NO Vote POLITICAL consequences

Bateman

Read an interesting article about the possible fallout of another No vote in the Sunday Times, it seems that in the event of a NO vote, Bertie's career could be over, with many backbenchers and party members sharpening the knives as we speak. The cutbacks have hit hard, and many FF local councillors and TDs have had great difficulty explaining to their constituents the reasons for the cutbacks, which in many cases they do not understand themselves. Add to this the Govt expecting party activists to work from dawn to dusk campaigning for a Yes vote, and you have a lot of pissed off people.
Its going to be an interesting few months ahead.

bertiebowl

One other consequence of a second Nice No vote is that Ireland will lose negotiating "power" for the next treaty on Europe.

Why? The other European countries will point out that the Irish government was unable to sell the Nice Treaty they negotiated to the Irish people - so the other Euro countries will negotiate around the Irish position in the expectation that what ever the Irish government negotiates [in the future] would be voted down anyway in the subsequent Irish referendum.

Hello rejection

BYE BYE negotiating influence

Cork

If we vote Yes - We will have little infuence:
We will loose MEPs
Loose our VETO many areas
Loose an automatic comissioner

If we VOTE NO - We won't loose as much influence as we would if we voted yes

Xterminator

I think the loss of goodwill would be significant.

Remember when we were negotiating the structural funds, and we got a really sweet deal, especially when compared to what other nations got. That was because we had fostered very good relations with our Euro Partners, and as a result the whole country prospered.

And there are always upcoming deals to be negotiated.

Our farmers are getting subsidies, (from CAP etc) and when they are re-negotiated next time, if our 'goodwill' factor is gone, I am sure each and every farmer receiving EU subisidy will suffer.
As will the fishermen, next time the fisheries negotiate the irish quota.

Thats why it makes me wonder when the farmers are suggesting they will vote no in significant no's, as a protest vote.

They would just be cutting off the hand that feeds them.

X

Xterminator

Originally posted by Cork
If we vote Yes - We will have little infuence:
We will loose MEPs
Loose our VETO many areas
Loose an automatic comissioner

If we VOTE NO - We won't loose as much influence as we would if we voted yes

You dont mention the fact that the larger nations will lose there second commisioner. IE Germanay permanantly loses one full commissoner, Ireland loses a full time commisionershp, but gets 'timeshare' on one.
They stand to lose more than us

Or the fact the weighting of the votes means that the larger nations will be comparatively less powerful than they are now.

MEP's will be reduced for all countries, as with 15 more countries the no's of MPs would be impractical if current no's were maintained. Thats just common sense.
I dont see a reduction in the no's of MEP's as a disadvanage at all.

As for our veto, the EU is not solely for Irelands benifit. Do you really think one country should be able to veto a majority decision in most seceraios? Can you imagine if each country put its nation interest first, and used a veto everewhere it felt someone was doing beter etc?

After all we can always leave. If we dont like where the EU is going we can leave. That is the ultamate veto, and we retain it.

X

Meh

Originally posted by Cork
If we vote Yes - We will have little infuence:
We will lose MEPs

Ireland does lose three MEPs under Nice, that's true. But all the EU member states, bar Germany and Luxembourg, lose MEPs. The UK, for example, loses fifteen MEPs under Nice. Loss of influence by Ireland: insignificant.

Lose our VETO many areas

Every member state loses their veto in the same areas that Ireland does. The loss of influence is insignificant compared to the influence we gain by not having other countries veto measures which could benefit us. Remember that Ireland has only used its veto once in thirty years of EU membership (source).

Lose an automatic comissioner

The big countries lose their second commissioner straight away; nobody will lose their commissioner until there 27 members. Thereafter, commissioners will be appointed on strict rotation among the member states. In any case, commissioners are sworn to act in the interests of the Union as a whole, not in the interests of the country which appointed them.

PH01

Another 'No' vote endangers the whole EU project and not just the Nice Treaty. The Nice Treaty will fall and therefore no more talk about including anymore countries into the club as the current setup would become unworkable and ineffectual.
Ireland will also lose a lot of influence that it has built up over the years. This will surely have a negative effect on any CAP, fisheries or monetary policy negociations coming up, in which Ireland could lose out even more. It may even mean that Ireland will have to pull out of any further development of the EU and may even have to abandon some of the current EU/EC/EEC treaties.
A 'No' vote would be a backward step.

Typedef

In my opinion influence and currying favour are pithe supplicants for actual power.

PH01 has argued that the supposed 'bad will' instigated on another No vote will be detramental to Ireland's good will.

I have to ask, is this how Ireland is to be governed, not by actual power Ireland has over it's own governance, but by the favour it curry's with those who do have that power of governance over Ireland?

The argument about loosing favour sounds like a veiled threat "vote as we say else dire reprocussion(x) will happen".

Or euphamistically on a no vote the Yes side are effectively saying "the sky is falling" on the 'favour' (as opposed to power to affect change over issues concerning Ireland in Europe) Ireland curries with the really powerful in Europe.

Consider me singularly unconviced in the merits of this Treaty, not the threats of the consequences of it's rejection.

dahamsta

In any case, commissioners are sworn to act in the interests of the Union as a whole, not in the interests of the country which appointed them.

