Vote on Nice Treaty Referendum

Deathtobertie

Which way will you be voting come the end of summer?

DadaKopf

'No' (again).

sceptre

Like Dadakopf: "no again"

Understood the issues last time.

Decided to vote "no"

My vote was good enough then that I don't need to go over the issues this year or even think about it.

Nice and simple.


Also I've my doubts about the legalities of the "solemn declarations" that are added to these things when people don't like them just in an attempt to get them to change their vote. The abortion solemn declaration almost certainly doesn't protect our Article 40.3.3 from when we amended it after. The solemn declarations are far more of a gentlemen's agreement than a legally binding agreement (it's added to the Treaty after signing, not ratified by any governments) so under those circumstances what good will it really do?

Plus, our neutrality has never been codified by any government, it's not mentioned in our constitution so the best they can do is have a solemn agreement that will guarantee Ireland's inalienable right to wage war on its own behalf and confirm the President as head of Irish armed forces (which is the half-arsed attempt I predict they will come up with when they realise there's no Irish law to guarantee) - also it effectively guarantees nothing.

This is just as an aside - it wasn't the reason I voted no in the first place. My reasons for doing that have already been outlined here so it's pointless going over that again.

Ironic that the only EU country that held a plebiscite on the Treaty voted "no" though. If the EU has aims on ever becoming viewed as a super-democracy, all EU citizens should have been given the right to confirm or deny the Treaty that their governments digned on their behalf.

DapperGent

Voted yes last time voting yes again. Its ridiculous that the governement is running it again but at least we have a chance to get it "right" (my opinion) this time.

We need a framework for the enlargement of the EU and it's as good as we're going to get unless of course you're enough of an a-hole not to want it enlarged. As for neutrality I'm not sure how Nice affects it and I don't care as I don't think we should be neutral. The creation of a european army is a good thing if only for the fact that the world will no longer have one (american) policeman.

Elmo

Voted yes last time voting yes again. Its ridiculous that the governement is running it again but at least we have a chance to get it "right" (my opinion) this time.

I think that if this is the case and we made a mistake on Nice we should return also to the other refurendums that were held with it, them being the Council of Rome and The Death Penalty, as I think we as a democratic republic sovering state got in Wrong in both those cases too. (IMO)

Also just because you agree with something and others didn't does not give you the right to force people to see it your way, that is call dictating.

I will vote no again on this occasion. And I hope that people who vote yes the last time see this Ref as a undemocratic process and Vote NO to show that the we live in a democratic society.

Elmo

Just in a relation to nutrality I don't want Ireland becoming involved in Military Alliances, Europe should be about Trade agreements and matters of economic importance.

All countries that are applying to become part of the EU should not have to take on all the responsiblities that they do not wish to take part in for example if Eastiona wish to become part of the EU and not take up the Euro as their currence then they should be allowed become part of the EU as Britian at the moment are not part of the Euro and will or will not become part of the Euro when and if they feel it Nessaccery.

I hope that the nice treaty does not lead to France Germany Britian Spain and Italy thinking that the EU is a SuperPower I do not wish to be involve in a superpower in the future weather it be after the nice treaty or after the next treaty.

If we have to go to war it should be for peace. But we should make our own minds up about this.

Chaos-Engine

"NO" again.

I want Enlargment but in an equal and democratic EU.

As for Neutrality US planes carrying out Excerises over Irish air space and using Shannon willie-nillie is Neutral.
The only thing the Irish government calls neutral is Not signing the treaty of NATO.

Nice doesn't effect our neutrality. That already happened in Amsterdam...

What worries me most about this treaty is that fact that it is totally undemocratic.

UNder NICE the Counicl of Ministers becomes evermore powerful. It is a secretive, unequal and the locus of all power in the EU...

Under Nice Czechs and Hungarians will get 20 seats in the EP. Where as Belgium and the Netherlands with much less citzens and declining populations relative to the Czechs and Mygers have 22 seats each....

Germany and France will decrease their votes in the Council by half.
Where as Ireland, Finland, Austria, Greece and Portugal will decrease by three times....

The EU is more like a super-state each day...

I only hope that the Convention can form a treaty of equality and the ground work for a federal state. We need to move away from the Inter-governmental route and toward a more integrated one.....

swiss

My vote was good enough then that I don't need to go over the issues this year or even think about it.

I'm glad that you're so sure of your convictions. I spent a lot of time wrangling around a very technical document and I'm still not sure of what exactly Nice represents. I voted yes not because I blindly believed Bertie or Bruton (at the time) but because I genuinely think that this treaty has the interests of Ireland as well as those of Europe as a whole at heart. I do know two things

1) Nice has bugger all to do with Irish Neutrality. If anyone has any issue with this, please stipulate exactly what areas of the Nice treaty (quotations from the treaty would be helpful) they feel has relevance to this area.

