The views of a Hungarian

Yoda

I've a Hungarian colleage I haven't been in touch with for some time. (He's got a degree in electrical engineering but we communicate because of issues of encoding Old Hungarian Runic in the Unicode Standard.)

He wrote to me recently and asked whether I thought being in the EU had been good for Ireland. I said yes, of course it had, but also said that with regard to the present treaty, "I'll be voting No -- not because I don't want enlargement, but because I think the treaty is flawed, and bad for the entrant countries."

I had an answer from him.

Thank you! I just wanted to ask you for voting No. Plase, told your friends, if they like Hungary, vote No!

Currently, we need an independence, anyway we love the other European. But now we need the independent economy. Later - maybe.

However, there some not-good trends in the EU development.

The rovásírás page is: http://nimrud.eet.bme.hu/rovas

Please, visit it, you are welcome!
Anyway, congratulation to your home page!

Best Regards
Gábor
Honlap: http://nimrud.eet.bme.hu/hosszu

While the Commission and the Irish government cajole and threaten, I think that opinions like this are worth listening to.

If this treaty fails, all that will happen is that the Commission and governments will have to revisit and revise it, openly, publicly, as the Irish government should have insisted upon the last time we disapproved it. What hideous disaster should befall the future of this continent should such be the case?

The official pressure on us seems to argue over and over that this is somehow a "last chance" to allow other countries into the EU. Clearly that is not the case. As I asked on another thread? What is the rush? It takes time for any country to meet all the requirements for membership anyway; it's not like Estonia is joining at Christmas if Nice passes on 19 October. We Irish citizens and European citizens have an obligation to ensure that, to the best of our consciences, the regulations that run the EU are fair and democratic. The current treaty doesn't seem to be either, to me. It does to some. Democracy will show which on the 19th.

Our comrades in Hungary and other countries -- EU countries included -- will thank us if we defeat this treaty, in my view. The powers that be? They will be irritated for a time before they get back to the work of governing democratically.

Paulg

Hungary have a choice if they want to join the EU, its not up to us to decide for them. We are voting for them to have a right to decide if they want to join or not.

DiscoStu

Where does it say they cant join? up to five more members can join at present.
if nice is passed any new members will join as second class nations with no say in the running of the eu for 7 years. nice also allows other member states to reject the right of these new eu citizens to work in any part of the eu simply because these are new states. this is not the same benificial system that ireland entered into when it joined and should be no different for any new nations today.

Cork

We would be voting for a treaty that would make them second class EU citizens. This treaty has absolutely no merit. The more you learn about it - the more you realise - how bad it is - both for Ireland and the applicant countries.

IF Labour , FF and FG can agree upon it - they could agree on anything.

Meh

Originally posted by Yoda
Our comrades in Hungary and other countries -- EU countries included -- will thank us if we defeat this treaty, in my view.

Here's a Hungarian opinion poll (from February this year) that shows 61% of Hungarians would vote for EU membership under Nice, and just 12% against. Looks like you managed to find one of the 12%...

It takes time for any country to meet all the requirements for membership anyway; it's not like Estonia is joining at Christmas if Nice passes on 19 October.

That's why the candidate countries have been spending the past few years implementing the acquis. It is anticipated that the first wave of candidate countries will join on January 1st, 2004 if Nice is ratified. They've been waiting for more than ten years for EU membership; isn't that long enough?

dathi1

I was listening to an Estonian yesterday on RTE radio saying that Ireland should reject the Nice treaty because it puts too much power in the big states and he is worried by this. A recent poll there showed that 60% of Estonians were against joining the EU in the first place.

Yoda

Originally posted by Meh
They've been waiting for more than ten years for EU membership; isn't that long enough?

Oooh. Ten whole years out of the tapestry of European history. Come on, Meh. An awful lot of people of good conscience think that there are some serious problems with regard to democratic representation and plain old ordinary fairness in this particular Treaty. I don't mean the scare mongers. I am deeply troubled by the arbitrariness of the juggling of weighted votes to give the appearance of fairness to small country and big; I am unconvinced that this "enhanced cooperation" concept is as benign in practice as they would have us think it in theory. I have yet to see any argument as to why 732 is the magic number, the upper limit of representatives we can handle. What is this based on? The number of seats in an existing building? Comparison with all other parliaments in the world?

If the Danes or the Swedes or the Finns had had a referendum I am quite certain they too would be being bullied to "Vote Yes, Vote Yes, Vote Yes, or Doom shall surely befall us all and Poland shall wither away". It is accidental, and unfortunate, that Ireland is the only country which lucky enough to be able to voice its views on this matter.

The Nice Treaty isn't good enough. Wasn't last time. Europe should have revisited it the last time we rejected it. Now, I trust, we will force them to do it again.

I favour enlargement. Hugely. I have been to most of the applicant countries myself (not Cyprus, Poland, or Malta as it happens) and have friends and colleagues in many of them.