Oh, how naive! Jackie Healy-Rae for Commissioner!

PH01, you're projecting and scaremongering. Put the crystal ball away please.

adam

Meh

Originally posted by Typedef
Both Meh and PH01 have argued that the supposed 'bad will' instigated on another No vote will be detramental to Ireland's good will.

I don't remember ever saying that.

Typedef

You and Brian Lenihan.

Duly retracted.

Elmo

One other consequence of a second Nice No vote is that Ireland will lose negotiating "power" for the next treaty on Europe.

Why? The other European countries will point out that the Irish government was unable to sell the Nice Treaty they negotiated to the Irish people - so the other Euro countries will negotiate around the Irish position in the expectation that what ever the Irish government negotiates [in the future] would be voted down anyway in the subsequent Irish referendum.

Hello rejection

BYE BYE negotiating influence

So then the Irish question happens again and the democratic right of the Irish public to vote No if the so wish is taken away from them. The fact that the declartion of Seville was not entered into the Treaty, shows that the EU do not know anything about Ireland and are unwilling to allow us the right to stay away from a EU Army if we so wish. Me thinks that prehaps are negoitating influence is already gone.

Also the expansion of The EU will still occur with or without this treaty.

Prehaps the Government should listen to what the people want, as that is what they are there for.

As will the fishermen, next time the fisheries negotiate the irish quota.

The Fishing Industry has been badly treated by both the Irish Government and the EU. We should have a bigger fishing industry we are after all an Island.

Or the fact the weighting of the votes means that the larger nations will be comparatively less powerful than they are now.

There will be more lager nations there will be less power for the smaller nations. It should be equal anyway as we are a Soverign Indepent State as are most of the countries in the EU.

Another 'No' vote endangers the whole EU project and not just the Nice Treaty. The Nice Treaty will fall and therefore no more talk about including anymore countries into the club as the current setup would become unworkable and ineffectual.

I would think that if we vote no to the nice treaty and that we lay down why we don't like the treaty that we therefore should renegotiat the treaty with more favourable terms to Ireland and the EU.

Ireland does lose three MEPs under Nice, that's true. But all the EU member states, bar Germany and Luxembourg, lose MEPs. The UK, for example, loses fifteen MEPs under Nice. Loss of influence by Ireland: insignificant.

How many UK MEP's are there? Why should all EU states other then Lux. and Ger. lose MEP's?

A 'No' vote would be a backward step.

One which was already taken only recently.

Meh

Originally posted by Elmo
Why should all EU states other then Lux. and Ger. lose MEP's?

Because if the new members were given MEPs on the same per-capita basis as before Nice, the European Parliament would grow to over 1,000 members. Therefore it makes sense to decrease the numbers of MEPs to stop the parliament becoming completely paralyzed by its own size. How long will it take to pass a law if 1,000 people all want to make a speech on it first? This is what people mean when they say that Nice is necessary for expansion.

Germany didn't have its MEPs cut because it is already underrepresented in the European Parliament. I have no idea why Luxembourg didn't get its members cut.

PH01

Originally posted by Meh
I have no idea why Luxembourg didn't get its members cut.

Probably because of it's small population base Luxembourg's current quota is about just right post-Nice

Cork

Probably because of it's small population base Luxembourg's current quota is about just right post-Nice

The biggest flaw in the EU is accountability - They are not accountable now & they will be less accountable in a post NICE situation.

A Yes vote will be akin to turkeys voting for Christmas.

Typedef

Originally posted by Meh
Because if the new members were given MEPs on the same per-capita basis as before Nice, the European Parliament would grow to over 1,000 members. Therefore it makes sense to decrease the numbers of MEPs to stop the parliament becoming completely paralyzed by its own size.

Really though I'm curious, what is and who decides what this magic number actually is? One thousand members is too many, but less, that makes sense, somehow, that entire argument seems to be quite subjective.

In my view political consequences of a No vote will be that the government will have to do it's duty and represent the wishes of the Irish people and renegotiate the Treaty to Ireland's and small nation's benefit, a duty the current government is shirking by forcing another Referendum, when it already has the result of a plebiscite on the issue.

PH01

Originally posted by Typedef

I have to ask, is this how Ireland is to be governed, not by actual power Ireland has over it's own governance, but by the favour it curry's with those who do have that power of governance over Ireland?

Who says romantic Ireland is dead and gone?

Originally posted by Typedef


The argument about loosing favour sounds like a veiled threat "vote as we say else dire reprocussion(x) will happen".

Or euphamistically on a no vote the Yes side are effectively saying "the sky is falling" on the 'favour' (as opposed to power to affect change over issues concerning Ireland in Europe) Ireland curries with the really powerful in Europe.

Typedef, sorry to hear you feel threatened by what the 'Yes' campaigns assertions about the probable consequences of another 'No' vote. Perhaps you might let us know what you believe will happen in the future if there is another 'No' vote?

Originally posted by dahamsta
In any case, commissioners are sworn to act in the interests of the Union as a whole, not in the interests of the country which appointed them.

Oh, how naive! Jackie Healy-Rae for Commissioner!

