No vote if they fully realised what was at stake.

---

Changing call sign to SIERRA PAPA OSCAR OSCAR FOXTROT.

azezil

hmmmm not really insulted cause i know from what i can gather from talkin to friends, family etc. the reason they voted 'no' was because they didn't really understand what it was all about!

so maybe they're rite?

personally i agree with some but not all of it, n if i had bothered registering to vote i'd still vote 'no'!

---

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

gandalf

Well explaining it alone will not make me change my mind. The more I analyse it the more I believe its a flawed document.

Gandalf.

Bloody Drunkard

I don't understand how the opposition parties can call it a tradegy and still urge us to vote YES

Strange how the Green Party and Sinn Fein campaigned more than the big 3

Blitzkrieger

I think a lot of people didn't have a clue what they were voting about. I was speaking to some friends of a friends and one said something along the lines of she voted no "on all three because she wanted to abolish the death penalty". I'm pretty sure on my[\i] ballot paper it was yes to get rid of the death penalty. She hadn't a clue what the others were about so voted no on them. Why didn't the dumb-ass just stay home?

DadaKopf

I think there's a couple of things worth noting.

About why Irish voters voted no: A proportion of voters voted no because they simply didn't know what they were voting on' another proportion voted no because they knew exactly what the nice treaty entails. That it's un-democratic.

About the politicians' no campaign: it was largely expressed that the Nice Treaty from the politicians' point of view (Re: Patricia Mckenna) was also incredubly rushed - the politicians themselves weren't even familiar with all aspects of the huge treaty. In anyone's book, that's dangerous.

About the Times article: It's fair enough. Prodi I think is a good man and is truly seeking democracy and transparency in the EU. However, I think it is a little bit over-optimistic about the changes which our rejection of the treaty will bring, in particular the problems surrounding the Euro Army, Parliament seat ratios and especially the proposals for the (undemocratic) comission. Ireland has a duty to let Europe know why we rejected the treaty - we can't trust Cowen and Bertie to speak for us. We should all petition the EU or something.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

GreenHell

I was/am in favour of nice. The No campaigns claim that its would effect etc I believe were playing on our traditional role as a neutral country.

Don't get me wrong I've no problem with Ireland voting no it was the will of the majority so Ireland saying no is grand.

I do feel insult by european reaction to our countries decision and the more I here of them say we will no stop progress I begin to worry about the democratic nature of the EU. The EU as an insitution is great but I feel now its needs to become more answerable to the votes and by this I mean more power to the EU parliment to pass directives etc after all the parliament is the only elected part of the EU.

Greenbean

The EU might see it as fairly undemocratic that we are holding things up. But then what other countries have held a referendum on the treaty?

DadaKopf

Nice point Greenbean.

Magwitch

We elect politicians to make unpopular policies (but necessary ones). Every party of government raises taxes as necessary or implements unpopular laws. It the nature of politics in every country - why should Europe be different? To make up for a lack of democratic government at home?

What I find most suprising is that Europe is shaping up to be a force to tackle globalism , environment issues and America. YET the same people who rage against Bush and for those issues are dead set againt Europe. Is it a case of having you pie and not eating it? About time we started ignoring cranks.

There are even alot on this board who rant at every chance at America (without bothering to have an informed opinion) yet also rant about how bad Europe is. I am baffled.

I think its about time boards.ie had a board for those who pay Tax and are of voting age. ie. mature debate.

DadaKopf

Ah jaysus Magwitch! In this day and age it's perfectly acceptable to have your cake and eat it - it's perfectly alright to have two contradicting views on everything. It's uh, post-modern or something. America does it all the time, don't they?

About the role of politics: I agree totally. The main danger of British politics is that it's not the least bit like that at all. Policies are made because they're popular - you never hear speeches including phrases like "there are many sacrifices ahead" anymore do you? Gone are the days when people like Willie Gladstone and even Maggie Thatcher spoke in terms of ideology and the then interpreted common good. Labour doesn't even properly tackle the NHS problem properly - something which they brought about under Nye Bevin. There's nothing about spending on health at all costs. It sucks.

