If No to Nice then what?

Paulg

All the NO voters are saying we should vote NO to Nice cos its a bad treaty, so what would they like to see in the treaty that would be a workable alternative...

PH01

A workable alternative?
Here's what the 'No' side propose to do.

1. Take Ireland out of the EU.
2. Shut the borders.
3. Introduce a policy of self-sufficiency - i.e no more bananas?
4. Increase the taxes on multi-nationals by 500%
5. Make mass compulsory and make the Roman Catholic church the offical religion of the State.
6. No foreign media allowed - i.e. no foreign newspapers, TV or Internet.
7. No foreigners allowed - You have to be white, Catholic and a holder of an Irish passport to be allowed to stay in Ireland.


...there more I'm sure...

Cork

I may have escaped you that we said no before by democratic vote.

Nothing happened. Things continued as normal.

If we say no again. Nothing will change. Life will continue.

dathi1

4. Increase the taxes on multi-nationals by 500%

Don't worry our new German masters in Brussels will definitely see to this under Nice at the behest of the Brits new court action on our special low company tax rate in Dec.

Irish company tax rate Before Nice 12%
with Nice ratified vee dont caare vat yu think.: 500%

Jobs go east

---

Cheap Labour goes west NO2Nice

Ruari Quinn on Nice:

Paulg

We will have to have a new referendum on a different treaty. What would the NO voters like to see in that treaty that will make them want to vote YES...

Or are they anti-europeans?

PH01

Originally posted by Paulg

Or are they anti-europeans?

They're anti-everything.

They would even campaign against the Laws of Gravity!

Meh

Originally posted by dathi1
Don't worry our new German masters in Brussels will definitely see to this under Nice at the behest of the Brits new court action on our special low company tax rate in Dec.

Uhhhh...the UK is against tax harmonization, and successfully helped Ireland resist it during the Nice negotiations.

Irish company tax rate Before Nice 12%
with Nice ratified vee dont caare vat yu think.: 500%

On the contrary, since tax harmonization needs a unanimous vote, they do care what we think. Also, a tax rate of more than 100% is mathematically impossible.

dahamsta

Here's what the 'No' side propose to do.

Stereotyping now PH01? That's a real mature way of getting your opinion across.

adam

dathi1

On the contrary, since tax harmonization needs a unanimous vote,

With the big states calling the shots and our loss of power they can easly sway other states to back them up.

Also, a tax rate of more than 100% is mathematically impossible.

Thats why I have after it...23% Germany and France will say.

FF's NICE Whip Dick Roche:

Typedef

Originally posted by Meh
Uhhhh...the UK is against tax harmonization, and successfully helped Ireland resist it during the Nice negotiations. On the contrary, since tax harmonization needs a unanimous vote, they do care what we think. Also, a tax rate of more than 100% is mathematically impossible.

For sure the UK is against tax harmonisation, however it was the UK that originally brought up Ireland's low rate of corporate tax in the European context, not the French, the Spanish, the Germans or some random Eurocrat.

Just to be clear the French suggested tax harmonisation and the British complained about Ireland's low rate of corporate tax, the two concepts much like the two countries are seperate and distinct.

buddy

Yes means we lose power in the EU - we lose our commisioner - we lose power as our vote is no longer tallied as the same as every other country - YES is good for the bigger countires - not for us!

Ireland has said NO to NICE already - you people speak as if YES is the only option - the majority of voters did not agree last time!

Paulg

Many people voted NO last time cos they didn't understand the issues. Most people didn't vote at all.

The referendum commission needs to get the facts across to the public this time so that people vote yes or no for the right reasons.

Meh

Originally posted by dathi1
With the big states calling the shots and our loss of power they can easly sway other states to back them up.

How exactly would France and Germany be able to coerce Ireland into agreeing to tax harmonization? Under what conditions would any Irish government agree to this? In other words, what could the EU "threaten" us with that would have worse consequences for this country than tax harmonization?

The No side have been saying that we will be "bullied" into agreeing to harmonization, but they've been very short on specifics as to how this would be done.

Keep in mind that the EU budget contributions still require unanimity under Nice (page 28, article 2.44.2):

2. The Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament and obtaining the opinion of the Court of Auditors, shall determine the methods and procedure whereby the budget revenue provided under the arrangements relating to the Community's own resources shall be made available to the Commission, and determine the measures to be applied, if need be, to meet cash requirements.í

Also note that this decision is made by the Council of Ministers, not the Commission.