Dahamsta, this is a fact. A Commissioner's first duty is to all the peoples of the EU and not just the country they come from.

Originally posted by dahamsta

PH01, you're projecting and scaremongering. Put the crystal ball away please.

Yes Dahamsta, I am projecting. This is what I believe will happen in the future if there is another 'No' vote.

This vote is more important than any current difficulties FF & Bertie is having at the moment. I believe/forecast/project that there are bigger and negative political consequences for Ireland if there is another 'No' vote, which I believe will fundamentally be a backward step. For last forty years or so Ireland has more or less been on an economic, social and cultural progressive path (though it did take us a while to get the formula right). This has served us well of which our association the EC and the EU played no small part, which is a fact you'd have to agree with. A 'No' vote will call our progressive participation in Europe into question. You can't say that it won't!?

If there is another 'No' vote, the Nice Treaty will fall. So what will Europe do if this happens, as there is currently no 'Plan B' for this event? I believe the EU will go it alone on this and leave Ireland behind. I can't see any renegotiating of the Nice Treaty that will include Ireland.

And I feel sorry that you think that all this is 'scaremongering'. This is not my intention.

Meh

Originally posted by Typedef
Really though I'm curious, what is and who decides what this magic number actually is? One thousand members is too many, but less, that makes sense, somehow, that entire argument seems to be quite subjective.

This number was a compromise between the member states negotiated at Nice. Of course the "magic number" is going to be subjective -- so is the figure of "166" for the number of TDs in the Dail. There's nothing special about 166 that makes it better than 164 or worse than 168 (both of which would be allowed by the constitution).

Cork

The one diffence being the Dail is accountable the EU is not.

The YES people seem to sweep the EUs lack of accountability under the carpet.

Meh

Originally posted by Cork
The one diffence being the Dail is accountable the EU is not.

The YES people seem to sweep the EUs lack of accountability under the carpet.

In that case, you should be voting for Nice, as it increases the accountability of the EU, to the European Parliament, the European Court of Justice and to the Dail. The areas where the European Parliament gets more power include:

additions to the list of Articles where co-decision (under which the European Parliament shares legislative powers with the Council) applies. A list of Articles to which co-decision is being extended is at Annex 6;
- the right of the Parliament to initiate action under the new procedure provided for in Article 7, dealing with situations where there is a risk of serious breach of fundamental principles, including human rights;
- the granting of equal status to the Parliament with the Council, the Commission and individual Member States in referring to the Court of Justice certain categories of cases claiming infringement of the Treaty;
- an expanded role for the European Parliament in the area of enhanced cooperation, including in relation to the new provisions in the area of Common Foreign and Security Policy.

Furthermore, the government's proposed amendment gives more power to the Dail:

The State may exercise the options or discretions provided by or under articles 1.6, 1.9, 1.11, 1.12, 1.13 and 2.1 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7° of this section but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Typedef

Originally posted by PH01
Who says romantic Ireland is dead and gone?

That would be Yeats.

Perhaps you might let us know what you believe will happen in the future if there is another 'No' vote?

Originally posted by me Typedef
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=596321#post596321
In my view political consequences of a No vote will be that the government will have to do it's duty and represent the wishes of the Irish people and renegotiate the Treaty to Ireland's and small nation's benefit, a duty the current government is shirking by forcing another Referendum, when it already has the result of a plebiscite on the issue.

Dahamsta, this is a fact. A Commissioner's first duty is to all the peoples of the EU and not just the country they come from.

Get real, in actual fact it is highy likely that a Commissioner, will act where he/she/they can in the interests of the country said Comissioner comes from, that is the nature of politics after all, Machiavellianism, self interest,I'm quite sure you know this already.

This vote is more important than any current difficulties FF & Bertie is having at the moment. I believe/forecast/project that there are bigger and negative political consequences for Ireland if there is another 'No' vote, which I believe will fundamentally be a backward step.

Why though, convince me as a No voter, how it is the contents of the Treaty are in Irish interests. Perhaps it is the case that you can not do so, because in fact the Treaty is not in Irish interests. Unfortunately for your argument you seem to be alluding to consequences of voting No, not benefits of voting Yes. The supposed consequences proported by the No side at best seem vague and at worst seem subjective to the context of the argument the Yes vote is involved with.
Aside from this, the notion that consequences to voting No are the only reasons to vote Yes, is in fact electoral scaremongering or bullying to use an arbitrary euphamism.

Thus I don't accept the argument that the only pluses to the Nice Treaty are negating the supposed and they are only supposed consequences, recriminations or anger at Ireland's rejection.

A 'No' vote will call our progressive participation in Europe into question. You can't say that it won't!?

And rightly so, the Irish people have rejected a Treaty for further integration, it is not the place of the government, the Eurocrat or a loose conglomeration of interest groups dubbing itself the Yes side to dictate how the Irish people participate in Europe, rather it is the place of the Irish people to dictate to the parties named how Ireland should participate in Europe. The treaty was rejected, thus either the Treaty gets changed such that the Irish people become satisfied with it or the government begins to disentangle Ireland from the political elements of the EU, because the choice and wishes of the Irish people actually supercede the government's discomfort in representing the wishes of the Irish people in Europe, by either renegotiating the Nice Treaty or removing Ireland from the political integration process.