2) The NO camp have to a large extent played on peoples mistrust, ignorance and preyed on their fears rather than on rational debate. "No to NATO, NO to Nice" indeed! When in fact, Nice had absolutely nothing to do with NATO (for example).

Also just because you agree with something and others didn't does not give you the right to force people to see it your way, that is call dictating.

Damn. Who authorised the reruns of the Divorce referendum. Abortion? We made our minds up about that long ago. Oh wait these are examples of referendums that were rerun to force the Irish people to agree with the government. Obviously they should be rescinded, in a proper 'democracy' people need never be asked twice.

And I hope that people who vote yes the last time see this Ref as a undemocratic process and Vote NO to show that the we live in a democratic society

Riiight. Because if we vote yes, we're not demonstrating that we live in a democratic society, obviously. We have to vote no, to show our independence! Since you're so worried about democracy, let me put this to you. Is it democratic that one member state should be allowed to veto a European resolution that has such a wide ranging impact?

I'm not worried about rocking the European boat with a rejection, even though I would very much describe myself as pro - european, pro - integration and pro - enlargement. What I am worried about that we are rejecting it because of unfounded fears, and mostly because of our distrust for our own government and our own political system. This treaty ranges far beyond both. We owe it to our European partners, as well as to ourselves to make ourselves fully acquainted with the issues, so that when we do vote, we vote for the right reasons.

Elmo

Who authorised the reruns of the Divorce referendum. Abortion? We made our minds up about that long ago

You'll note that these referendums happened about 7 years after the first referendum and on each occasion the goverment was againist divorce and againist Abortion(not that we got a proper referendum last time on abortion anyway) but I don't see the government wanting to run these referendums again as the people spoke and vote about these and either excepted the changes or didn't, just as in the Nice Referendum.

If you are giving a second chance to Nice you should give as second chance to The Council of Rome and The Death Penalty referendums or where we not right about them?????

It was stupid of the Government to hold 3 referendums on the same day I would have liked to have heard about the Council of Rome (I am sure that the name i have given it is the wrong one) and many people didnt even know we voted on it in the last election.

I vote NO NO NO on all three count why because it is undemocratic to put to the people of Ireland 3 different referendums and only talk about one that being nice.

As for the death penalty, i do not agree with it.

Elmo

If everyone votes no again will we be expected to vote a thrid time?

swiss

If you are giving a second chance to Nice you should give as second chance to The Council of Rome and The Death Penalty referendums or where we not right about them?????

Right and wrong are loose terms in politics. The reason, as I see it, why we are not re-running these referendums is because the controversy and misinformation that surrounded the Nice referendum is not present. Maybe we should re-run these referendums, maybe we were wrong to vote the way we did. However, until there is a marked unease about the decision we took, there really is no need to provide a rerun. If you feel strongly enough about it, you can lobby the government to rerun it. If you can get enough people that feel the same way, then they probably will. That's what they did for Nice.

It was stupid of the Government to hold 3 referendums on the same day I would have liked to have heard about the Council of Rome (I am sure that the name i have given it is the wrong one) and many people didnt even know we voted on it in the last election.

I agree with you. It was stupid to hold 3 referendums on the same day. It led to confusion about the merits and demerits of each referendum, as it was unclear that each referendum was distinct from the other. It also meant that people had to assimilate more information in less time to make informed choices about each referendum issue. Now we have an excellent opportunity to vote for one singular issue, with no such distractions.

I vote NO NO NO on all three count why because it is undemocratic to put to the people of Ireland 3 different referendums and only talk about one that being nice.

Undemocratic it may be, but if that's the way you feel about it, why didn't you vote YES YES YES? Seriously, if you wanted to protest, why didn't you abstain instead of voting willy-nilly just to spite the government. It's not just a waste of a vote, it's an abuse. It's obvious that you didn't put much thought into your vote, because if you did you would realise that if you were against the death penalty you should have voted YES to the amendment that would have removed all references to this form of capital punishment from the statute and the constitution.

I don't know what will happen if "everyone" votes no. By everyone, I presume you mean a majority of those who vote, maybe like last time, which accounted for, say 17.4% of the entire electorate. If we do find that there is an unambiguous rejection of the Nice treaty, I don't believe that it will be run again in it's current state. European expansion plans will be halted, and our East European friends will have us to thank.

Elmo

I didn't vote willy nilly. I am againist The Nice Treaty so I voted No.
I was againist the Council of Rome as i felt that it would take responsiblities of being an extra court which would over rule Irish court, But as i dont know much about i was very sceptical about it so I voted No thus there would be no change in the constition.

As for the Death Penalty or Capital Punishment, when was the last time it was use and even if a judge did rule on it, I would hope the president would take it in her own hands and rule over him.

I felt it was the cockyness of the government to provide 3 referendums that they felt would all be past. My Stand on the issues was talk about all of them explain what would happen and not just throw out Refurendums WillyNilly.

European expansion plans will be halted, and our East European friends will have us to thank.