Typedef

Many people voted NO last time cos they didn't understand the issues. Most people didn't vote at all.

The referendum commission needs to get the facts across to the public this time so that people vote yes or no for the right reasons.

That is such utter snobbery. You are attempting to tell me that I didn't know what I was voting for in the last Referendum so it's ok to simply set aside that Referendum result as a result returned by a bunch of idots? Well excuse me if I don't meet the criteria of your sliding scale of electoral competence, I presume if I were to get hit by a bolt of lighting and suddenly decide to vote Yes to Nice you would deem me properly informed?

Give it a rest. I understood exactly why I voted No, ostensibly because I thought that the loss of voting powers to this country were unacceptable and that the creation of an avant garde of Federal integration would place the soveringty of Eire in an unteanable position of playing catch up with rabid Federalist states like France and Germany. Who are you to tell me I don't have the capacity to understand the issues pertaing to voting in Nice, because I didn't vote the way you think is best? Who died and made you god?

This entire attitude is the obnoxious stink that has come from the likes of Gerhard Schroder and Romano Prodi, who have the audacity to suggest that because the Irish voted against their vaunted avant garde ideal of European integration that the Irish voter is somehow intellectually inferior! What cheek, I'd venture dollars to pesos neither Ramano Prodi nor Gerhard Schroder put together are anywhere near as good at programming as I am, so under what skewed set of circumstances do such proven intellecutals think they might call my powers of deduction or logic into question because I cast aspersion on the European Federalist edict excuse me, dictat?

I'd just need to know the answer to that.

buddy

Their ad's are very vagues in what they're putting across - the European Army thing is certainly misleading and should be a part of our constitution with/without the treaty - we are and want to be a neutral country!

And I don't think they have a good Yes/No comparison on refcom.ie - correct me if I'm wrong!

PH01

Originally posted by dahamsta
Here's what the 'No' side propose to do.

Stereotyping now PH01? That's a real mature way of getting your opinion across.

adam

Yeah, I know. I should have put a smiley after my original post above. I'm just stirring it a little. But you get the message all the same.

Also, I don't know how people can say that if we vote 'No' that things will remain the same and that things will go on as before? In one sence this is true, but it won't be fore long as nobody knows what will happen if Nice doesn't go through.
Will Nice be renegociated, or will the other EU states go ahead without us? Well that desicion will be out of our hands if there is a No vote.
I reckon that the other EU states will go ahead without us. So yes we would continue as we are, but the other EU states would then be at a different level post Nice.

buddy

But technically they can't go ahead without us - they would have to remove us from the E.U. which I think would be a little zealous on their part - if they want to know our vote and they get a NO than theybahve to respect that someone actually does'nt believe it is right, that the E.U. not need a shuffle up, that the bigger countries should NOT have more power than us - if that was the case we shoudl let the US claim that they are lord and ruler of the planet because they are the biggest!

Typedef

Originally posted by PH01
I reckon that the other EU states will go ahead without us. So yes we would continue as we are, but the other EU states would then be at a different level post Nice.

Again that can't happen, as Irish ratification is required for the Nice Treaty to come into force throughout the EU.

What I think a rejection would mean for the EU is that it would be faced with a situation where it would either try to palm off the Irish again with no substantive changes to the Nice Treaty and no real negotation on the Nice Treaty's conent exponenciated throughout Europe and thus risk having the Treaty defeated yet again and filibustering even further the various contents of the Treaty of Nice still further or the EU would have to totally renegotiate the Treaty with all parties involved.

Personally I feel that with the utterly arrogant attitude men like Ramano Prodi and Gerhard Schroder showed by effectively ordering this State to have another Referendum on the Nice Treaty, I can't honestly see the Eurocrats having enough respect nor forsight to substancially renegotiate the Treaty, and in such circumstances the Treaty of Nice will probably continue to be defeated by the Irish electorate until such time as it is rewritten to be less Federalist, aportion more power to small states like Ireland and is generally a better deal for small countries, instead of a mechanism for the Avant Garde of European Federalism to annex effective dictatorial control over the European Union and fast track the venerated Supra National Superstate into existance.