So what will Europe do if this happens, as there is currently no 'Plan B' for this event?

I must point out that you have already suggested that Ireland's views will be sidestepped and that political integration and EU expansion will continue despite Irish opinion, so does that really agree with the notion that Ireland is a participant in Europe or a dictated and subservient state?

Which is it? Member state or Subject state? If we are members then Ireland's opinion must be respected, if Ireland's view is to be 'side stepped' then Ireland must not allow itself to be coerced into further political Union.

I'd just like some clarity from Yes proponents on this one.

I believe the EU will go it alone on this and leave Ireland behind. I can't see any renegotiating of the Nice Treaty that will include Ireland.

Again what are you trying to say, Ireland will be expelled for voicing an opinion or that Ireland's opinion will simply not be respected? It seems to me as if Ireland's opinion on the Nice treaty given via plebiscite in the last Referendum has already been disrespected, so in that regard I wonder what this Republic actually has to loose?

Meh

Originally posted by Typedef
Get real, in actual fact it is highy likely that a Commissioner, will act where he/she/they can in the interests of the country said Comissioner comes from, that is the nature of politics after all, Machiavellianism, self interest,I'm quite sure you know this already.

OK, since I can't prove a negative, it's up to you to give examples of where commissioners have acted solely in the interests of their own countries, rather than the interest of the larger Union.

Why though, convince me as a No voter, how it is the contents of the Treaty are in Irish interests. Perhaps it is the case that you can not do so, because in fact the Treaty is not in Irish interests.

Ireland has plenty to gain from full EU enlargement and from the improved streamlined decision-making process that Nice will bring.

In any case, evaluating the Nice treaty purely on the basis of its benefits to Ireland seems rather selfish to me. What argument are you making here? "If there's nothing in it for Ireland, screw the rest of Europe. We don't care about anyone else, as long as we're all right. Ireland über alles!"??

Thanx 4 The Fish

That seems like a very fair argument to me. Why should a people be expected to vote in favour of a treaty that could eventually prove detremental to their country ?

I know that if there were to be no advantage to Ireland, I would not vote Yes.

Typedef

Originally posted by Thanx 4 The Fish

I know that if there were to be no advantage to Ireland, I would not vote Yes.

With all due respect, I as a No voter would require something more substancial then your word for it to change my vote.

PH01

Originally posted by Typedef

Why though, convince me as a No voter, how it is the contents of the Treaty are in Irish interests. Perhaps it is the case that you can not do so, because in fact the Treaty is not in Irish interests. Unfortunately for your argument you seem to be alluding to consequences of voting No, not benefits of voting Yes. The supposed consequences proported by the No side at best seem vague and at worst seem subjective to the context of the argument the Yes vote is involved with.

?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=593146#post593146

Originally posted by Typedef


Aside from this, the notion that consequences to voting No are the only reasons to vote Yes, is in fact electoral scaremongering or bullying to use an arbitrary euphamism.

Not that old chestnut?

Originally posted by Typedef

And rightly so, the Irish people have rejected a Treaty for further integration, it is not the place of the government, the Eurocrat or a loose conglomeration of interest groups dubbing itself the Yes side to dictate how the Irish people participate in Europe, rather it is the place of the Irish people to dictate to the parties named how Ireland should participate in Europe. The treaty was rejected, thus either the Treaty gets changed such that the Irish people become satisfied with it or the government begins to disentangle Ireland from the political elements of the EU, because the choice and wishes of the Irish people actually supercede the government's discomfort in representing the wishes of the Irish people in Europe, by either renegotiating the Nice Treaty or removing Ireland from the political integration process.

Maybe you're right that the Irish people want out of Europe. We'll have to wait and see what the turnout will be and who wins. I suppose we can then welcome back the bad old days then. That is if it is the wish of the Irish people.

Originally posted by Typedef

I must point out that you have already suggested that Ireland's views will be sidestepped and that political integration and EU expansion will continue despite Irish opinion, so does that really agree with the notion that Ireland is a participant in Europe or a dictated and subservient state?

Which is it? Member state or Subject state? If we are members then Ireland's opinion must be respected, if Ireland's view is to be 'side stepped' then Ireland must not allow itself to be coerced into further political Union.

I'd just like some clarity from Yes proponents on this one.

It all depends on what you sign up to for your membership that will determine what responsibilities and privileges you will have. If we don't sign-up for Nice we will still be members but we won't get access all areas, if you can follow my meaning?

Originally posted by Typedef

Again what are you trying to say, Ireland will be expelled for voicing an opinion or that Ireland's opinion will simply not be respected? It seems to me as if Ireland's opinion on the Nice treaty given via plebiscite in the last Referendum has already been disrespected, so in that regard I wonder what this Republic actually has to loose?

We have a lot of lose if we vote 'No' and a lot to gain if we vote 'Yes'. There is no sitting on the fence on this one. The EU won't be the same again after Nice.

Meh

Originally posted by Thanx 4 The Fish
That seems like a very fair argument to me. Why should a people be expected to vote in favour of a treaty that could eventually prove detremental to their country ?

