One last Nice thread... as simple as I can make it.

DeVore

There are some fairly straightforward things about this treaty (straightforward if people stop muddying the water).

1. We lose the veto on some areas. It affects mostly immigration issues. It does NOT affect our veto on taxation of our country.
We dont gain a veto in any new areas. Net gain is loss of say in some areas.

2. We lose a commissioner when we reach 27 countries. There are 15 now and 10 on the way with 2 more in talks. By 2005 I would expect we will have 27. In that case, someone loses one commissioner and it rotates round on an equal basis, which has yet to be decided and will be decided by the Council.
We dont gain a commissioner. The big countries lose a commissioner immediately, thats not my concern, they accepted the treaty without a referendum, tough shít.
Net gain for us: Nothing
Net loss for us: Nothing immediately, 1/27 chance of losing our commissioner for 5 years, every 5 years.

3. We ascert that we will have a referendum before joining any military defense. Its generally accepted that we would have to have that anyway. Net Gain: Nothing Net Loss: Nothing
This is a real non-issue.


Can someone tell me why I, as an Irishman putting my country first and foremost would want to vote yes to this treaty?

There are only a few reasons I can think of:

1. There is some veiled threat that if we DONT the rest of the EU will be pissed with us and be out to get us.

2. We might have to join a Common Defense Force if somehow it was found to be constitional and a suicidal government passed an act of parliment agreeing to it. I find that ... unlikely.

3. We should be nice and hand back some of the power we have because its not fair as it is. I'd agree if I thought the other EU countries would lift a finger to help us out of altuism. But I dont so... tough.


I do however see a lot of FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) being spread, including the despicable use of children in the advertising which does not argue the point but rather seem quite like scary tactics.

I've no doubt the NO campaign are doing that too, but this isnt about why I shouldnt vote NO, or why the NO campaigners have it all wrong. Its about my simple, yet unaswered question:

Why should I vote yes to this treaty?

DeV.

ps: I'm going to delete any post or part of a post that doesnt address this topic. There are a ton of other NO vs YES threads, I want to hear arguments SOLELY for voting YES, because I cant see many and I want to know if I've missed one.

m1ke

I asked myself the very same question as yourself dev, why should I vote yes ? I mean there's no clear reason out there. The government have fronted us a jumble of simplified garbage that when clever people examine it they go ... um you're still not giving me a good reason to vote yes. It racked my head for ages I was going to vote no but I thought about it a lot and decided to change my pov.

The Irish people have gotten where we are today because we have made a number of sensible long term decisions, and one of
these was to be part of the European Union, and to be an active and constructive part of it, we're a contributor to Europe and it has brought us prosperity. Remember the EU had to be enlarged to let us in ! Moving away from being an introspective, primarily agrarian and protectionist economy to an outward-looking exporting country has changed all our lives for the better.

It's this overall positive policy that we need to pursue. When I say positive I mean welcoming enlargement of the EU, bigger economic markets and a Europe with a greater potential in the future.... because in the future enlargement will benefit us aswell as those who join us.

What did we have before European Integration ? 2 devastating world wars. We also had all the beef in Yugoslavia in the 1990s many many people died. Enlarging the EU will consolidate democracy in Eastern and Central Europe - factions will hopefully put aside their differences and join us in economic/social/political co-operation.

We'd be denying a lot of these smaller and in some cases poorer countries an opportunity for a better future. We have a moral obligation to assist them in securing lasting peace and political stability for their people. The alternative could be the emergence of new conflicts similar to what happened in the Balkans, around the borders of the European Union - so this is all in our interest, it helps us and it helps them.

We improved ourselves because we found ourselves a new attitude towards the World. Let's keep this attitude. I believe that as Irish men/women when we vote we should put our country first and foremost - but I believe we can't do this by approaching the situation like Del Boy would down the market .... what policies and social/political attitudes have benefitted us and the world in the past and which should we pursue for the betterment of our future ? So let's vote yes.

Sand

The Nice Treaty is designed to facilitate the operation of a union which will be nearly double the size of the current union, efficiently rather than chaotically.

meglome

Ok m1ke so what you're saying is thet EU have been good to us and we should vote yes because of that?
The EU needs reforming I'm just not sure that Nice is the answer. So what else have we got?

Biffa Bacon

1. We lose the veto on some areas. It affects mostly immigration issues. It does NOT affect our veto on taxation of our country.
We dont gain a veto in any new areas. Net gain is loss of say in some areas.

Don’t forget that the removal of the veto in those areas increases Ireland’s power and influence as it means that one country can no longer block a proposal that Ireland wants accepted.