€0.02

Paulg

The EU is a union of countries. This power of veto that there is at the moment should be removed. "Majority rules" and thats the way it should be, Ireland shouldn't even have a veto on this treaty.

Paulg

And another point, this boll*x about irelands neutrallity...

Ireland have been supporting terroism for the past 30 years, the IRA's war against the british has been supported by the man in the street to the highest quarters of government...

buddy

Its not a majority - its all or none - everyone in the group must agree for the change to be made - smaller states should not be made agree to anything which they do not desire of could adversely affect them, hence everyone's on board of the ship ain't leaving the dock!

Supporting terrorism - everyone in this country except the members of this *organisations* wishes there was peace - put that to a vote and see how many people say - Yes, we love terrorism!

Paulg

I never said that anyone loved terrism, i said that the country surpported it, certainly in the past.

Meh

Originally posted by Paulg
"Majority rules" and thats the way it should be, Ireland shouldn't even have a veto on this treaty.

I think a lot of Yes voters (myself included) would disagree with you there...

Ireland have been supporting terroism for the past 30 years, the IRA's war against the british has been supported by the man in the street to the highest quarters of government...

If you're referring to Mr. Haughey's (alleged) connections with arms smuggling, he was fired as a minister and put on trial for this... In any case, I fail to see what Northern Ireland has to do with the Nice Treaty.

buddy

I think they're one and the same - if you hate terorism, you would not support it - some people, very minimal may have tried to profit from terrorism but that is not what you were suggesting!

Paulg

"fired as a minister" and then goes on to lead the country!
Neutrallity is a big part of the NO vote campaign.

OK, on the Veto thing, when the EU had a small number of countries, then the veto is a valid thing. But as it enlarged, it would be nearly impossible for all countries to agree on anything.

And if one country has a grudge against another, it could vote against something and punish the rest of Europe in doing so.

MindPhuck

Im not one for a political debate at all. I am voting no, very simply because I already voted no and so did the majority of ireland vote no.

What rights do the current government have to force us to vote again ? What I get is 'ahh now, sorry, us irish are a wee bit thick and didn't understand what it was about..'.

Were a democtractic state and were being treated like little children who don't know any better. How dare they actually force us into voting again in fairness. Its almost like tossing a coin in the air, on best of three and when its not in the loosers favour, they say, best of three again...

buddy

Originally posted by MindPhuck
What rights do the current government have to force us to vote again ? What I get is 'ahh now, sorry, us irish are a wee bit thick and didn't understand what it was about..'.

Were a democtractic state and were being treated like little children who don't know any better. How dare they actually force us into voting again in fairness. Its almost like tossing a coin in the air, on best of three and when its not in the loosers favour, they say, best of three again...

Ne'er a truer word was said!

We're among the best educated in Europe and Europe is telling us that they're not accepting our first decision - change your mind - it will be ridiculous if a YES vote is given this time!

Paulg

it will be ridiculous if a YES vote is given this time!

Why will it be ridiculous?

MindPhuck

Originally posted by Paulg
Why will it be ridiculous?

Wouldnt it be 'funny' if the YES vote was given and all the NO voters screamed and yet another Referendum had to take place?

Not that it 'they' would give another Referendum as they would have gotten what they wanted. Yes, lets toss the coin again..

buddy

Originally posted by Paulg
Why will it be ridiculous?

Because the voting electorate of this nation has already voted on this one!

PH01

Originally posted by buddy
Because the voting electorate of this nation has already voted on this one!

And if you vote No again there'll be another referendum. And again, and again, and Again until you get it right.
So vote 'Yes' and get it over and done with.

Paulg

Because the voting electorate of this nation has already voted on this one!

But if it is a YES this time in a fair referendum, then why is it ridiculous?
I think putting the same referendum to the electorate again was a shocking decision.
If its a YES vote then thats what the people of ireland want, if its a NO vote, then the government will have a lot to answer for.

But it's not exactly the same referendum.
If the "neutralty" abridged referendum that is now being put to the people is voted down then the EU have no choice but to go back to the drawing board, as we will have vetoed the Nice treaty.
Our difficulty will clearly be with other aspects of the treaty.
Some E.U governments will find ways to put together a Euro Army for those within the EU that want it, just like they did with the currency.
It's not as simple an issue as a case of keep on "referenduming" the people untill you get Nice passed.
If it does not pass the Treaty will have to be changed even if only slightly, otherwise another referendum would not wash.
That would be a very democratic procedure imho.
mm

Cork

But it's not exactly the same referendum.