I know that if there were to be no advantage to Ireland, I would not vote Yes.

OK, I wasn't very clear there. I was expressing the hope that the electorate would take both the domestic effects of the treaty and the wider international issues into account before voting. To artificially limit the discussion on the Nice Treaty to its effects on this country is to ignore its real significance. The Nice Treaty is advantageous to Ireland because it is advantageous to Europe as a whole.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Originally posted by Typedef


With all due respect, I as a No voter would require something more substancial then your word for it to change my vote.

My word on what ?

I have only said that if there were to be no advantages to Ireland I wouldn't vote yes.

I have not said that there are no advantages.

Originally posted by Meh
The Nice Treaty is advantageous to Ireland because it is advantageous to Europe as a whole.

If this is the case then it would appear that there is an advantage to Ireland... No ?

Typedef

I'm not criticising, but you should probably spell out what advantages there are for Ireland to ratify the Treaty of Nice.

Again it seems like vague innuendo when people make sweeping statements like "There will be dire repercussions on a No vote" and so on, without even trying to exponenciate the ways in which such alleged repercussions will come about.

Still I find difficulty in accepting that fear of the consequences of rejection where consequences imply anger from the EU or etheral and unsubstanciated falloffs in investment are in fact reasons to vote for the Treaty, said predictions seem subjective, irrational, without basis and quite frankley irrelevant to the substance of the Treaty text which is what the vote should be about, not the vaunted consequences of rejection.

"Do as I say or I will use my magic powers"... please

Cork

They are no advantages to Ireland in putting this shambles of a treaty into our constitution. By voting "NO" - we will be sending the EU a message that we want a more accountable EU.

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
Which is it? Member state or Subject state? If we are members then Ireland's opinion must be respected, if Ireland's view is to be 'side stepped' then Ireland must not allow itself to be coerced into further political Union.

I take it you feel that Fine Gael are a "Subject Party" rather than a "Parliamentary Party" as well then? Well, theyre a bit large. Maybe the Greens, or hey, just an independant on his own. No democracy their - the wishes of these monorities are being sidestepped and ignored on a daily basis. Shock. Horror. Democracy is undemocratic.

Democracy - which you hold sacrosanct - is about imajority rule. There is absolutely nothing undemocratic about the majority finding ways to work around the obstacles that the minorities have placed in their way.

Also, I would dearly love to know how you equate sidestepping Ireland's objections with co-ercing us to follow their lead. The EU cannot effect any change on this nation which would require a change to our constitution, unless you think they are going to invade us and force us to agree at gunpoint.

A far more likely scenario is that they will simply start forming additional "opt-in" features, like the Euro currently is, and let us make our choice. We get to choose to opt out of a number of things, which will then make it impossible for us to choose to opt in to others (dependancies), ultimately causing us to choose to be marginalised or integrated.

Now, if you believe that this, is in effect, ignoring our democratic wishes, then I would love to know how the democratic wishes of the rest of Europe are not being ridden over rough-shod by the belief that the minority dissention is far more important than the majority of unanimity.

Funnily...when you look at it this way, it looks like the Nice Treaty is another chance to vote to become second-class.....by rejecting it again.

[quoteAgain what are you trying to say, Ireland will be expelled for voicing an opinion or that Ireland's opinion will simply not be respected? [/QUOTE]
Neither. Ireland will be marginalised by our own choices. Ultimately, this may lead us to a position where we can no longer feasibly stay a member of the EU, but again, this will be our choice.

Europe cannot be held slave to us, nor more than we to them. If we cannot agree, then we must disagree and go our seperate ways. Intially, these seperate ways will be encompassable by the EU, but ultimately they will not.

And given that we're looking for clarity.....exactly what should the EU do if we reject Nice? And remember...clarity was what you requested...so make sure you have some here. No handwaving of "find another solution" or "renegotiate honestly". Tell us what the EU needs to do to protect democracy, the Irish wishes, and the wishes of the other nations.

Cause I havent heard a single No answer to this yet. I have heard the scaremongering of what the EU will do, and why its all so bad, but not once have I heard what they should do.

jc

dahamsta

Dahamsta, this is a fact. A Commissioner's first duty is to all the peoples of the EU and not just the country they come from.

Ditto my previous statement. If you actually believe that... well, I suppose that's your right; I make no apologies for laughing my ass off. Personally, I think you're mixing up rules and reality. Ne'er the twain shall meet.

Yes Dahamsta, I am projecting. This is what I believe will happen in the future if there is another 'No' vote.

It may well be what you believe, but the post I was responding to was statement painted as fact. You have a right to believe what you want, but I believe it's wrong to paint opinion as truth. I have guff and make-believe about Nice coming out my ears, so I come here to get away from that and look for facts.

Scaremongering? You tell us Nice will fall, Europe will fall apart. If it's not true, it's scaremongering. It's not true.

adam

Meh

Originally posted by dahamsta
Ditto my previous statement. If you actually believe that... well, I suppose that's your right; I make no apologies for laughing my ass off. Personally, I think you're mixing up rules and reality. Ne'er the twain shall meet.

Originally posted by Meh:
OK, since I can't prove a negative, it's up to you to give examples of where commissioners have acted solely in the interests of their own countries, rather than the interest of the larger Union.