2. We lose a commissioner when we reach 27 countries. There are 15 now and 10 on the way with 2 more in talks. By 2005 I would expect we will have 27. In that case, someone loses one commissioner and it rotates round on an equal basis, which has yet to be decided and will be decided by the Council.
We dont gain a commissioner. The big countries lose a commissioner immediately, thats not my concern, they accepted the treaty without a referendum, tough shít.
Net gain for us: Nothing

The net gain for us is that we are now being treated equally to the larger states and that enlargement can go ahead without making the Commission to big and unwieldy.

Net loss for us: Nothing immediately, 1/27 chance of losing our commissioner for 5 years, every 5 years.

It’s not really a 1/27 chance every 5 years as it will be implemented on the basis of rotation.

Can someone tell me why I, as an Irishman putting my country first and foremost would want to vote yes to this treaty?

1. Nice clarifies the legal situation regarding enlargement. At present, it is unclear whether it is possible to enlarge the Union beyond an extra five members.
2. The new rules regarding the right of member states to nominate Commissioners will ensure that the Commission does not become too large and inefficient after enlargement. It also means that for the first time, all member states are treated equally with regard to nominating Commissioners.
3. The new powers granted to the President of the Commission with regard to assigning portfolios and asking members of the Commission to resign (with the agreement of the rest of the Commission) will help ensure that the Commission is a more professionally-run body.
4. The introduction of QMV to decisions relating to the structural funds will ensure that the net recipient countries will no longer be able to hold the net contributors to ransom.
5. The introduction of QMV to several other new areas will mean that effective decision-making will still be possible in an enlarged Union.
6. The revisions to the enhanced co-operation provisions will make it easier for Ireland to participate in enhanced co-operation projects with other member states.
7. Finally, unless you have specific objections to a particular part of the treaty, you should vote Yes. Voting No to punish the government or because you don’t like the way the treaty is being re-run or suchlike would be pointless, because if it came to renegotiating the treaty, the government would be in no position to know how the electorate wanted the treaty to be changed.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
7. Finally, unless you have specific objections to a particular part of the treaty, you should vote Yes. Voting No to punish the government or because you don’t like the way the treaty is being re-run or suchlike would be pointless, because if it came to renegotiating the treaty, the government would be in no position to know how the electorate wanted the treaty to be changed.

This is pretty close to the stance I've been taking for a while now. I dont think you should need a clear reason to vote Yes. You should need a clear reason not to vote yes.

Ireland signed on board to the concept of a European Union a decade ago. At this point, they agreed in concept and practice to a system which was not about an economic community of equals. We agreed that we wanted to be part of an evolving European structure which was clearly headed in the direction which Nice is moving us.

Now, we are looking at the Nice treaty and saying "Oooh, I dont like the look of that". This is fine. If we've changed our minds, then no problem. You no longer want us to be part of what the EU has always been about - expansion, greater cohesion, and so on. )Yes, you can reword expansion as "less influence for us". You can reword "greater cohesion" as "loss of freedom/nationalism for us" if you so wish.) I've no problems with that. But its still nothing new. This is not a supra-national federalist edict, or whatever catch-phrase is being thrown about this week. This is the next step along a path which has been pretty clearly spelled out for a decade. It is not the final step, nor is it a step in a surprisingly new direction.

If your basic problem is that you do not want to follow this road we agreed as a nation that we wanted to follow a decade ago, then this is your perogative and you should absolutely vote No. However, you should also be making it perfectly clear that your objection is not simply to Nice, but to the entire concept of the EU as it exists today, because there can be no treaty which will satisfy you and also manage to allow the EU to continue its evolution along its chosen path.

If, on the other hand, you agree in principle to the EU as a concept but not to the specifics of the Treaty, then vote No, and make your specific objections clear.

You should need a reason to vote No. It should, in my opinion, be a reason connected to the actual treaty, and not about whether you hate Bertie, Fianna Fail, re-runs, the price of pizza, or anything else. You are free to differ - its your vote and you can do what you like with it.

What you should not need is a reason to vote yes.

The Treaty is not ideal. Its not perfect. Are we likely to get a more balanced treaty? I'm not sure. Maybe we could, but no matter how this happens, we as a nation will still be required to give up some advantages we hold in the name of progress. Also remember that Nice is not the final step. If the new implementation has flaws, then there is still scope for those to be addressed in the next set of treaty negotiations.

Nice is not perfect, but nothing is. Is it good enough to live with? For me, yes. This is the question you need answered.

You want a reason to vote yes? An immediate benefit to Ireland? There is none. Absolutely none. If you want to look at the question that way, then the chances are that you can only be able to be convinced to vote no.

jc

mike65

Gandalf, should the vote be versed in such selfish terms?

Mike.

Originally posted by DeVore
I do however see a lot of FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) being spread, including the despicable use of children in the advertising which does not argue the point but rather seem quite like scary tactics.