The EU tacking globalisation?: globalisation to use that word is exactly what the EU is about! Interdependence theory proposes that as Europe becomes so interdependent that it can't afford to go to war with each other again, globalisation ensures that (in theory) the world can't go to total war again because each depends on other countries for components, food etc. The EU is a key part of globalisation. I think the closer Europe comes together, the more that it will consolidate the political aspirations of Europe globally. The single most important event in catalysing that was America's withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol; instantly, the foreign EU delegates led by Javier Solana, knocked on Bush's front door insisting he reconsider. This shows the distance globalism has come. I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing, so long as business interests are kept at a minimum over social justice.

Eh, you assume that because people pay tax, they're more mature than those who don't?

TwoShedsJackson

Got to love the Government's attitude to the defeat: just keep holding more polls until they get the result they want. Although we did actually get a poll this time, unlike the PfP where we were promised one and then ignored.

Puts me in mind of Dana's attitude to the divorce referendum: to hold more referenda until they get the 'right' result.

DadaKopf

They've kinda GOT to do something though. I mean 14 other countries are riding on this vote as are countries wishing to accede. If they're smart about it, the government will force the Treaty wide open again and fix the problematic sections.

The government just assumed we'd be stupid enough to fall for the whole deal - www.refcom.ie didn't even have any bloody information, we had to rely on the press ffs.

I mean look at these dull photos:



Would this kind of crap make you go out and vote? And then the bloody government goes and blames us for voter apathy?

[This message has been edited by DadaKopf (edited 10-06-2001).]

Bard

DadaKopf:-

That is not government advertising, it's Referendum Commission advertising, which - if you actually read the site, which I'm not assuming - is an INDEPENDENT body with responsibility for explaining of the "subject matter of the referendum to the population at large, as simply and effectively as possible, while ensuring that the arguments of those against the referendum proposals and those in favour are put forward in a manner that is fair to all interests concerned. "

On the day of the referendum, I went to www.refcom.ie and found plenty of information there on the issues we were going to the polls on - enough to make an informed decision.

---

Bard

---

"Have a gorilla!" ... "No thanks, I'll have one of my monkeys, they're milder."

amp

I mostly voted no because of the Governments complete arrogance at the population. I also didn't like the official reason for voting yes: "Give those poor Eastern europe countries the chance we had" Good try Bertie but there's a lot more to Nice than that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-europe but it seemed to me (as it probably seemed to a lot of voters) that Ireland was an easy pushover, and we'd vote for just about anything cos we get lots of money for Europe.

Mind you Bertie was right about one thing, that we were worried about the direction Nice was taking us. Damn right Bertie, the Rapid Reaction Force seems all cosy and nice right now but there are a lot of people who want to use that as a step for a European army. Ireland is a neutral country, and I for one want it to stay that way.

---

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

TwoShedsJackson

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by amp:
I mostly voted no because of the Governments complete arrogance at the population. I also didn't like the official reason for voting yes: "Give those poor Eastern europe countries the chance we had" Good try Bertie but there's a lot more to Nice than that.
</font>

Hmmm, anyone else see that cartoon in the Irish Times during the week with Berite being rugby tackled by a No voter and saying, 'Europe was so much easier to sell when it was just a question of how much money we were going to get'?

DadaKopf

Yeah Bard I KNOW but those posters were still retarded. I'm bleedin aware of this fact. As I'm aware of the fact that merely 1 week before the referendum there was NO information on the site about ANYTHING. I cal that extreme laziness and an ineffective referendum comission.

Belisarius

While the whole matter of availability of information was a farce , Id have to agree that the efforts of the referendum commitee were hopeless and extremely patronising , The constant radio and television broadcasts were coma inducing offering little or no information , but they were impartial in the sense they bungled both sides of the argument , as ever it just seems like the Referendum commitee was another money pit and a few seats to put social partners on

As much as I hate to say it Gene Kerrigan wrote a good article today *http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/index.php3?ca=166&si=449529&issue_id=4627* on which the underestimation of the No campaign was presented , even using that colourful brand of shotgun journalism hes akin to It pretty much highlighted the arrogance of the Government , El Bertie in particular in relation to the referendum , while I wasnt particularly peeved at the Government condescending to the public I thought it rather brash to be so flippent on what appears to be now a credible front . I voted no , and though I fear a political backlash from Europe in the intermediate term , Its nice to see the Govt. Out in the cold for once , I wouldnt change my vote , and I wont when the next push for nice presents itself

---

Shrewgar!

gandalf

Yep read that article as well. It was the only one that was balanced in the Sindo all the others were blantently biased towards the yes camp.