PH01

It may well be what you believe, but the post I was responding to was statement painted as fact. You have a right to believe what you want, but I believe it's wrong to paint opinion as truth. I have guff and make-believe about Nice coming out my ears, so I come here to get away from that and look for facts.

Sorry dahamsta I'm not painting here! But I do reckon that I'm dealing with the realities here of the political consequences of a 'No'.
So you've come here looking for facts, but if you're not prepared to read and discuss your opinions with others, you are not going to get anywhere.
So far this forum has been pretty good place to discuss this topic. Lets hope it continues.

dahamsta

PH01, my comments have absolutely nothing to do with Nice, they are strictly about the post I originally replied to. Like I said, I'm simply sick of hearing unprovable statements. Every day I'm being told that a Yes to Nice will have $these consequences, and a No vote will have $those consequences. No explanation, no proof, just "$this is what will happen". Given the lies and deceit coming out of the mouths of the people most keen to see a Yes vote, is it any wonder I'm leaning towards No? That's not punishing the Government, it's simply not believing them. They're liars. Why should I believe them now?

Meh, I don't know enough about Europe to be able to prove it. I know enough about people to believe it though.

adam

shotamoose

Originally posted by bonkey

Democracy - which you hold sacrosanct - is about imajority rule. There is absolutely nothing undemocratic about the majority finding ways to work around the obstacles that the minorities have placed in their way.

Some models of democracy are all about majority rule, some are about varying levels of cooperation and consensus. And I don't think the analogy between parties or people in a national democracy and nations in the EU is a good one. If you vote for the Green Party and they don't get into power or mess things up in some way, you can always change your mind and vote for Fianna Fail. But a Greek can't decide to be a German if he thinks his representatives are being ignored. Decision making in the Commission and the Council resemble more decision making in a cabinet like ours or Englands, and they rely on consensus and collective responsibility.

Nations are whole and self-contained political communities and the primary means by which their citizens express their political preferences. If a nation is over-ruled in an international organisation it's not just 10 million random people being over-ruled but the embodiment of a unique political community. If the European Parliament ran the show in Europe, this wouldn't be such a problem - the decison-makers would be directly elected by people, and you could genuinely say that national political borders were significantly less important. But the EP doesn't run the show, the Council and Commission do, and they're still carved up on national grounds.

I realise this is paradoxical - the EU won't work if non-nation-based institutions precede non-nation-based politics, but how will we know if nation-based politics is on the way out without non-nation-based institutions?

But perhaps this is another reason why national political communities will continue to be the basic building blocks of international organisations. Because they are set up to provide optimum representation for their public, and because their publics seem to like it that way. The only way to ensure that these publics don't get worried about distant and detached decision-making is to base international decision-making on each country having a veto. This is not efficient, but it is, from the most important perspective (voter's-eye-view) democratic.

And given that we're looking for clarity.....exactly what should the EU do if we reject Nice? And remember...clarity was what you requested...so make sure you have some here. No handwaving of "find another solution" or "renegotiate honestly". Tell us what the EU needs to do to protect democracy, the Irish wishes, and the wishes of the other nations.

Cause I havent heard a single No answer to this yet. I have heard the scaremongering of what the EU will do, and why its all so bad, but not once have I heard what they should do.

jc

I don't know what answer anyone could give that would satisfy you, since any answer that does not say 'renegotiate' would pre-empt the views of those doing the renegotiating and so be undemocratic. No, renegotiate is exactly what they have to do. If necessary do it again and again. Keep doing it until they come up with a Treaty that everyone agrees on, with opt-outs and opt-ins aplenty if necessary. It won't be easy and it won't be fun, but that always has been and always will be the only way they can do this. I'm sure it peeves some in Europe that consensus is required to introduce majority rule, but that's just tough.

PH01

Originally posted by dahamsta
PH01, my comments have absolutely nothing to do with Nice, they are strictly about the post I originally replied to. Like I said, I'm simply sick of hearing unprovable statements. Every day I'm being told that a Yes to Nice will have $these consequences, and a No vote will have $those consequences. No explanation, no proof, just "$this is what will happen". Given the lies and deceit coming out of the mouths of the people most keen to see a Yes vote, is it any wonder I'm leaning towards No? That's not punishing the Government, it's simply not believing them. They're liars. Why should I believe them now?

Meh, I don't know enough about Europe to be able to prove it. I know enough about people to believe it though.

adam

You're probably right about what you say. It is very difficult to get or to provide a simple explanation to such a complex issue. And sometimes when you a simple answer to an issue like this you tend not to believe it anyway because it is coming from someone you're not open to in the first place.

For example, lets take the slogan "You will lose Money, Power & Freedom - Vote No to Nice". To me this message is total rubbish because it is coming from people like "National Platform", "Green Party", "Sinn Fein", "Socialist Party", "Workers Party", "Immigration Control Platform" and others. Now if the same slogan came from the likes of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Irish Alliance for Europe, Labour Party, Progressive Democrats, IBEC, Chambers of Commerce of Ireland, IFA, ICOS and other, I would likely vote 'No'.