I've no doubt the NO campaign are doing that too, but this isnt about why I shouldnt vote NO, or why the NO campaigners have it all wrong. Its about my simple, yet unaswered question:

Why should I vote yes to this treaty?

DeV.

Yeap the no campaign put up that poster with yer man and the Gun to his head-just as despicable as using children.

This Nice Treaty in my view boils down to an impossible but unavoidable decision.
Our Government negotiated it on our behalf and it has to be accepted or rejected by us.
The Neutrality issue has been addressed so it's the treaty excluding the bit about Defence that we should decide on.
You should vote yes if you want 10 new members in time for the 2004 election to the E.U parliament.
You should vote yes if you want to spend your Euro legally in Aya Napa or prague.
You should vote yes if you want the influence of the E.U with more than 100 million extra inhabitants to grow in the world.
And if you want to participate quickly in that increased market, being able to sell your goods to them in Euro and without fear of duties.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by DeVore
There are some fairly straightforward things about this treaty (straightforward if people stop muddying the water).

Lest my last post be accused of water-muddying, I thought I'd look at these points directly :

1. We lose the veto on some areas. It affects mostly immigration issues. It does NOT affect our veto on taxation of our country.
We dont gain a veto in any new areas. Net gain is loss of say in some areas.

Correct. However, given that we have used our veto once (figure thrown about a lot in previous threads, but I dont have a reference), and it has been used against bills that Ireland has been in favour of more than once, it is also not unreasonable to say that a loss of veto would be to our net advantage should similar patterns continue....and no-one has offered a reason beyond FUD to show why these patterns shouldnt continue.

2. We lose a commissioner when we reach 27 countries. There are 15 now and 10 on the way with 2 more in talks. By 2005 I would expect we will have 27. In that case, someone loses one commissioner and it rotates round on an equal basis, which has yet to be decided and will be decided by the Council.
We dont gain a commissioner. The big countries lose a commissioner immediately, thats not my concern, they accepted the treaty without a referendum, tough shít.
Net gain for us: Nothing
Net loss for us: Nothing immediately, 1/27 chance of losing our commissioner for 5 years, every 5 years.

Whats the alternative? Have so many comissioners that they effectively become useless positions which causes to still lose out? If we limit the numbers of comissioners, then expansion must cause us to lose something tangible. If we do not impose such limits, then expansion will cause us to lose out intangibly - more comissioners dilutes the benefit of having one in the first place, and also means more bureaucracy and less efficiency.

3. We ascert that we will have a referendum before joining any military defense. Its generally accepted that we would have to have that anyway. Net Gain: Nothing Net Loss: Nothing
This is a real non-issue.

Agreed.

Why should I vote yes to this treaty?

You have couched all your issues in "net gain/loss to us".

This doesnt direcly answer your question, but how can the EU progress and evolve without every existing nation losing out something? Its not whether or not we lose something you should be asking, but rather whether or not these losses are acceptable in the name of benefitting the EU (and whether or not you believe they actually are to the benefit of the EU).

If we say no to Nice, what would it take as an alternative which is compatible with the principles of the EU to make you vote Yes?

If you cannot find a workable answer to this, then there is nothing to make you vote yes.

If you can find a workable answer to this, then you can look at the current treaty and see what the differences are and whether or not you can live with them. If you can, vote yes. If you cant, then obviously No is the correct answer for you.

jc

ReefBreak

Why I'm voting Yes.

We're a small open economy that exports 90% of what we produce. Voting Yes will create a larger marker for our goods and services. This means more business for Irish companies. More business means more jobs. More jobs means more prosperity for Ireland. Bonkey, the idea that there is no benefit to Ireland is complete and utter rubbish. Sorry to be be so frank.

Another reason is because I want to allow new countries to have the same opportunities we had back in 1973.

The Nice Treaty is a good treaty, and by rejecting it, there is no guarantee that an improved Treaty will be created instead.

Vote Yes on Saturday.

DeVore

Originally posted by ReefBreak
Why I'm voting Yes.

We're a small open economy that exports 90% of what we produce. Voting Yes will create a larger marker for our goods and services. This means more business for Irish companies. More business means more jobs. More jobs means more prosperity for Ireland. Bonkey, the idea that there is no benefit to Ireland is complete and utter rubbish. Sorry to be be so frank.

Another reason is because I want to allow new countries to have the same opportunities we had back in 1973.

The Nice Treaty is a good treaty, and by rejecting it, there is no guarantee that an improved Treaty will be created instead.

Reef do you have any backup of that 90% figure? I can tell you you dont, because its wrong.

I'm an employer, I run a small company in Ireland and I can tell you that I'm very concerned about what Nice will do to us.
When East and West Germany were reunited the same logic was used... however, East Germans simply arrived and undercut the west German workers. East Germany didnt offer a decent market because the people there were too poor to be able to afford the goods from the affluent West German markets.