I do not favour the particular provisions of the Treaty of Nice.

Meh

Originally posted by Yoda
I have yet to see any argument as to why 732 is the magic number, the upper limit of representatives we can handle. What is this based on? The number of seats in an existing building? Comparison with all other parliaments in the world?

Here's an analogy for you: what's so special about 166 TDs in the Dáil? Why don't we change the constitution and have 1,660 TDs? That would obviously give us exactly ten times as much democracy as the present system.

This number, like all of the provisions in the Nice Treaty, is a compromise. There has to be an upper limit of some figure, to prevent the European Parliament becoming completely paralyzed by its own size. Imagine trying to have a debate on a proposed law with a thousand MEPs, each making a fifteen minute speech...

I favour enlargement. Hugely. I have been to most of the applicant countries myself (not Cyprus, Poland, or Malta as it happens) and have friends and colleagues in many of them.

But most of the population in the applicant countries are perfectly happy to join under the Nice Treaty (see the opinion poll I linked to above). Are we supposed to tell them what's good for them? "No, we know better than you. You don't want to join under this treaty. Wait another few years and try again."

Yoda

Originally posted by Meh
Here's an analogy for you: what's so special about 166 TDs in the Dáil? Why don't we change the constitution and have 1,660 TDs? That would obviously give us exactly ten times as much democracy as the present system.

False analogy. New constituencies are not being added to the Dáil. The question would arise in Ireland if, for instance, the six counties were being added. Would then the Dáil be limited still to 166 TDs, or would they add more? Would there be discussion of that number? Of the reasons for the upper limit? Would a system of QMV be introduced so that large counties and small ones would be represented "fairly"?

This number, like all of the provisions in the Nice Treaty, is a compromise. There has to be an upper limit of some figure, to prevent the European Parliament becoming completely paralyzed by its own size. Imagine trying to have a debate on a proposed law with a thousand MEPs, each making a fifteen minute speech...

My point is that the voting weights are juggled about all based on this particular number, 732, and nothing tells us why or how the percentages are arrived at. And not only that, but QVM introduces an entirely new procedure which looks like it will either exclude countries or force them into agreements because they will fear to be excluded.

Look at the pro-Yes propaganda now: we're being threatened that our country will be punished or ignored if we don't vote as we are told. Democratic, no? No.

But most of the population in the applicant countries are perfectly happy to join under the Nice Treaty (see the opinion poll I linked to above). Are we supposed to tell them what's good for them? "No, we know better than you. You don't want to join under this treaty. Wait another few years and try again."

Your opinion poll does not mention the Treaty of Nice. Suggesting that it does is dishonest.

What we are supposed to do is vote on whether we believe the Treaty is suitable for inclusion in our constitution, and whether we believe that it is good for us and for our friends and neighbours. I have seen nothing to suggest that the Treaty is the best for all concerned. I have, on the other hand, seen frantic insistence by its proponents that if it fails, disaster will ensue. Which is, obviously, untrue. We should not allow ourselves to be bullied if we do not believe that the provisions we are being asked to accept are the best.

Otherwise, why ask us in a referendum?

Meh

Originally posted by Yoda
Your opinion poll does not mention the Treaty of Nice. Suggesting that it does is dishonest.

It was taken in February of this year, well after the Nice Treaty was concluded. The candidate countries have newspapers, TV channels and radio stations -- it's fair to assume that the vast majority of them are aware of the Nice Treaty and its implications. The question asked was "If the referendum on EU accession was held now, would you vote for or against the accession?". 61% answered yes.

Yoda

Originally posted by Meh
It was taken in February of this year, well after the Nice Treaty was concluded. The candidate countries have newspapers, TV channels and radio stations -- it's fair to assume that the vast majority of them are aware of the Nice Treaty and its implications.

I don't think it's fair to make that assumption at all. You can't make that assumption about Germany or France either. The only reason many Irish people are aware of it is that we have to vote on it. The implications of joining in general vs. joining under Nice are, I would wager, not widely known to most citizens of applicant countries.

That, or I should wonder why all the people I know in any of the applicant countries belong to the ostensible 39% of those who disfavour accession under Nice. And most of my colleagues in EU countries feel much the same, and are unhappy that they have no voice regarding Nice. (Shall I take a poll?)

mike65

If ppl in the applicant states dont want to join they can vote not to, Ireland voting Yes does'nt compell anyone it merely gives them the oppotunity.

Mike.

Yoda

Originally posted by mike65
If ppl in the applicant states dont want to join they can vote not to, Ireland voting Yes does'nt compell anyone it merely gives them the oppotunity.

Then it makes it all the more important for us to reject the flawed treaty presented to us. For if we do not, then the applicants will have no choice but to accept its provisions -- provisions which are not as advantageous (to us or to them) as the provisions which are currently in place.