We are after enough of spin - It is the same referendum and the same treaty.

It's not as simple an issue as a case of keep on "referenduming" the people untill you get Nice passed.

Call a Spade a Spade.

We are voting on this shambles of a treaty.

Meh

Originally posted by Cork
We are after enough of spin - It is the same referendum and the same treaty.

It isn't the same referendum. There are two extra clauses in the proposed amendment, concerning neutrality and enhanced cooperation.

Paulg

All these replies, but no one from the NO side said what they would like to see in a referendum that would allow the 12 applicant countries join the EU.

Ireland has more of the percentage vote than the population percentage we have of the EU, so why do they object to our loss of voting power in the larger EU. Its obvious that when these countris join the EU, every existing country will get a lesser share of the vote... so whats the problem??

Is there anything in the existing treaty that they like???

buddy

1 vote per country is what we want to maintain - not .23% for one country and 2% for another country - that just diminshes are ability to have a say!

Did you see the signs - NO does not mean they can't join - those 12 countries can still join without NICE!

Paulg

Its not one vote per country at present.
Did anyone here read the Nice treaty?

buddy

Thats news to me!

1 Commisioner = 1 Vote

Meh

Originally posted by buddy
Thats news to me!

In that case, I suggest you read the Nice Treaty and the treaties it amends.

Biffa Bacon

I notice that none of the No to Nice people have answered the initial question. What exactly do you want changed in the treaty? It’s a simple enough question.

- we lose our commisioner –

All countries lose the automatic right to a Commissioner. The larger states in fact do worse than the smaller ones as now they will only be entitled to the same number of Commissioners as the smaller countries.

…we lose power as our vote is no longer tallied as the same as every other country…

Are you referring to QMV? You do realise it already exists?

…we are and want to be a neutral country!

We are not a neutral country as we give the US the right to conduct military exercises in our airspace and refuel in our airports. And I for one don’t want us to be neutral.

I am voting no, very simply because I already voted no and so did the majority of ireland vote no.

Incorrect, it was only a majority of people who actually voted that voted No.

What rights do the current government have to force us to vote again ?

The vast majority of people who voted No last time around hadn’t a notion what was in the treaty. Therefore it’s perfectly reasonable for the government to hold the referendum again if they believe that this time around the electorate will be fully informed of what it’s about.

What I get is 'ahh now, sorry, us irish are a wee bit thick and didn't understand what it was about..'.

Yes that’s true, the people who voted No are a wee bit thick. That much should be clear from the discussion on Nice on this board.

Its almost like tossing a coin in the air, on best of three and when its not in the loosers favour, they say, best of three again...

No, the outcome of tossing a coin is a random event, the outcome of a referendum is the freely-expressed will of the electorate.

Thats news to me!

1 Commisioner = 1 Vote

Good grief :rolleyes:

Typedef

I notice that none of the No to Nice people have answered the initial question. What exactly do you want changed in the treaty? It’s a simple enough question.

Actually I thought the subject of the Thread was "If No to Nice then what?", which I answered, a renegotiation in accordance with the wishes of the Irish electorate, given via plebiscite.

All countries lose the automatic right to a Commissioner. The larger states in fact do worse than the smaller ones as now they will only be entitled to the same number of Commissioners as the smaller countries.

That is an issue for those countries, Ireland's issue is that for many Irish voter, the majority in the last Referendum (even if acknowleding that is somehow uncomfortable for you) considered Ireland's relative loss of self determinate power as unacceptable, under the Nice Treaty.

We are not a neutral country as we give the US the right to conduct military exercises in our airspace and refuel in our airports. And I for one don’t want us to be neutral.

There is a big difference between allowing US warplanes to refuel in Shannon Airport and funding and perhaps even participating in a Rapid Reaction Force that may engage in "combat" as the Treaty of Nice clearly stipulates, if you read it.

Incorrect, it was only a majority of people who actually voted that voted No.