The same thing will happen in East Europe... I employ two Polish programmers. They are superb coders and hard workers. Back in Poland they used to earn a small 4 figure sum as programmers. Tell me thats going to make for a marketplace that can afford goods shipped all the way from Ireland.

I guess in that way I'm not wild about enlargement at this moment. If it has to come, then ok I wouldnt oppose the treaty for that reason alone.

However:

Bonkey writes:

You have couched all your issues in "net gain/loss to us".

From the papers today...

Under pressure from the European Commission, Ireland will increase its Corporation Tax rate to 12.5% from 10% in January, but the UK regards this as too little, too late. And London is not alone. A further Irish concern is that other EU member states may follow the UK's lead and introduce similar tax conditions.

I'm afraid I dont trust our EU partners to look out for our best interests and I'm not happy to give up any power we might have.
I'd want to see a lock in of our tax regime, control on our own borders and equal representation in Europe along with the other mainland countries.

I guess it does come down to an issue of trust. And I'm not sure I do...

DeV.

Sesshoumaru

I employ two Polish programmers. They are superb coders and hard workers. Back in Poland they used to earn a small 4 figure sum as programmers. Tell me thats going to make for a marketplace that can afford goods shipped all the way from Ireland.

So it was ok for Ireland to undercut the rest of Europe at the start of the 90's when we weren't so rich? But now because we have a bloated inefficient economy we need to vote NO so that we can maintain the status quo and not have to compete against leaner Eastern European economies? Sorry but I think competition would be healthy for Ireland. We might lose some of that celtic tiger fat we put on during the 90's.

bonkey

Originally posted by DeVore
I'm afraid I dont trust our EU partners to look out for our best interests and I'm not happy to give up any power we might have.

Our EU partners are most assuredly not looking after our best interests in this case. Nor should they. They are, instead, looking after the best interests of the EU.

Ireland was given (and continues to have) tax-less access to the EU market as was every other nation. In return, we exploit this by setting our corporate tax at a deliberately low level in part to attract foreign businesses. We offered tax havens and breaks, again to attract foreign businesses.

In short, we abused the system we had access to in order to jump-start our economy. The EU accepted this because it was one way in helping Ireland become an equal rather than a begging pauper. We may not be quite there yet, but we are close enough that we no longer need such blatant handouts.

Now, we are being asked to stop abusing the system - an abuse which was only tolerated because it was in everyone's best interests in the long term to allow us this abuse on a short-term or mid-term basis.

You are, in effect, arguing, that we should not be castigated from doing this, that we should be allowed have lower corporate tax if it suits our economy.

The problem is that we will be first in line to complain if other nations start massively undercutting us. What would the Irish say if the Germans used some of their economic muscle to attract the major investments away from Ireland. We'd complain that their larger economy effectively allowed them to bully us out of the running so that they reap the long-term benefits.

If we wish to keep our tax-break "benefits", claiming that these should be dictated by internal policy only, then we should recognise that there is no reason for the other nations to continue to suffer us indercutting them, and that rather than us coming in line with them, they can simply bully us out of the market as an alternative - beating us at our own game.

This is not a scare tactic. This is simple economics. Our tax regime gives us an advantage because the other nations have agreed not to use tactics like this and arent using them against us. If we believe it is our right to keep these tactics, then we have no reason to believe that such tactics cannot also be used against us. To date they have not, which is why it is of such benefit to us.

An internal trade war or investment-attraction war benefits no-one. Agreeing to come into line with others is a preferable option.

jc

PiE

Surely there's a huge difference between Ireland's 3.5m people joining the EU in '73 and the 100m(?) people joining the EU if the Nice treaty is passed? And what with Ireland already agreeing to allow the new countries free access to live and work (when ALL the other countries haven't, or is that not true?) is gonna lead a sizeable chunk of them here. I've no problem with the qualified workers living here, but we already have enough lazy unemployed Irish people.

If, however, it can be guaranteed that there won't be a flood of unqualified immigrants then I don't have any other reason to vote no... apart from the fact that we already voted No.

Originally posted by DeVore
Reef do you have any backup of that 90% figure? I can tell you you dont, because its wrong.

I'm an employer, I run a small company in Ireland and I can tell you that I'm very concerned about what Nice will do to us.
When East and West Germany were reunited the same logic was used... however, East Germans simply arrived and undercut the west German workers. East Germany didnt offer a decent market because the people there were too poor to be able to afford the goods from the affluent West German markets.

The same thing will happen in East Europe... I employ two Polish programmers. They are superb coders and hard workers. Back in Poland they used to earn a small 4 figure sum as programmers. Tell me thats going to make for a marketplace that can afford goods shipped all the way from Ireland.