I agree with expansion, but have our friends in eastern europe been asked about this Treaty or the other treaties that have been passed and do they agree with them. If they dont agree with everything then the dont get into the EU. I feel that this is the two-facedness of the bigger countries which can choose to opt out of certain things while other smaller countries cann't e.g Britain and The Euro. All countries should be allowed into the free trade area to start with and then think about other options open to them just as we have in the Republic.

Shane

Should there not be a time limit on carrying out a referendum on the same issue? Who are the government to bully us and keep pushing this at us? We have said NO, so leave it at that, at least for a few years. I remember a documentary on the North recently, it said that if a plebicite was called on the issue of Joining the Republic, whatever the outcome, another one could not be held for at least another 7 years.

BKtje

they obviously believe that each time there is a suffecient number of Yes voters to call for a Referendum.
They might also be under pressure from EU?

Deathtobertie

Taken from www.rte.ie 23/06/02

(07:29) A number of Irish politicians have reacted strongly to comments made by Taoiseach Bertie Ahern about opponents of the Nice Treaty, whom he described yesterday as whingers and scaremongers.

I don't really think the Taoiseach should be calling 'opponents' of the Nice treaty: ie everybody who voted no "Whingers"

It is not fitting or dignified for a country leader to personally insult over half of the electorate. Is this his way of showing his colleagues in europe that he is serious about his commitment to the ratifying the Treaty?

I think his arrongance is remarkable in that he feels that he can make these kind of comments and expect no comeback. I feel that floating voters who aren't taken in by his cheap reverse psychology (ie I don't want to be seen as a whinger so I will vote for Nice) will vote against Nice out of spite.

swiss

Originally posted by Elmo:

I agree with expansion, but have our friends in eastern europe been asked about this Treaty or the other treaties that have been passed and do they agree with them. If they dont agree with everything then the dont get into the EU. I feel that this is the two-facedness of the bigger countries which can choose to opt out of certain things while other smaller countries cann't e.g Britain and The Euro. All countries should be allowed into the free trade area to start with and then think about other options open to them just as we have in the Republic.

This is, as far as I can see, one of the main objections to Nice. While I understand the objections, I cannot help but feel that they assume that a better treaty can be negotiated for the applying member states. I do not believe that this is the case, for political reasons. In any case, why should we find it incumbant upon ourselves to decide what is or is not appropriate for applicant member states? Surely it should be left up to themselves to decide their own future within the framework of the treaty to which they have agreed.

Ironically, many people are vehemently opposed to Nice, because they see that cheaper imports and labor costs from these applicant countries will lead to job losses over here. In the absense of free trade with these countries, this will not take place immediately. The reasons for this IMO is twofold

• It will assuage those who fear job losses/rise in imports and associated budgetary problems
• It will allow time for the economies of these countries to build up to a stage where they will not glut the market with cheap products immediately.

Originally posted by ScottB:

Should there not be a time limit on carrying out a referendum on the same issue?

Interesting point, but Europe really can't wait. This referendum must either be ratified or thrown out. I understand that it can be frustrating for those who genuinely knew the issues involved and voted conscientiously. These people will be asked to exercise their democratic right once again. Is the inconvenience of voting a second time worth it when it comes to a final decision on nice? For the sake of democracy I hope so.

Originally posted by Deathtobertie:

It is not fitting or dignified for a country leader to personally insult over half of the electorate. Is this his way of showing his colleagues in europe that he is serious about his commitment to the ratifying the Treaty?

Bertie Ahern is a [insert defamatory comment here]. Just because he manages to ruffle a few feathers by some injudicious comments does not mean that people should vote against the treaty just to spite him.

BTW, insult over half the electorate? That's what we're going to find out

Elmo

While I dont agree with telling other countries what do as they are their own people and can make up their own minds.

I do feel however as a small nation we should fight for the small countries coming into the EU. Therefore i would have hoped that the government of this country would have organised a Treaty which would allow other smaller and larger countries to enter the EU on there own terms. Lets face it it took us nearly 50 years to enter the EEC and 70 years for Spain and portugal. It is only one treaty that weather we accept it or not will still make it a very long time before expanion happens, note that france and Sewden were the only countries to fend of the idea of sanctions on poorer contries if the did not control the outflow of their people into europe, I would have like to have heard that our representatives were part of that.

My big issue in this is people and their democratic rights which the EU has to sort out. All countries should go to the polls for the Nice Treaty.

I find Berties remarks unfounded and ironic, he resently said that the No campaign were scare mongorers and that if we didnt sign up to Nice there would be major job losses. [God i am scared now.]

Also did Greece also not vote againist the Nice Treaty????

leeroybrown

I wasn't around for the original poll but would have voted yes.

This time I still think Yes is the obvious choice for me, but theres this nagging voice in the back of my head that doesn't want to let Bertie have an easy ride.

sceptre

Originally posted by swiss

I'm glad that you're so sure of your convictions. I spent a lot of time wrangling around a very technical document and I'm still not sure of what exactly Nice represents.