Unless changes are made to the treaty I will not be swayed by a slicker advertising campaign from the Government. It also appears that the government particularly that bullyboy Cowen are going to do a job on the "McKenna Judgement".

I loved the bit at the end of the article though

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Brecht once made a joke about how, when the people failed the government, it was necessary to dissolve the electorate and try again. </font>

Gandalf.

Victor

Vote yes or this bloke on the left gets the chair:

---

Changing call sign to SIERRA PAPA OSCAR OSCAR FOXTROT.

[This message has been edited by Victor (edited 15-06-2001).]

Magwitch

Dana is enough of a reason to vote yes I think. But even since the No vote she has coe out against the YES to the international court. That, she siad, should be re-examined.

It seems a bit rich that she should dismiss out of hand a re-vote on Nice, yet support one on the International court. If she already lacked credibility she is loosing what little she has left.

I think if one positive thing has come out of this is that those who will surf high on the NO vote, as some sort of validation of their own careers, will suffer when propelled into the lime-light they want.

Another of her views offered tonight (on RTE Questions an Answers) was that the seven year stay on free movement of labour in the EU for accession countries was unfair. Unfair to who? Germany who already have eight million first generation non-EU resident workers? Would it mean that Romania would not have to not have to afford proper rights to Gypsies, instead just tell them to go to Eurpoe where their status (or lack of it) becomes another countries problem?

She also questioned as unfair that Polish farmers do not recieve (or would not) the same money as Irish farmers. What an Irish farmer recieves in one year a Polish farmer could retire and buy a chain of hotels.

She argued that the accession countries shoud be able to dictate more the level of benifit and participation they recience form Eurpoe. That would be a hard sell to the pay masters of Europe that countries that need masive amount of aid can dicate to them how much they get. All carrot and no stick would not help with the democratisation of Eastern Europe.

I have to say that is was some of the most uninformed speil I have ever heard. As Gods representitive upon Earth she should perhaps get in touch with whats going on.

Patricia McKenna'a input was nonsensicle an shot down as alarmist and uninformed as was to be expected.

The question remains though: Is a referendum based on 30% of the people any more valid than a re-vote? I have to say I would be uncomfortable with a re-vote, even though I voted yes, but should apathy have the final say in the future of our country? Not an easy one to answer.

Victor

Wow, I found myself agreeing with some of Magwitch's sentiments (but not all) - as a revote will paasing the Nice Treaty be a vote of no confidence in the government if it isn't passed by a substantial majority?

---

Changing call sign to SIERRA PAPA OSCAR OSCAR FOXTROT.

Blitzkrieger

I don't see how people see the Nice treaty as 'undemocratic'. Isn't that exactly what it is? Instead of every country having equal votes, votes are assigned based on population. How much more democratic could it be? I think people are upset that we will have less of a say in european affairs but lets be honest - we don't have much of a say anyway. This just legitimizes the greater power that the bigger states already have.

And tbh I think we're so eager to expand the EU to get access to more resources. They're also developing economies and where better to make a killing in business? I don't think it'll be all give and no take with the new countries.

At the end of the day, we're heading towards a "european superstate". We have to decide if this is a good thing or not. I think it is. I don't think we'll lose anything significant by it and gain a lot.

Most people would object on nationalistic grounds but tbh that's just bull****. We'll still be a nation - just part of a bigger one.

Greenbean

"I think people are upset that we will have less of a say in european affairs but lets be honest - we don't have much of a say anyway. This just legitimizes the greater power that the bigger states already have."