I guess in that way I'm not wild about enlargement at this moment. If it has to come, then ok I wouldnt oppose the treaty for that reason alone.

However:

Bonkey writes:


From the papers today...

Under pressure from the European Commission, Ireland will increase its Corporation Tax rate to 12.5% from 10% in January, but the UK regards this as too little, too late. And London is not alone. A further Irish concern is that other EU member states may follow the UK's lead and introduce similar tax conditions.

I'm afraid I dont trust our EU partners to look out for our best interests and I'm not happy to give up any power we might have.
I'd want to see a lock in of our tax regime, control on our own borders and equal representation in Europe along with the other mainland countries.

I guess it does come down to an issue of trust. And I'm not sure I do...

DeV.

Devore , you have to have a little Trust in this case.
The re-unification of Germany is not a good example to take.
It happened in a very unplanned way unlike the proposed enlargement process under Nice.
Given the state of Eastern Germany immediately after communism,the re-unification was a ferocious shock to their Economy.
The ten countries approved now for 2004 entry to the E.U have moved well along from where Eastern Germany was at in 1989.
For sure wages in Poland are poor, but so were ours in 1973, relative to Britain and the U.S-look where we are now!
Similarally their Agriculture is roughly at the level now that we were at in 1973.
The 15 member states are not on a suicide mission here.
They know, that the Nice Treaty and E.U membership offers Eastern European countries the opportunities to bring their living standards gradually up to ours and from that the markets will come.
mm

Originally posted by PiE
Surely there's a huge difference between Ireland's 3.5m people joining the EU in '73 and the 100m(?) people joining the EU if the Nice treaty is passed? And what with Ireland already agreeing to allow the new countries free access to live and work (when ALL the other countries haven't, or is that not true?) is gonna lead a sizeable chunk of them here. I've no problem with the qualified workers living here, but we already have enough lazy unemployed Irish people.

If, however, it can be guaranteed that there won't be a flood of unqualified immigrants then I don't have any other reason to vote no... apart from the fact that we already voted No.

Actually Britains 50 odd million joined at the same time.
There ain't a whole lot you can do about anyone who is unemployed because they do not want a job, thats an entirely different argument.
A recent prime time special on Poland interviewed many people there, most of whom said that they would prefer to work at home if they joined the E.U
mm

dahamsta

I'm afraid nothing here is convincing me to vote Yes, it just strikes me as the same old arguments -- possibly better phrased, but the same nonetheless. And I'm afraid that I find bonkey's argument that the default should be Yes rather bizarre, when one of the most common comments I've seen on the whole debate is: "We're not exactly sure what will happen if you vote No"; this from the people who are supposed to be in charge. They don't know what will happen? They didn't research this before they started developing the Treaty?

"Er, excuse me, sorry to be a bother, but why exactly are we developing this?"
"It's because we don't know what will happen if we continue the way we are."
"Oh. Well, I could do some research into that if you like. I have a few hours free."
"No, it's ok, we'll just plough ahead regardless. Thanks anyway."

They haven't prepared for an alternative to Nice, even in light of the fact that we've told them to bugger off and figure it out once already?

"Well, that's it, the Irish have said No to the Nice Treaty again."
"Bastards. So what do we do now? Have we prepared alternative arrangements?"
"Well, I guess that guy who offered to look at the situation before could have done it, but you know, we're busy."
"Right so, we'll be off then. We're going to start a new Scandanavian Union instead. Should be a hoot!"

FFS

I read the RefCom leaflet last night - I didn't get it until late last week - and when I closed it I was - finally - firmly in the No camp. Which is pretty much what happened the last time, and like the last time, it wasn't really a difficult decision in the end. Because it's the same Treaty: I didn't like it the last time; I don't like it this time; and I won't like it the next time. And some of you hardcore guys might find this hard to believe, but get this: I'm not doing it to piss Bertie off. That's just a bonus.

TBH, I thought this forum would help me make a decision, but it didn't, it hindered me. I thought I would be able to come in here and get away from the partisan, alarmist, hysterical commentary that's been thrown at me from the establishment and the media, but I didn't, I just had it echoed and sometimes amplified back at me. I don't think this board will be a point of reference for serious decisions again.

That's not really your fault though, and I guess it was naive of me to think that way. It just surprises me. Perhaps this format just isn't very well suited to serious political debate?

adam

DeVore

Devore , you have to have a little Trust in this case.

Ah yeah, well, thanks but I'll keep my Veto if its all the same to you. I trust the EU to steam roller over us as they would have LOVED to do after the last No vote only the other small countries gor uppitty about our rights and Prodi had to back down.
(Anyone remember his comments after the last vote? Effectively he said Fnck the Irish, we're doing it anyway. Only to be retracted later....)