Heh, I had to do that too. All those euro law modules in UL probably helped - reading all the treaties and the new one in tandem helps in seeing the exact changes brought about by Nice.

Shazbat

I'll be voting no again because basically I don't trust the government to tell us all the implications of the Nice treaty. I can't understand why FF are getting declarations of our neutrality. If they can pick and choose why don't we just have a referendum on a treaty specifically about EU enlargement. That is all that FF & FG seem to be talking about. Surely there are more issues than neutrality & enlargement and why aren't those being discussed in the media?
By choosing to talk about only 2 issues it would seem to me that they are purposefully ignoring any other issues because they feel it would influence people to vote no which leads me to believe they are untrustworthy and therefore to vote no again.

I wonder if FF are sneaky enough to reverse the wording in the referendum in such a way that voting no would ratify it? I wouldn't put it past them!

dathi1

No last time and no again. Everybody else I know who voted No will do the same again. This time I will get involved actively in campaning for the No camp.

Moriarty

I voted yes last time, and ill be voting yes again this time.

I actually got a tad pissed off around the time of the last referendfum for Nice.. let me explain why. For weeks leading up to the referendum, there was a constant bandying about over the issue of Irish neutrality (a contradiction in terms, from my pov) aswell as a few other entirely unrelated issues. People were saying they were going to vote no for countless reasons, many as a form of spite against the government. Im certainly no fan of the past/current government but I was litterly left dumbfounded as to how people can be so short-sighted.

How can people think that if they throw away their vote due to totally unrelated issues it will make anything better. At best this will contribute greatly to voter apathy, leading to a further degredation in the numbers of people deciding to vote. At worst, it can lead to people and organisations drawing very important conclusions - that can, and regularly do, effect the way this country and the EU is run - from a result that is at least somewhat flawed, due to the irresponsible use of these peoples votes. By all means vote whichever way you feel is right; make yourself familiar with the issues, listen to the debates that will occour and make an educated decision about the issue. Try whenever possible to further enhance your understanding of what you are voting on.

Do not make the irresponsible, short-sighted decision of using your vote to spite the current government, or on the other side of the coin blindly vote whichever way the government recommends because you are a loyal party supporter. Make up your own mind on the issues in hand.

Originally posted by Elmo
Lets face it it took us nearly 50 years to enter the EEC and 70 years for Spain and portugal. It is only one treaty that weather we accept it or not will still make it a very long time before expanion happens

The EEC came into being on Jan 1 1958 with the founding members being Italy, Germany, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands; each of which ratified the treaty of rome in 1957.

In 1961 the UK, Ireland and Denmark apply to join the EEC. In 1973 Ireland, the UK and Denmark joined the EEC. Thats a 16 year gap, not 'nearly 50'. (Note that we applied to join only 4 years after its foundation.)

Spain & Portugal applied for membership in 1977. They joined in 1986. (29 years after foundation until membership, not '70'.)


The Nice treaty is not 'only one treaty', it is one of the most noteable in the history of the EEC/EU. Im open to correction on this, but from what i remember european expansion is due to commence in 2005 once Nice is ratified. Two and a half years is certainly not a 'very long time' - espically so in this context.

dahamsta

How can people think that if they throw away their vote due to totally unrelated issues it will make anything better.

It's not unrelated Moriarty, it's not unrelated at all. Many people who voted "against the government" did so for the simple reason that they don't trust them, or because they don't appreciate their arrogance. Now personally, I voted against Nice because I believe it waters down our participation and authority in Europe even more, plus neutrality, etc; but my old fella voted no purely to spite the government. At the time, I thought he was wrong, but he wasn't, he's perfectly entitled to use his vote to express his opinion. Telling him he's wrong to do that is akin to telling people they can't spoil their vote.

The Government was wrong, they handled the whole thing badly, they treated the Irish people like moron's, and made them them look like ignorant gombeens /after/ the referendum. I blame no-one for voting no because they believe the Government might be trying to pull the wool over their eyes. And let's be honest, that's all these "declarations" represent - a confidence trick, something the rest of the European countries can roll back on and laugh at if it ever becomes necessary.

That's not to say I'll be voting 'no', but I do take offense at peopel being painted as selfish for using their vote to express an opinion. That's what voting is all about. Maybe Bertie Ahern should take his head out of his butt and realise that, the arrogant little pr1ck.

adam

Moriarty

Originally posted by dahamsta
It's not unrelated Moriarty, it's not unrelated at all. Many people who voted "against the government" did so for the simple reason that they don't trust them, or because they don't appreciate their arrogance. Now personally, I voted against Nice because I believe it waters down our participation and authority in Europe even more, plus neutrality, etc; but my old fella voted no purely to spite the government. At the time, I thought he was wrong, but he wasn't, he's perfectly entitled to use his vote to express his opinion. Telling him he's wrong to do that is akin to telling people they can't spoil their vote.

