"No to Nice" website

smiles

I must say that i was rather shocked when I read the "No to Nice" website - I mean I'm pretty open minded about it at the moment and I was expecting to see some good information with actual information.

Instead it seems that the website is simply there to ridicule the treaty and not even go into any proper arguments.

And then I went and read the "Yes to Nice" website, and found a similar, if slightly more logical argument.

Rumour mongers on both sides and very little seems to be clear. I'm annoyed at this because we really need an honest and open discussion for both sides with actual implications and not rumours.

So as I can see it:

Consequences of a No Vote from "No to Nice":

• Ireland Stays First Class - we cant be kicked out
• Europeans will be happier - apparently the rest of Europe will be glad we rejected it
• This is *better* for the countries joining Europe.... not quite sure why this is
• Restores *faith* in democracy - since we rejected it the first time
• It will make Euro a state of equals (because voting yes would change all that apparently)

Consequences of a No Vote from "Yes to Nice":

• We'll lost investment from outside of Europe because it suggests a xenopheobic attitude
• The EU will not look on us favourably
• It'll destroy tourism for our xenopheobic attitude
• It will halt the rate of expansion of Europe and there is no alternative plan at the moment

Consequences of a Yes Vote from "No to Nice":

• We'd be betraying the rest of Europe since they dont have a choice
• We'd be betraying democracy
• There will be a legal mechanism to put laws about human rights, etc, into place across Europe - (an actual valid point that they try to ruin by adding in a "scare" factor) - countries could lose votes in Europe if they break these laws
• New countries have to accept Nice when they join
• Ireland will become a "colony"

Consequences of a Yes Vote from "Yes to Nice":

• Increases the pool of investment for all of Europe
• Investment benefits for the Ireland
• Better trade relations, good will, etc.
• Encourage EU funding
• Stabalises European tax rates, etc.
• Encourages good realtions (ie no wars) in Eastern European countries.

As far as I can see we're being told that if we vote "No" then we're good/bad Europeans (depending on whos view we take) - that all europeans are repressed except us, or that we're repessing all europeans.
Or we could discourage european investment and EU aid could be withdrawn - personally i think thats bullsh!t as no matter what happens we'll still be part of Europe and the EU isn't some childish kid who'd throw a tantrum.

If we votes "Yes" then there's a chance of increased investment all over Europen and the harmonisation of european laws, but there's also the fact that countries will get voting power based on their size - and we're pretty damn small.

Is there any other main points that i'm missing - the Irish Government website with the White Paper on Nice is down at the moment (which really helps).

Is anyone else sick of the one sided scaremongering on both sides?

<< Fio >>

gurramok

If we votes "Yes" then there's a chance of increased investment all over Europen and the harmonisation of european laws, but there's also the fact that countries will get voting power based on their size - and we're pretty damn small.

Most important fact is that smaller countries get smaller share of parliament/council of ministers upon enlargement and bigger countries(the big 4) get proportionately more than they did beforehand. That cannot be disputed, look at the stats.

That is why alot of people voted no last time including myself.

Will I care to even mention the immigrant thing which was kept quiet whereby ireland is only one of 4 countries(all small of course) not having 7 yr exemption from accepting immigrants from new members.

The lack of investment/eu aid scaremongering by yes camp is crap, look at Norway and Denmark, their economies are fine since they rejected previous european treaties.

The Nice treaty needs to be re-negotiated.

smiles

Originally posted by gurramok

Most important fact is that smaller countries get smaller share of parliament/council of ministers upon enlargement and bigger countries(the big 4) get proportionately more than they did beforehand. That cannot be disputed, look at the stats.

That is why alot of people voted no last time including myself.

Ah right, some people wouldnt find that an issue, considering that the "big" countries have more people.

Will I care to even mention the immigrant thing which was kept quiet whereby ireland is only one of 4 countries(all small of course) not having 7 yr exemption from accepting immigrants from new members.

Did we apply for a 7 year expemption?
Why would be want one? *thats* xenopheobic.

<< Fio >>

gurramok

Originally posted by smiles
Ah right, some people wouldnt find that an issue, considering that the "big" countries have more people.