And that other vaccous argument I've heard before a hundred times "well the Irish did it back in the 70's". You know what.... good for us! Doesnt mean we have to let someone else do it to us.
Thats good old fashioned Irish catholic beat-it-into-them guilt talking. "no no dont help us, we deserve this!"

I still havent heard anything like a good reason to let go of our grip here...

DeV.

PiE

Originally posted by DeVore
I trust the EU to steam roller over us as they would have LOVED to do after the last No vote only the other small countries gor uppitty about our rights and Prodi had to back down.
(Anyone remember his comments after the last vote? Effectively he said Fnck the Irish, we're doing it anyway. Only to be retracted later....)

Just as I was starting to think the Yes vote might not be so bad...

Thanks Dev, I'm back in the No camp.

Typedef

Again even though many, many people are professing that the Nice Treaty and further Federal integration will not in fact be detramental to the Irish economy, it is quite clear that the vaunted low rate of corporate tax Ireland has enjoyed thus far is being scrapped to keep the EU and the UK happy. I don't accept the argument that for the good of the Union Ireland is obliged to harmonise taxes, one might similarly argue that for 'fairness' in the global economy the US should raise it's taxes also, which is a spurious argument.

So if Ireland is so immune to Federal integration as the politicians of Ireland would have the public believe, then why is it, Ireland cannot even hold on to one of the most identafiable lures for inward investment, namely low corporate tax rates?

Enhanced cooperation within an EU context will put a small State like Ireland into an even more untenable position vis-a-vis resistance to participating in measures that don't suit Ireland, due to the relative small size of this State, since Ireland is already 'harmonising' taxes, without even a hint of an enhanced cooperative structure to the same in the EU as yet. Thus to my mind once the EU starts to split itself into slow tack and fast track integration models with the enhanced cooperation structure, Ireland will in all practicle terms be utterly unable to resist measures like 'tax harmonisation', because people feel Ireland has a duty to perform to the EU and Irish politicians are only too happy to appease the real powers in the EU, like the UK, Germany, France and so on. Call me xenophobe if it makes it easy for you to dismiss that point in perpetuity.

When people talk of ratifying Nice for the good of the EU, I feel a little bemused, because I'm not talking about the good of the EU, I'm talking about the good of Ireland and I fundamentally do not believe the Nice Treaty is good for Ireland, what's more I don't accept that dire repercussions await this State on a further rejection of the Nice Treaty, because I believe the loss of control over Irish affairs and interests is a far worse repercussion then the annoyance of the Europeans on a further rejection of the Nice Treaty.

Ultimately is the interests of Ireland that I as an Irish citizen have a duty to protect, maintain and exponenciate, Irish interests, not some etheral 'EU' interest. EU interests to me seem ill defined and in conflict with the interests of my country, EU interests seem to constantly point towards annexing yet more power and influence towards larger States to the detrament of smaller States. Thus the argument for 'EU' interests always seem to coincide with the interests of large member States, like the UK and I find myself a little cynically asking if it is really in the interests of the EU that large member States hold the mainstay of influence or is it really in the interests of the large member States in question?

Do I believe that Irish interests will be protected by bringing Ireland further into a federal union and currying favour with the powers within that union? Not on your life, I fundamentally believe that only the Irish people are qualified to protect Irish interests, to govern the Irish nation properly and only the Irish ultimately have the desire to do so. Again this concept of who is fit to govern Ireland, the Irish or (others) is the crux of the Irish question and as an Irishman I ultimately choose Irish people as the only people sufficiently interested, due to self interest, to govern, legislate and tax Ireland to the benefit of it's citizens.

Basically I still don't find any convincing reason to vote in favour of the Nice Treaty and the quagmire of deceit about Irish jobs 'going' or trade 'going' or our EU partners becoming upset like rabid Greek Gods, is at best totally biased an utterly unsubstanciated.

Regards
Typedef.

Ah yeah, well, thanks but I'll keep my Veto if its all the same to you. I trust the EU to steam roller over us as they would have LOVED to do after the last No vote only the other small countries gor uppitty about our rights and Prodi had to back down.

If you are of the view that, the E.U is a great big steam roller on the way to a complete United states of Europe with one constitution and with the Dáil having the power of a county council, then no contribution to this thread, however logical, is going to convince you to vote yes.

And that other vaccous argument I've heard before a hundred times "well the Irish did it back in the 70's". You know what.... good for us! Doesnt mean we have to let someone else do it to us.

If you are saying here that we shouldn't enlarge, then you must vote No.theres no point in arguing the pro's and cons of the Nice Treaty with you if you are not in favour of enlargement.

mm

ykt0di9url7bc3

I'm voting Yes

From all the well founded arguements, analysis and overall examination of the Nice treaty by the posters in Politics

I cant predict the future, much less foresee it from reading and following this board, the humanitarian side, business side, personal side....