This is not to say that I can't think for myself. I can. You simply can't be expected to know everything. I could spend all the hours that god send me find out and reading up on this issue but I won't. I'll take advice from the people or parties I trust. And as it stands now I trust the message I'm currently getting from the 'Yes' side.

I can then take that message and add it to my own knowledge, and argue the case for a 'Yes' vote.

Hope this helps?

Typedef

Originally posted by bonkey
Democracy - which you hold sacrosanct - is about imajority rule. There is absolutely nothing undemocratic about the majority finding ways to work around the obstacles that the minorities have placed in their way.

I don't necessarily subscribe to the notion that majority rule is analagous to democracy. For me democracy is about representation of the views of people, so that notion that the winner takes all is undemocratic in my view. For example Proportional Representation is a voting system that takes into account the fact that it is not simply the majority that have a say in governance and representation, but the minority who must also be represented, a notable contrast to First Past the Post, which is in my view less democratic. If democracy were simply a case of the winner taking all and majority rule, then when it came time for elections, the party who got the most votes would take all the seats in parliment, which would be unrepresentative though technically 'democratic' in the strictest meaning of the word. Pluralist, representative democracy has to afford representation to the minority and the more diametrically opposed to the majority opinion the minority is, the less argument you can make for winner takes all democracy actually being democratic or representative, if one works on the assumption that democracy is all about representation as fairly and as accurately as possible of the opinion of the voters.

Also, I would dearly love to know how you equate sidestepping Ireland's objections with co-ercing us to follow their lead.

I am rebuffing a point made that Ireland will have it's opinion side stepped. I too would like to see how it is Ireland could have it's opinon disregarded vis-a-vis federalism, in the abscence of Qualified Majority Voting on enhanced co-operation. That is one reason I regard this Treaty as being so important for Irish soveringty. Simply put, as I have stated before, the attempt to re-run the Nice Treaty is an attempt to get around the opinion voiced by the Irish electorate, without actually addressing the implications of a rejection. This is quintessentially undemocratic, as again the more extraneous means one employs to prorouge the wishes of the minority (in this instance the Irish people v the rest of Europe in opinon on the Nice Treaty), the less representative one's democracy is and the more about majority unilateralism 'democracy' becomes.

A far more likely scenario is that they will simply start forming additional "opt-in" features, like the Euro currently is, and let us make our choice. We get to choose to opt out of a number of things, which will then make it impossible for us to choose to opt in to others (dependancies), ultimately causing us to choose to be marginalised or integrated.

Yes renegotiation could and should take place, though I don't necessarily accept the argument that not participating in European political integration (as opposed to some economic facets) is akin to marginalisation, rather it is a choice that respects the choice's of the minority ie Ireland in Europe. The difference is the minority is in fact a soverign government and a soverign nation and the EU is not the supreme parliment by which the minority (ie the Irish in this instance) are represented, instead it is the Dial and the Irish constitution that is the supreme artifice and exponent of governance and representation in Ireland, thus majority rule vis-a-vis Europe is irrelevant to the opinion of the Irish people in relation to the soverign state of Ireland and the directions Ireland takes in Europe. Thus the views of the Majority in Europe vis-a-vis Ireland's participation in political integration must come behind the views of the Irish people in European political integration, as it is the Irish people and the Irish people alone who ultimately have the power and duty to create a representative and fair model of representation conducive with political opinion in the soverign state of Ireland.

Now, if you believe that this, is in effect, ignoring our democratic wishes, then I would love to know how the democratic wishes of the rest of Europe are not being ridden over rough-shod by the belief that the minority dissention is far more important than the majority of unanimity.

Ireland is a soverign state jc, thus the views of anyone not Irish are irrelevant in terms of Ireland's choice to ceed soveringty or integrate into Europe. Perhaps it is unfortunate for European Federalists that Irish consent is currently required for some aspects of integration, however in so far as the process affects Irish soveringty it must remain unfortunate for European Federalists, because as a soverign state in Europe decisions effecting Irish soveringty are left to be deicded by the Irish people and the Irish people alone.

Funnily...when you look at it this way, it looks like the Nice Treaty is another chance to vote to become second-class.....by rejecting it again.

On the contrary when you look the Treaty question as I have just exponenciated it, it would seem that voting No in fact reaffirms and endemnifiys Ireland's right to self determination as a soverign state.

Neither. Ireland will be marginalised by our own choices. Ultimately, this may lead us to a position where we can no longer feasibly stay a member of the EU, but again, this will be our choice.

bonkey, you know as well as I do that is pure speculation. If the EU continues to attempt to dictate to Ireland on matters that effect Irish soveringty (as is is currently doing with the Nice Treaty re-run) then yes I accept that continued participation in the politcal aspects of what is now the EU will be come untenable so long as Ireland remains a soverign state. If however the EU respects Ireland's democratic decision (as opposed to attemtping to reverse it) then so long as Ireland consents to further participation in the EU, there is no need to seced from the EU.

Europe cannot be held slave to us, nor more than we to them.