The Government was wrong, they handled the whole thing badly, they treated the Irish people like moron's, and made them them look like ignorant gombeens /after/ the referendum. I blame no-one for voting no because they believe the Government might be trying to pull the wool over their eyes. And let's be honest, that's all these "declarations" represent - a confidence trick, something the rest of the European countries can roll back on and laugh at if it ever becomes necessary.

That's not to say I'll be voting 'no', but I do take offense at peopel being painted as selfish for using their vote to express an opinion. That's what voting is all about. Maybe Bertie Ahern should take his head out of his butt and realise that, the arrogant little pr1ck.

I dont agree. The idea of a referendum is get the peoples answer to a specific question. For the nice referendum, its wether to accept it and hence enable the government to ratify it, or not. There are only three choices you can make when you vote. You either vote yes, vote no, or spoil your vote. If you are going to use your vote as a protest vote, should you not spoil your vote? If you decide you are going to make a protest vote, and then make a valid vote (be it 'yes' or 'no' doesnt matter), your vote will be no different to a staunch pro- or anti- Nice campaigner. There are no shades of grey when the results come through. The vote will then be unballenced - because of other, seperate issues - to one side or the other. Thats not what a referendum is meant to, or should be about.

By all means if you feel that strongly on the subject, feel free to spoil your vote. I just think its wrong to consider making a protest vote by making a valid vote. No one will know your vote was a protest, it will be lumped in with the rest of the Yes or No votes. Every vote counts, and the feelings that are felt towards the current government could very well cloud the issue of what the referendum is actually about.

This may even lead to a 'wrong' result, where one side (most likely the 'No' side in the nice referendum) will get a large number of votes cast for it due to people making 'protest votes against the government', distorting what the actual result should have been.

Your decision to vote yes or no should not be based on how the campaigners handled themselves but on the actual issues of the referendum, and how you feel about them.

Elmo

It has taken several treaties to get were we are at today not just the one. (My 70 50 year was a little over the top but lets face it the EU has been around for nearly 50 years now.)

It would be stupid and Moranic to think that this one treaty will intergrate all european countries applying to get into the EU.

They and The EU need time to get things right and that means setting about treaties for other countries applying to get into the EU. Weather these Treaties are with themselves or with other Countries within the EU. The Irish People if they wish should be allowed make Trade treaties with other non-EU countries if it so wish as should all other countries within the EU. The EU should not be the only main Economic Treaty or Parliment in Europe, The Eastern European countries should model themselves on the EU if the so wish and eventually become a member of the EU.

The EU should not be about the Milatary it should only consern itsself with Trade agreement and should not aspire to a SuperPower Status.

The Delcalareation at Sevill should have been about this rather then Nutrailaity. As Ireland Gave its Airports to the US and also is part of PPF which is run with NATO. I disagree with both.

Ireland should model itself as a peace keeping nation (and a civil rights campaigner) and no more.

dahamsta

Perhaps you're right Moriarty, perhaps a spoiled vote is a better form of protest. You'd have to talk to The Daddy about that directly though, since he was quite adamant about the whole thing the last time. And he hasn't figured out the Internet yet.

And you're right, there are no shades of grey when the results come through. The problem from my perspective is that there are so many shades of grey right now, I'm confused, and making me angry when I'm confused is really a very bad idea.

adam

bonkey

Originally posted by Elmo
The EU should not be about the Milatary it should only consern itsself with Trade agreement

Interesting idea. So you feel things like common Economic policies, common currencies, a common "higher court", etc. are all wrong and we shouldnt have them?

Also, the huge amounts of aid Ireland received from the EEC, EC and EU was not due to Trade Agreements. Do you feel we would have been better off if we never had received this money?

Or did you mean "Economic Issues" rather than "Trade Agreements".

Regardless, I would also question how and where you draw the line.

If two countries have, for example, closely linked economic ties, then it stands to reason that it is in both of their best interests to have (at least) a common defense policy, as the destruction of one of the two nations' economies through war would have a disastrous effect on its "coupled partner".

It also stands to reason that they will both benefit from ensuring that their economies run somewhat in parallel, which requires unified economic settings far beyond mere Trade Agreements. From there, a natural evolution will show that there are benefits to be gained from having common (or equivalent) legal systems, and so on and so on.

In other words, whether we trust them or not, the simple truth is that there are benefits to be gained from closer unification. The only question is what are the costs, and do they outweigh the benefits.

While I may not agree with all of the issues in the Nice Treaty, I would never suggest that the EU should restrict itself to Economic Issues alone, and definitely not to just Trade Agreements.


What I find hilarious is people voting against the government "to spite the government". Do these people vote against the government when it comes to issues such as abortion or divorce, or is it only when its an issue that they somehow dont see as highly important?