I want Ireland to keep up with European politics, to take its chances and say yes to the treaty

You want a reason to vote yes? An immediate benefit to Ireland? There is none. Absolutely none. If you want to look at the question that way, then the chances are that you can only be able to be convinced to vote no.

the immediate benefit to Ireland is not my concern, we should be voting to make sure that in 10 years time when another treaty comes in Europe that we can say that YES/NO to Nice was good choice


I'll probably get a bollocking for this but....eh!

bonkey

Originally posted by dahamsta
And I'm afraid that I find bonkey's argument that the default should be Yes rather bizarre, when one of the most common comments I've seen on the whole debate is: "We're not exactly sure what will happen if you vote No"; this from the people who are supposed to be in charge. They don't know what will happen? They didn't research this before they started developing the Treaty?

This is a bit farcical.

People know to a certain extent what will happen should the vote be No :

1) Expansion as planned cannot progress.

2) The EU will have a choice of allowing up to an additional 5 nations join under the current structure, but have already acknowledged that this would put the existing structures under strain....so they probably wouldnt do it.

3) As has been stated by the pro- and anti- Nice camps time and time again, a new treaty will be renogiated. This renegotiation also would tend to stymie any immediate expansion, as the expansion would be preferable after a new treaty had been agreed.

Now, notice points 2 and 3. In both cases, there are decisions to be made. Until those decisions are made, there isnt a person on the planet who can know what will happen.

If we're only talking about Ireland, then we still cant know what will happen, because it will mostly depend on how reasonably the rest of the current EU members decide to deal with us during the renegotiations, and what those renegotiations will result in. pro-Nice scaremongers will say we would get totally shafted, and anti-Nice proponents will take the equally improbable stance of "nothing will change". Neither side has a clue to be honest, and can offer nothing better than educated guesses carefully chosen to back up their own argument.

Now, if you want to carry out research to know what will happen beyond that, you're living in cloud cuckoo land I'm afraid. Your "research" is effectively the same as the post-Nice-rejection renegotiations.

Ultimately, I stand by my belief that the Nice agreement is in the best interests of the EU, and that this, ultimately, is in the best interests of each and every member nation.

I do not believe it abrogates our independance to an unacceptable degree.

Is it in the best interests of our absolute independance? No, certainly not, but neither were the Maastricht or Amsterdam treaties. As I've asked before - why the fuss now? What one part of our independance are we now losing which is so much more important than the parts we have already willingly given up? Or is it perhaps that we're not being bribed enough to give it up this time?

Does it cost us some advantages that we currently hold? Yes, assuredly, but we were granted many/most of these advantages to allow our economy develop to a modern-day competetive level, and we are not longer the most deserving case. Where some people see a right to our keeping these advantages, I see nothing but short-term blinkered greed.

Will Nice cause us to lose effective power in the EU? Absolutely. Then again - expansion requires this. It should also be pointed out (yet again) that Nice is not the final step. If there seem to be inbalances in the new power structure, there is scope to lobby for change and improve. Despite what many would have us believe, there is no super-nation-axis which will have a majority, and so they cannot steam-roller the rest of the EU should the rest decide to stand together against them. If that does happen, then what are we saying? That we could find ourselves in a minority in some vote? So what? This can happen in any democratic structure.

Does it open the door for an ultra-Federalist Franco-Germanic empire under which we become nothing but powerless peons? Most assuredly not. At the very, very least, there is absolutely nothing in the Nice agreement which removes our ability to choose to walk away, nor the ability to refuse any imposition from the EU which requires a constitutional change without our consent.

In short, I cant see a solid reason to change my vote from yes. I can reverse the logic on most of these and show why if I start from a "vote no unless otherwise convinced" I can still end up at a yes position.

What it boils down to is that I do not see this as an unacceptable abrogation of our independance/sovereignty whilst others do. We can argue that all our past heroes died for us to have freedom, but if we cant freely choose what to do with it, its not really freedom now, is it. If we decide to loan some of the power to the EU for our ultimate benefit, then we can do so, safe in the knowledge that we can always take it back should we decide that our best interests lie in walking our own path again.

However, while we choose to walk a common path, talking about our absolute right to sovereignty is ridiculous and self-contradictory.

jc

mayhem#

Voting No to the Nice treaty is basically voting yes to the corruption and mis-management in this country.
I for one will pack up the missus and the kids and move abroad if we have a NO vote....

Typedef

I hate to point this out mayhem#, but in the thread entitled 'time to give the establishment a bloddy nose' you argued it was wrong to defeat the treaty to rebuke the establishment and in this thread you are arguing that it is right to vote No so as to keep power away from the Irish establishment (thus rebuking them).