See, that's called democracy, the majority of people who vote, win. Perhaps you would feel better if all people under the age of 18 voted in the upcoming Referendum, or rather were 'required' to vote, I'm wondering how you Biffa Bacon would run elections or any sort of vote, if not on the basis that the majority of people who vote win? Perhaps you'd like to run elections on the basis that the majority of people who vote, who agree with you win, or perhaps that the majority of people who vote on Saturday, win or some other skewed misnomer for democracy?
I wonder if you could actually explain that, such that it doesn't sound like you are cherry picking which democratic votes have a sufficient participatory criteria met to satisfy you?
Do you remember when the current Minister for Justice lost his seat in a general election by just twenty seven votes? Surely by your logic, that vote shouldn't have counted, because not 'everyone' who was entitled to vote, exercised that right?
Perhaps a better parlimentary system would be to peanalise, fine and then imprison people who didn't vote?
Maybe you should campaign on that platform Biffa, you might just get elected.

The vast majority of people who voted No last time around hadn’t a notion what was in the treaty. Therefore it’s perfectly reasonable for the government to hold the referendum again if they believe that this time around the electorate will be fully informed of what it’s about.

Ah the white man's burdon hmm? All those throngs of uneducated and ignorant No voters, just waiting to be re-educated by your illucidated self, it's great that the EU has taken it upon itself to educate us ignorants in Ireland as to the error of our ways, when exercising our democratic right to self determination isn't it? I guess we owe the EU thanks for showing us the error of our ways?

In short no, I don't accept this excuse to re-run the Nice Referendum, all it is, is a rationalisation of the manipulation of Irish democracy.

Yes that’s true, the people who voted No are a wee bit thick. That much should be clear from the discussion on Nice on this board.

Biffa Bacon, grow up.

No, the outcome of tossing a coin is a random event, the outcome of a referendum is the freely-expressed will of the electorate.

Except of course unless your illustrious self deems the electorate too ignorant to make up it's own mind hmm?
Arrogance doesn't really suit you if I may say so.

Paulg

Actually I thought the subject of the Thread was "If No to Nice then what?", which I answered, a renegotiation in accordance with the wishes of the Irish electorate, given via plebiscite.

Well thats not much of an answer, i wanted to know what you would like to see in the renegotiation....

Typedef

Actually I would like to see Ireland detach itself from political integration with the European Union as clearly that integration is leading to a European SuperState and in such circumstances Ireland would not in my view have accountable, nor representative governance.

Since you ask. I would like to see no, and I mean no relative loss of influence for Ireland in the EU. I believe all countries in the EU could and are entitled to a Comissioner. I disagree with enhanced co-operation and the use of EU institutions in a two tiered way. I do not want to see Ireland in a Federal Union, thus I don't want the EU turned into a Federal Union and as such I do not want a European Army, as only countries really have armies and I already have a country, it's called Ireland and I like it just fine as a soverign state.

Taxation will in my view be the next item on the Federalists wish list and a rise in corporate tax will severly adversely affect inward investment to Ireland, that is a fact, thus since the EU has stated that it wants to use EU institutions to create an exclusionary Avant Garde European structure to push into existance in an EU context things like Tax Harmonisation, I really need to see the Nice Treaty have that particular ammendum removed, because I believe such an ammendum is ultimately detramental to Irish soveringty, by placing Ireland in a position the 'Yes side' bemoan as the result of secession from the Union, marginalisation, yet attached and ultimately forced through lack of wanting to be marginalised to fall in line, thus Tax harmonisation serrupticiously

swiss

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon:

Yes that’s true, the people who voted No are a wee bit thick. That much should be clear from the discussion on Nice on this board.

I'm afraid Typedef is right, arrogance doesn't suit you. Frustration doesn't quite excuse this either. Please keep it civil.

From my own personal experience I have met quite a few people who are unaware of what Nice is all about. Hopefully, if more people become aware of Nice this time around (even if only due to it's noteriety) we can get a larger voter turnout, and hence get a more representative result, irrespective of how people vote.

Actually I would like to see Ireland detach itself from political integration

Typedef, if you feel that the European Union is progressing into a Neo - Imperialistic entity, do you feel that Irelands sovereignty would be better expressed outside the EU, that is that we sever all European ties and go it alone?