I also find it laughable that some people voted no because it was in protest to the lack of information, or the one-sidedness of the argument. I suppose a sub-section (or cousin) of the "spite the government" crowd.

OK - sure - the government may have handled it badly. Why these people now turn around and complain about the government asking for a chance to ask the question again is beyond me. On one hand, they complain that the government screwed up the first vote, and on the other hand complain that the government have no right to ask the question again.

Surely, if anything, you would like to see the government ask the question in a correct manner, so that you can express an honest opinion this time, and we can end up with an honest, educated result of the people's vote which answers the question asked.

At the end of the day, though, I have to agree with Moriarty. Voting No was not registering your displeasure with the government. It was spiting them, sure, but if thats the only criteria people used for voting , then I wonder if they'd bite off their noses to spite their faces.

If you want to register your displeasure, then the only way to do so in a vote is to spoil your vote.

You have every right to vote Yes or No, based on whatever criteria you wish to apply.

However, if you take a referendum so lightly that your vote is decided not by the issue at hand but by the people asking the question, then I would be highly reluctant - if I were you - to go complaining about the government making a mockery of democracy, because you're not exactly being a model example of it yourself.

jc

Shazbat

---

At the time, I thought he was wrong, but he wasn't, he's perfectly entitled to use his vote to express his opinion. Telling him he's wrong to do that is akin to telling people they can't spoil their vote.

---

I agree, I think that you are entitled to use your vote whatever way you want to for whatever reason you want. If your motivations are spite then thats your choice. Some people vote one way or another because their party says to, and others weigh up the pros and cons independently and decide themselves. These decision making processes are all equally valid because at the end of the day each vote is worth the same regardless of the motivation behind it.

Victor

Originally posted by Elmo
Lets face it it took us nearly 70 years for Spain and portugal [to enter the EEC]

70 is wrong as stated above, but it was only 10-15 years after the introduction of democracy in those countries.

Cork

So you feel things like common Economic policies, common currencies, a common "higher court", etc. are all wrong and we shouldnt have them?

The EU is not Europe. What we voted for in previous EU votes was money. £8 billion & £4 billion - If I remember correctly.

Big Business will benefit in a post NICE era.
Prices have become very expensive post the Euro.
Who elected Prodi?

The EU is about Empire building.

In Ireland - we had democracy when a lot of the rest of Europe had - Coomunists, Marxists, Nazis & facists.

In Ireland - we value our independence & democracy. The EU commission is not democratic.

I'll be voting No. For your information - we don't have common Economic policies - Thank Heavens.

Elmo

Yes when i stated Trade Agreements I ment Economic Agreements.

Military sure get rid of the Irish Army and replace with the EUA.

I mean we could save money their couldnt we as the Irish Army do nothing and while were at it make Officers Redundant, as the europeans have plenty of men to protect the EU.

Then get rid of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Keep them all in Brusells.

Sure the closer we are together the more money we save and that is what it is all about at the end of the day money.

Trade, Economic and Peace Agreements they are the agreements we should sign up to. Milatary Alliences are Agreements between Super Powers not small countries like Ireland(We would never have any power of the alliance).

Elmo

I would draw the line at Milatary Agreements.

I do not beleive we would be better served under a fedral super power, and yes prehaps i am getting hung up about being part of a super power.


The European Union is fine as it is and should slowly allow other countries to join it without forcing to join things the don't wish to join.

Did Grease vote againist Nice As well????????

sceptre

Originally posted by Elmo
Did Grease vote againist Nice As well????????

No. They did take their time ratifying the Treaty but the Greek parliament ratified it on March 20.

http://www.bhma.net/archive/2002/0322/09.asp

Ireland is the only EU country that has had or will have a plebiscite on the matter. In all other countries the Treety was ratified simply by parliament.

Cork

Trade, Economic and Peace Agreements they are the agreements we should sign up to. Milatary Alliences are Agreements between Super Powers not small countries like Ireland(We would never have any power of the alliance).

I agree 100% with the above. I am sure that we will have FF, FG, Labour, Trade Unions, Farmers Unions, Journalists, Pat Cox etc preaching otherwise.

The EU needs drastic reform. Voting Yes to Nice will reduce our influence. We won't have as many MEPs and we will loose our veto in several areas.

It would be like tuckeys voting for Christmas.

bonkey

Originally posted by Elmo
Trade, Economic and Peace Agreements they are the agreements we should sign up to. Milatary Alliences are Agreements between Super Powers not small countries like Ireland(We would never have any power of the alliance).

But surely a Peace Agreement (or non-aggression pact or anything you like of that nature) is simply a specific form of military agreement?

I dont think there is any simple clear-cut point where we can say "the line is drawn here" and stick by it. If, god forbid, Ireland was attacked by a foreign nation, it would be nice to know that we had the EU to back us up.

Of course, its easier for us to discount this being on the edge of an ocean with our allies all to the east than (say) some of the more Eastern and Southern nations who are within striking distance of many non-EU nations.