Absolutely, Ireland is a minority in Europe, but more importantly a soverign state, thus Ireland can not be held accountable in perpetuity for a Treaty that if put to all the peoples of Europe in plebiscite as it has been in Ireland would not be the burdon of the Irish people alone to rebuff and redesign to make said Treaty more universally acceptable, as quite clearly popular opinon is not forthcoming from people in many other European states. Fortunately or depending on your outlook unfortunately the Irish people are the only people in Europe who have been given the opportunity to excercise the franchise on this issue and exercised it they have and in so far as one must respect the soveringty of this state that result has to be addressed. It has not been addressed, rather a sinister attempt to reverse the democratic decision of the Irish Republic on the Treaty of Nice is underway in a 're-run' to use the newspeak vernacular of the Treaty plebiscite in Ireland, which is not representative governance, though is in the strictest sense of the word 'democracy', it is simply not representative nor particulary respectful to validity of Referenduma in Ireland.

And given that we're looking for clarity.....exactly what should the EU do if we reject Nice?

Renegotiate the Nice Treaty simply. Do I sound like Ian Paisley yet? Shall I tell you what the difference here is? The Belfast agreement had the consent of a majority of the people of the Republic of Ireland, the majority of Unionists in North of Ireland and the majority of Nationalists in the North of Ireland. If the Belfast agreement had been rejected by Unionism it could not have been ratified, despite the fact that most people in Ireland had voted for the Agreement (which is no the case with Nice in Europe). Where the corollary diverges even further is, imagine the Unionists had been a soverign country unto themselves and had rejected the Belfast Agreement. The argument you are attempting to exponenciate is that the Unionists should in that instance cave in to the opinon of the majority of the people in Ireland, despite being a soverign government, which is not only absurd but ludicrous and negates the concept of representative governance where it applies to soverign states and governments.

So since the soverign state of Ireland has rejected the Nice Treaty the proper course of action is to renegotate the Treaty until such time as the Treaty becomes acceptable to the people of Ireland or Ireland simply never ratifys said Treaty, the views of people who are not citizens of the soverign state of Ireland are in this instance superflous and irrelevant, as are all non-Irish citizen views in so far as Irish soveringty, law, liberty and persuit of happiness are concerned, because Ireland is a soverign country.

The views expressed here do not necessarily relfect the views of my employer,next of kin, ex girlfriends or pets .....
Cuidado con el Gato

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
Ireland is a soverign state jc, thus the views of anyone not Irish are irrelevant in terms of Ireland's choice to ceed soveringty or integrate into Europe

......

So since the soverign state of Ireland has rejected the Nice Treaty the proper course of action is to renegotate the Treaty until such time as the Treaty becomes acceptable to the people of Ireland or Ireland simply never ratifys said Treaty, the views of people who are not citizens of the soverign state of Ireland are in this instance superflous and irrelevant, as are all non-Irish citizen views in so far as Irish soveringty, law, liberty and persuit of happiness are concerned, because Ireland is a soverign country.

May I take it then that you would have no problems with a Treaty which basically said that all decisions of the nature that require member-state ratification could be implemented on an opt-in/opt-out basis like the Euro was. That way, we would remain masters of our own destiny, foreign opinion wouldnt matter a damn, etc. etc. etc.

Also, I think you will find that non-Irish citizen views are relevant in this situation. If Ireland had ratified Nice, and (say) Italy hadnt, then the Italian opinion would be very bloody important to us, because they would be able to stop us achieving our chosen goals.

I would also suggest that if you believe that non-Irish are irrelevant in terms of law and liberty are concerned, that you go and read up on the European Courts. I think you'll find that non-Irish people have a hell of a lot of influence in these areas.

jc

p.s. Incidentally, your belief that the Irish should be the only decider's of Irish people's liberty and pursuit of happiness flies directly in the face of your stance on Human Rights, Oppressive regimes etc. As does the whole "masters of our own destiny" argument in general.

Typedef

p.s. Incidentally, your belief that the Irish should be the only decider's of Irish people's liberty and pursuit of happiness flies directly in the face of your stance on Human Rights, Oppressive regimes etc. As does the whole "masters of our own destiny" argument in general.

Except when I say Irish people I emphatically "don't" mean government, I mean citizens, so in this instance it is the Irish citizen ultimately via plebiscite of one form or another who should decide the rights,directions and thrust of Irish Political life, not the European Court on (x), the European Court on (x) is a not the supreme form of representation of the edicts and wishes of the Irish people.

More importantly, the Irish people are the only people in the entire Union who have been given the opportunity to vote on the Nice Treaty

If Ireland had ratified Nice, and (say) Italy hadnt, then the Italian opinion would be very bloody important to us, because they would be able to stop us achieving our chosen goals.

However those would be the choices of the Italian government, not the Italian people, it is quite doubtful if the Treaty of Nice were put to a vote throughout every member state in the Union that the Irish Republic would be the only country to reject it, thus the Irish people are not filibustering the people of Europe, as the 'people' of Europe haven't really spoken on this issue.

Sure you can argue that government of country (x) represents the wishes of it's people, but clearly the Irish governmnet doesn't represent the wishes of the Irish people on this issue (expressed via Referendum), so how can one know for sure that the other governments are representing their people in the way those people actually want to be represented? Exactly, it's not possible to know that, since it would quite patently in the case of the Irish government be an abject lie.