You have oftentimes argued that a 'no' to nice should force a renegotiation of the treaty that can lead to more favourable terms to Ireland and the applicant member states. The question the thread is asking, is what in particular should be in this renegotiated treaty that is not in the present treaty (and as an offshoot to this - how will this be achieved?). Frankly, I cannot see any enlargement plan that will not entail relative loss of power to the existing member states.

The way I see it, Europe is progressing and evolving. It is moving towards a closer integration between member states but I do not believe it is becoming an Imporium. I cannot see this happening for the forseeable future, for the simple reason that I think that the member states, are in themselves, independant and want to remain so. If you see this differently, if you want to stall or reverse this change (and if by a democratic vote so do the majority of voters) then should we recognise that Europe is going in a different direction than we would wish, and simply opt out?

Shazbat

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
I notice that none of the No to Nice people have answered the initial question. What exactly do you want changed in the treaty? It’s a simple enough question.

Simple answer:

I would like it changed so we don't lose our veto.

On the subject of answering initial questions, the 'No to nice people' answered the question of the nice treaty last year and the answer was rejected by our so called government.

It was a simple enough answer.

Meh

Originally posted by Shazbat
Simple answer:
I would like it changed so we don't lose our veto.

We don't "lose our veto" under Nice. Qualified majority voting has been in operation for a long time. Which of the areas that Nice extends QMV to are you unhappy with?

If you want to abolish QMV altogether, then that means withdrawing from the EU entirely. Are you in favour of this?

Shazbat

Originally posted by swiss
The way I see it, Europe is progressing and evolving. It is moving towards a closer integration....the member states, are in themselves, independant and want to remain so...

Closer integration ultimately means less independance. And if the Nice treaty is ratified we won't have any control over how much independance we lose.

At the moment we have a veto and we should retain that. Every country should. Whats good for one country won't necessarily be good for another country.

Each member state should have a veto over certain matters. I'm not saying they should go around using it willy-nilly but if a country feels very strongly that something is not in their interest why should they be forced into doing it?

The EU bullied Bertie into re-running the referendum. He might have wanted to re-run it anyway but the fact of the matter was he wasn't left to decide in peace he was hounded by EU officials. If Ireland is going to be dealing with people like that giving away our veto would be IMO a grave mistake.

The EU should scrap the Nice treaty and come up with something else where smaller countries don't have to roll over on their backs at the whim of the EU.

Meh

Originally posted by Shazbat
At the moment we have a veto.

No we don't. I suggest you read the Nice Treaty and the treaties it amends.

Shazbat

Originally posted by Meh
We don't "lose our veto" under Nice. Qualified majority voting has been in operation for a long time. Which of the areas that Nice extends QMV to are you unhappy with?

If you want to abolish QMV altogether, then that means withdrawing from the EU entirely. Are you in favour of this?

QMV has nothing to do with the veto we have at the moment.

Of course we have a veto otherwise we wouldn't even be having a referendum. If we had no veto nice would have just been ratified. They cannot ratify it without our consent - ie we have a veto.

At present all the EU members have to agree to something or it cannot be passed. If the nice treaty is ratified this will no longer be the case.

As for the QMV the bit I'm most unhappy with is the fact the luxembourg with a population of 300,000 (three hundred thousand) has 3 votes whereas Ireland with a pop of 4,000,000 or so has eight votes.

They have less than a tenth of our population yet they have over half of our voting power. QMV my árse.

All that stuff about balancing up each member countries vote with QMV is just hogwash. How can anybody justify the imbalance between ireland & luxembourg?

seamus

Originally posted by Shazbat
At the moment we have a veto and we should retain that. Every country should. Whats good for one country won't necessarily be good for another country.

There's one big argument people seem to have - "The bigger countries will do what's good for them, and not necessarily what's good for us."

However, the idea is that they will do thing that are good for Europe. This won't be a communist bloc. Smaller countries won't be bled dry and neglected, just because they haven't got the power to prevent it. If a decision is made, that looks like it's badly affecting a certain country (eg tax harmonisation), then either the entire policy will be altered, or the country in question will be allowed alter it as needed for itself. No-one else in the EU will want to see another country fall into depression. And if it did happen, the EU would take measures to try and help it. If we find that being in the EU is destroying our economy, then we pull out. But it won't destroy our economy, because the EU is about maintaining a stable Economic Community, and the more power we give to the EU, the more responsible it becomes for ensuring our economic stability.