On the other hand, I wouldnt like Ireland to have military "requirements" imposed on us by the EU such as the size or nature of army we would have to have, and so on.

Like I said - for me its not a cut n dry issue.

jc

Elmo

What if France and Germany were to go to war what side would we be on? (I know It wont happen)

But if any of the countries were to be come involved in any kind of war due to their own making would we be on their side?

Bismark did it with europe before the first world war, but he choped and changed all the time so as not to go to war. Is that what we are to do? This is the 21st century after all.

Trade and a better life style has made us happy with Europe and how it is run we should allow other countries become part of this Economic non-nationalist Europe so they can have the same kind of life style, But we must also except their National rights as a free country.

Lets face it if the Unionist in the north had treated the Nationalist with respect and human dignatiy there would never had be any troubles.

swiss

Originally posted by Elmo:

Military sure get rid of the Irish Army and replace with the EUA.

I mean we could save money their couldnt we as the Irish Army do nothing and while were at it make Officers Redundant, as the europeans have plenty of men to protect the EU.

Then get rid of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Keep them all in Brusells.

Sure the closer we are together the more money we save and that is what it is all about at the end of the day money.

Melodrama aside, there is no forseeable possibility of this taking place. Neither the PfP or the RRF impinge on any way either on the Irish army, the sovereign defence of our nation, or on our military neutrality.

This website gives details on both their PfP and RRF, their scope and function, and Irelands committment (or lack thereof) to both.

[edit]
*slaps myself on forehead* corrects a stoopid typo
[/edit]

sceptre

Originally posted by Elmo
What if France and Germany were to go to war what side would we be on? (I know It wont happen)

But if any of the countries were to be come involved in any kind of war due to their own making would we be on their side?

Could happen with Greece and Turkey yet. Though Turkey don't look like being admitted for a while.

Or if the Greek Cypriots get bored with having control over only half the island (though I've a lot of sympathy for the Turkish Cypriots - if I were Turkey I would have invaded then as well).

OT of course.

BEAT

after reading up on this and taking into account how the real world works, my vote would be 'NO'
If you only knew what would happen if that vote came to yes in the end, if you only knew
it's not all what you tihnk at all, many things are disguised to look appealing to get that yes vote, the truth of the matter is your way of life would take a turn for the worse if that vote resulted in 'yes' , I can say no more, for I have said too much already

bonkey

Originally posted by BEAT
I can say no more, for I have said too much already

Ahh yes - good old contentless scaremongering.

If youre not going to come out and tell us what youre interpretation of what will happen is, then theres not much point in telling us that its bad, because its hardly a credible stance.

I mean - youre basically saying the opposite of the government.

Them : Trust us, this is a good thing.
You : Trust me, this is a bad thing.

Personally, I wouldnt trust anyone who offers such a contentless stance.

jc

Shazbat

<quote>Personally, I wouldnt trust anyone who offers such a contentless stance. </quote>

Did you mean beat or the government?

Victor

Personally, I'm not 100% against some military involvement, however I feel it would eventually lead to American -style military adventurism.

Originally posted by Shazbat
<quote>Personally, I wouldnt trust anyone who offers such a contentless stance. </quote>

Did you mean beat or the government?

Quite true.

Country		 Commitment	%	Population	%	Commitment per 100,000 population
Germany	 	 13,500 		 20%	 83,029,536	22%	 16.26 
United Kingdom	 12,500 		 18%	 59,647,790	16%	 20.96 
France		 12,000 		 17%	 59,551,227	16%	 20.15 
Italy		  6,000 		 9%	 57,679,825	15%	 10.40 
Spain	 	  6,000 		 9%	 40,037,995	11%	 14.99 
Netherlands	  5,000 		 7%	 15,981,472	4%	 31.29 
Greece		  3,500 		 5%	 10,623,835	3%	 32.94 
Belgium		  3,000 		 4%	 10,258,762	3%	 29.24 
Austria		  2,000 		 3%	  8,150,835	2%	 24.54 
Finland		  2,000 		 3%	  5,175,783	1%	 38.64 
Sweden		  1,500 		 2%	  8,875,053	2%	 16.90 
Portugal		  1,000 		 1%	 10,066,253	3%	  9.93 
Ireland		    850 		 1%	  3,840,838	1%	 22.13 
Luxembourg	    100 		 0%	    442,972	0%	 22.57 
Denmark	 	      -   	 -	  5,352,815	1%	    -   
Total		 68,950 		 100%	378,714,991 	100%	 18.21

I know countries have commitments elsewhere and different poeple bring differen skills to the party, but some of the above aren't pulling their weight.

dathi1

better to vote no now and avoid a European super state with all the power at the top and separatist paramilitary groups setting off Bombs in Brussels in 2020

dathi1

sh!!!!!T did ye see the Business post today......Ireland along with Sweden, Holland and Denmark agreed (Cowen) to open its borders to immigrants from new member states when enlargement starts??? Other member states ...biggies like France Germany etc.. have excluded themselves from this.
IBEC's delighted with the whole idea....a cheap pool of workers to keep wages frozen and knock off overtime costs. If I were an Intel / HP employee, Taxi driver, Plumber...i would be worried.