I'm afraid we just accidently flexed some muscles and roared when trying yawn and we've scared our tiger selves and much of the rest of Europe. Thats why they are all the more eager to get this Nice treaty through - the last thing Europe wants is to have to hold back all the time for small member states holding as much hidden power as we did last thursday. Trust me, if we were utter b@st@rds we could take this right to the brink of getting ourselves kicked out and gain many concessions, that IS power - a conspiracy theorist might suggest the government wanted the vote to fail. I'm of the genuine belief we never wanted to mess up europe, its no-ones fault more so than arrogant Bertie for this happening. Maybe thats harsh, but this was very badly judged - we're not anyone's muppet, respect us enough to have a discussion on the Treaty.

For me the election depends very much on how Bertie handles this all.

gandalf

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Blitzkrieger:
I don't see how people see the Nice treaty as 'undemocratic'. Isn't that exactly what it is? Instead of every country having equal votes, votes are assigned based on population. How much more democratic could it be? I think people are upset that we will have less of a say in European affairs but lets be honest - we don't have much of a say anyway. This just legitimizes the greater power that the bigger states already have.</font>

And there is the argument for a No vote. This moves Europe from a partnership of equal democratic nations to one big superstate.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">And tbh I think we're so eager to expand the EU to get access to more resources. They're also developing economies and where better to make a killing in business? I don't think it'll be all give and no take with the new countries.
</font>

Of course that's why the majority of those that voted no are for expansion of the EU. Yes we will have access to more markets but at what price?

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
At the end of the day, we're heading towards a "European superstate". We have to decide if this is a good thing or not. I think it is. I don't think we'll lose anything significant by it and gain a lot.
</font>

An unaccountable "European Superstate" is a problem for alot of people including me.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Most people would object on nationalistic grounds but tbh that's just bull****. We'll still be a nation - just part of a bigger one.
</font>

Wrong with the changes in the Nice treaty we will go from a sovereign nation to a small interest group. Just think about small interest groups in Ireland that represent around 1% of the population and think about what influence etc they have on policy making with in Ireland, now magnify that to the European stage, you like what you see now.

Gandalf.

gandalf

Some more information on this site if your all interested. http://www.euobserver.com/

Gandalf.

Gerry

I think a re-vote WOULD be valid, as long as more people bother voting. I dunno why you are uncertain about a re-vote Magwitch, as a yes voter you stand to lose nothing from it. As for it being a vote of no confidence in the government, well if the government spend some of their own money on a good, informative yes campaign, and it still fails, we won't really be able to blame the government. Either way, I reckon FF will get back into power, this is a europe issue, not a re-election issue.

Blitzkrieger

I'm didn't really phrase the above well cos I was tired and rushing. Tbh I don't really care about this subject much...........but :

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by gandalf:
And there is the argument for a No vote. This moves Europe from a partnership of equal democratic nations to one big superstate.</font>

Isn't this more democratic? Isn't this closer to "one man, one vote"? We do lose votes but are we entitled to them, from a democratic point of view?

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by gandalf:
An unaccountable "European Superstate" is a problem for alot of people including me.</font>

The state would be a democratic one and as always it would be accountable to it's people. People seem to be assigning nasty, "big brother" stuff to Europe but Europe is made up of people just like us. It seems a little bit like xenophobia to me.

Xterminator

As one of the people who did not vote, I am pro-nice.
I have to say maybe i watch the wrong broadcasts, or read the wrong papers but I never once saw or read anything to make me think Bertie is arrogant.

The first time we get a Taoiseach who's not a farmer/cute hoor figure and he's a target for more f*****g flak!
Programme after programme slagging him spitting image stlye, Vitriol in the media.
Hypocrasy in the church
and this sense of Bertie's Bowl is only for his ego, and Vote Nice for bertie's ego.

And you know what he take it well!

Bertie's idea of a good day out is bring the president of the most powerful country in the would to his local for a drink. Not out making 20 more brown paper bags o' money which h can plough into his empire.
Not out using his own private army to frighten criminals of our country (usurping the due process) to get a few more votes.