Nothing to do with that, our percentage of seats goes down 3 times as opposed to 2 times for the big 4 countries, thats the problem.

Why would be want one? *thats* xenopheobic

How is it xenophobic ?
Immigrants probably would not stay here, they would use the country as a launching pad into UK.
By all means have controlled immigration, not open borders.
I dont trust the big 4 countries over this issue, do you not think its a bit strange that they have 7 -yr exemption ?

smiles

Originally posted by gurramok
Nothing to do with that, our percentage of seats goes down 3 times as opposed to 2 times for the big 4 countries, thats the problem.

Any links to any figures on that? I'd be interested in reading them/

How is it xenophobic ?
Immigrants probably would not stay here, they would use the country as a launching pad into UK.
By all means have controlled immigration, not open borders.
I dont trust the big 4 countries over this issue, do you not think its a bit strange that they have 7 -yr exemption ?

You're being completely stereotypical.

Why woudl immigrants jump straight to the UK? and if they do why is this such a big problem for us?

Do you have any links to the 7 year exemption for some countries? another thing i'd love to see actual figures for.

<< Fio >>

gurramok

Any links to any figures on that? I'd be interested in reading them/

Ok, from here gives list of present composition of Council of Ministers.

From here is actual text of Nice Treaty, scroll down to page 82 out of 87 to see relevant tables.
(warning its in pdf format, takes a few min to load on 56k modem !)

Now for example
Ireland has 3 out of 87 members , UK has 10 out of 87.
On enlargement, irl would have 7 out of 345, UK would have 29 out of 345.

Uk has same representation as France, Germany, Italy....hence calling them the big 4.

In percentage terms, the maths work out as :

Irl present = 3.45 %, irl future = 2.02%.....decrease of 41.4% representation
Uk present = 11.49 %, Uk future = 8.4 %....decrease of 26.9% representation.

Thats translates to the human eye as less power for irl than it is at now in important decision-making.

The european parliament stats are equal for both irl and uk, a decrease of about 30% in each case.
Just to add, the present composition of euro parliament is here

Do you have any links to the 7 year exemption for some countries? another thing i'd love to see actual figures for

A link here , i'm sure there are some other sites of it on web somewhere

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by gurramok

Most important fact is that smaller countries get smaller share of parliament/council of ministers upon enlargement and bigger countries(the big 4) get proportionately more than they did beforehand. That cannot be disputed, look at the stats.

That is why alot of people voted no last time including myself.

But what's wrong with that? The composition is still biased in Ireland's favour, just not as biased as before.

smiles

Originally posted by gurramok

Irl present = 3.45 %, irl future = 2.02%.....decrease of 41.4% representation
Uk present = 11.49 %, Uk future = 8.4 %....decrease of 26.9% representation.

3 : 10 Ireland : UK represntation at present ...
-- for every 1 representative we have they have 3.333

7 : 29 Ireland : UK possible representation in future
-- for every 1 representative we have they have 4.14 or so.

For a country who's population is less than 4 million in comparrison to a country who's population is arounf 60 million.... to be *fair* it should be 1 : 15.

Personally I've no problems with tiny changes like that.

A link here , i'm sure there are some other sites of it on web somewhere

See what you were saying is that the "big 4" were granted exemption -- not so, the countries themselves chose it. Ireland decided independantly not to do so. Not quite as conspiracy theory as you made out.

<< Fio >>

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Typedef

I actually thought the website was quite informative.... that's why I stuck a link to it in my sig.

Aside from that, Ireland is one of only four current members of the EU who will allow unrestricted access to the citizens of the new member states. Now any of you who have read any of my posts on the issue of immigration will know I am an exponent of emigration to solve Irish labour shortages in all sectors of the economy and on a quid pro quo basis, because the way I see it, the Irish were allowed basically unrestricted access to the US in bygone years, however, if Ireland is one of only four countries to allow unrestricted access to new member state's citizens I personally think Ireland will find itself enubed with an influx of people 'who have a right to be here', that we just won't be able to handle.

I hope I'm wrong.