Cork

I think that employers want cheap labour. Every cent they can save will increase their profits. I think that it is so badly tought through. We are trying to import workers to work in poor jobs with low pay & very long hours.

swiss

Originally posted by Cork:

I think that employers want cheap labour. Every cent they can save will increase their profits. I think that it is so badly tought through.

Employers caught in "trying to make a profit" scandal.

Government leaders and concerned citizens are stunned by revelations that many reputable businesses have reported greater revenue than expenditure. This accounting discrepancy, called "profit" is feared to be endemic to the business community.

As esteemed Professor of Codology, Dr Mike Rotch explained, this can happen when businesses shell out less money in order to pay for their fixed and variable costs.

Dr Rotch continued, "businesses seek to lower these costs to increase the margin by which their revenue outstrips what it costs them to generate this revenue". "Labour is a major variable cost to many businesses, and this is why many of these morally defunct - so called 'profitable' businesses seek to lower their labour costs".

Outraged commentators called for the immediate closure of these profitable businesses, citing them as a blight on the fair green pastures of Ireland, with comely maidens dancing at the crossroads.

"I blame Europe" cried one deranged protestor. "If we didn't have Europe, we wouldn't have all this money". "Exterminate Europe, Exterminatee..." cried the shrill protestor before morphing into a Dalek and proceeding to paralyse bystanders with the newly formed gun-arm.

I'm afraid I couldn't quite resist that.

Sarcasm aside, I wonder what difficulties people have with the idea of foreign workers coming over here. These workers are coming over here, not to have an easy ride, but to try to make something of their lives. There are labour and minimum wage laws that guarantee a minimum standard in the world of work for any worker. If this is not enough, then it is up to people to lobby the government to change the labour laws. It would be disingenuous to blame the foreign workers who only want to earn enough to have a reasonable standard of living, which they have often been denied in their own countries.

[The following paragraph is a little OT, but i'll keep it short]
Say foreign workers do come here and take positions of employment which would ordinarily be destined for Irish citizens. Do we blame them for taking our Jobs? If they were ours, should we not be working in them? Perhaps it is because they are that little bit more desperate and hence willing to accept a standard of pay that would be unacceptable to Irish people. As I said, this is OT, and if you want, here is a more suitable thread. Suffice to say, the problems with foreigners taking employment in Ireland are IMO to do with the endemic problems within the labor market and the bureaucracy that regulates their employment - not with the foreign workers themselves.

Originally posted by dathi1:

better to vote no now and avoid a European super state with all the power at the top and separatist paramilitary groups setting off Bombs in Brussels in 2020

What? This is the same substanceless argument that Beat proposed. Firstly, please explain yourself when you say that all the power is going to be at the top. Do you mean "power" as in military dominance, economic dominance, or another form of power? I'm not a fan of separatist groups setting off bombs anywhere, but I would not like to allow my actions to be dictated by potential terrorists acts, because I don't like to think that nations can be bullied into changing their national or international agenda by thugs. I don't know about anyone else, but if such terrorist paramilitary groups did try to co-erce people/Europe to change it's polices, I would be even more supportive of closer cohesion between member states, if only to show solidarity against such attacks.

Cork

There are labour and minimum wage laws that guarantee a minimum standard in the world of work for any workerthat guarantee a minimum standard in the world of work for any worker

Do Trainees get the mimimum wage? Expliotation exists. It is more widespead than you'd expect.

Unemployment is rising. I have many friends who were in mega jobs and now are unemployed or working part time.

Is this country surposed to foot a social welfare bill for these new arrivals?

Victor

Originally posted by Cork
Is this country surposed to foot a social welfare bill for these new arrivals?

Generally, no.

Cork

Generally, no

If they are admitted into the EU and if most EU countries will not take them expect Ireland and a number of others.

As EU citizens - they will be entitled to social welfare.

We are getting away from this treaty that will take away our veto in certain areas & take away our right to a comissioner.

We will loose influence if we don't vote NO

Victor

Originally posted by Cork
As EU citizens - they will be entitled to social welfare.

Yes and no, they will be entitled to some things immediately, but others will take quite some time (12 months+) to kick in. Of course, EU citizens are still required to hold a green card and need to be able to prove they can support themselves. See http://portal.welfare.ie/foi/euregs.xml

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by dathi1
sh!!!!!T did ye see the Business post today......Ireland along with Sweden, Holland and Denmark agreed (Cowen) to open its borders to immigrants from new member states when enlargement starts??? Other member states ...biggies like France Germany etc.. have excluded themselves from this.

This is staggering, it really is! Now I'm certain......... mine is a NO.