So he loves a drink. So he like going to sporting occasions, he thinks we should have a staduim which would show our sportsmen and women in a better life.
So do I.
And he was in a relationship which didn't work.
So was I.
Oh yeh, and he used to wear an anorak!
So did I (and a duffel coat too).
He is the most down to earth Taoiseach we have had in my life time so cut the crap, and don't make it personal.

After all if you want arrogance there's plenty too bee seen. Take the Taniste for instance. She'll give you an opionion if you need one.

Excelsior

I think I'll frame that.

---

Excelsior
=Consto Suffragium Cussu Famina=

Kix

People say that they were underinformed about Nice and they voted no because of it.

Rubbish.

There was an abundance of information from the Refcon available on TV, newspapers, the web and through your letter-box. I saw it an I'm sure everyone else did too.

But they didn't read it!

Basically it seems that most people want to be told how to vote*. Not to have to think it out for themselves.

The "No" people held a highly effective campaign. The government parties, who were all pro agreement, did not. They didn't seem to care and it makes me mad.

* Not all "No" voters of course, but more than enough to swing the result.

Blitzkrieger

I think what's widely believed is that the NO poster had a big effect on voters. You know the one : "You will LOSE POWER, MONEY, FREEDOM". I think a lot of people didn't have a clue what they were voting on, and the yes campaign just didn't do enough.

What's really ironic is that people went to the polls with the intention of keeping their voting power, without really knowing what they were voting on.

DadaKopf

It's just a little suspicious that the government is putting out this image that the Irish electorate was ill-informed due to lack of information; there was a load of information and, if you read the minimum, the Refcom send out leaflets and there was the White Paper available free from the government. That's all I read. If you ask me, it's a strategy by the government (and maybe others) to undermine the legitimacy of the referendum - think about it, if they can prove is was voted on in a climate of apathy and lack of knowledge, the chance of a second 'referendum' is certain.

But what's this about the 'no' vote being strengthned by the pro-life lobby - agrumentation to the effect of "vote yes and it'll pave the way to abortion"?

If that can be confirmed, then this referendum will be viewed null and void.

Greenbean

"As one of the people who did not vote, I am pro-nice.
I have to say maybe i watch the wrong broadcasts, or read the wrong papers but I never once saw or read anything to make me think Bertie is arrogant."

"There was an abundance of information from the Refcon available on TV, newspapers, the web and through your letter-box. I saw it an I'm sure everyone else did too.

But they didn't read it!

Basically it seems that most people want to be told how to vote*. Not to have to think it out for themselves."

Oh common this is all rubbish. The only argument that I saw Bertie pronounce, repetitively was "you'll be letting these countries down", blackmail. There was no realistic attempt to tackle the comments made by the no vote, hold a full and public debate (leave it until after the vote) or inform the public. It was presumed that people would just vote yes. I voted at what I saw to be a very arrogant setup considering I was having trouble understanding the treaty after serveral hours private study. You do not just say YES to a treaty on the future of a country without figuring out first, its far too important. Anyone who trusts their government enough not to study it or want a debate to air issues is a fool. Remember, everyone has an agenda - mine is not having the government push through stuff like this in future without full and proper public debate.

[This message has been edited by Greenbean (edited 16-06-2001).]

DadaKopf

I don't know, there's a state requisite to put out a minimum amount of public information on any referendum - these are generally written by independent committees.

I just think that people expect to have things spoonfed to them. Irish people have lost the fervour of civic responsibility - we begrudge and moan about the country and the gonvernment but when it comes to us having the power to change the system, we don't bother.

What does this say? The info was there, people just didn't look.

Greenbean

I suppose I did feel anger that they didn't try to spoon feed things to me. Perhaps its what I've become used to - but this doesn't sound right, since this is the first time I've taken any interest in politics to any degree. What I wanted to see was not something being slipped by, but a full debate. I don't think thats unreasonable. It looked like it was assumed this would work no problem - but hold on it affects our country, and hold on why aren't you telling everyone loudly and clearly what you are doing - why doesn't my mother know what this means, why doesn't my granny know what this means, why does my uncle just nod in agreement with whatever bertie says? Hold on I want to know the full story.