So it's ok to use the vote to rebuke the political establishment, so long as that vote agrees with how you want to vote?

Very logical.

Cork

I started the Establishment thread because of IBECS call for workers to get wage increases next year less than the rate of inflation.

We are living in the second most expensisv country in the EU and IBECS call was left unchallanged by our political partys.

Maybe - we need to put manners on IBEC?

Meh

Originally posted by mayhem#
I for one will pack up the missus and the kids and move abroad if we have a NO vote....

I think the "I'll emigrate if you people don't vote the way I want!" histrionics are hilarious.

Typedef and mayhem#, one of you is going to have to leave the country on Sunday...

Typedef

Originally posted by Meh

Typedef and mayhem#, one of you is going to have to leave the country on Sunday...

I reckon mayhem# has the ticead bought.
Flight of the Earls and that sort of thing.

mayhem#

Originally posted by Typedef
I hate to point this out mayhem#, but in the thread entitled 'time to give the establishment a bloddy nose' you argued it was wrong to defeat the treaty to rebuke the establishment and in this thread you are arguing that it is right to vote No so as to keep power away from the Irish establishment (thus rebuking them).

Care to explain to me how you came to this enlightened conclusion?
Where do i say that it's right to vote NO?
It's the "establishment" that is guilty of corruption and mis-management! Voting YES will give them a kick up the arse...

Typedef

How do you reckon that, since it's the 'establishment' who have tried to get the people to vote Yes to this Treaty 'twice'?

mayhem#

Originally posted by Typedef
How do you reckon that, since it's the 'establishment' who have tried to get the people to vote Yes to this Treaty 'twice'?

Because both the YES and the NO campaigners are guilty of putting a spin on the Nice treaty that has nothing to do with the actual treaty.....

bonkey

Originally posted by mayhem#
Voting No to the Nice treaty is basically voting yes to the corruption and mis-management in this country.

We could equally say :

Voting Yes to the Nice Treaty is basically voting yes to the corruption and mis-management in the EU.

Wake up. Ireland does not have a monopoly on dodgy dealings. Far from it.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
Maybe - we need to put manners on IBEC?

And in another thread it was "maybe its time to give FF a bloody nose".

Did you ever consider voting on what you were asked to vote on, rather than trying to use unrelated issues as a reason for a decision?

Exactly how will voting No to spite IBEC send a message to them? How are they supposed to know that it was their wage proposals that brought down the treaty?

Same for your logic about FF, and for any other of the spurious reasons that people are coming up with.

You dont get to explain your reasoning on your ballot paper. The only message you can send is that you are for or against the treaty for unknown reasons, or that you chose to spoil your vote for unknown reasons, or that you chose not to vote for unknown reasons.

Has this not sunk in yet, or have you just run out of rational arguments?

jc

mayhem#

Originally posted by Meh
I think the "I'll emigrate if you people don't vote the way I want!" histrionics are hilarious.

Typedef and mayhem#, one of you is going to have to leave the country on Sunday...

Think of it what you want, I'm in the position at the moment where I have to decise if I stay in Ireland or go abroad. I haven't decided yet, but if we have a majority "NO" vote I will definetly leave.
The "NO" voters will get what they deserve...

Greenbean

"Ireland was given (and continues to have) tax-less access to the EU market as was every other nation. In return, we exploit this by setting our corporate tax at a deliberately low level in part to attract foreign businesses. We offered tax havens and breaks, again to attract foreign businesses."

In general I agree with what bonkey says, but this one thing above I do not get. Surely, no matter what way you look at it, taxation is how much our government wants to charge companies for being here. If we wanted companies to be here for free, then thats totally our perogative. If someone else wants to charge them 40% tax, then thats their own (greedy?) stance towards it. I mean corporation tax in itself is just a notion, its not like an etheral human right, countries on different planets in the galaxy might find the notion unique and weird. So how can this be something for which the EU complains? Go reduce your own tax. Oh you still want your tax and everyone else charging less to take away the benefits of charging less. Is this like insurance or something, ie international law requires it, and are these other countries having their hands tied behind their back about reducing it? If its only a case of "it would make things awkward for us" then I don't think they have a valid case at all.

To turn it around and make it look like we are abusing other countries by taking a loss on taxation, when other countries can do the same.. well I don't buy it - its everyone else bullying the odd one out so they can have it both ways.

Slutmonkey57b

Out of all the hyperbole, he's the only one that's actually discussed what the treaty is about. He should write for the Economist (the only other source of intelligent political news).

And he's quite correct: the EU is about
Ever closer Union

Everyone is being asked to give up some degree of power in this treaty, everyone is being asked to give up some degree of veto, everyone is being asked to potentially lose a commissioner.

And yes, it is absolutely right that this should happen. Why? Because most of the complaints directed at "Brussels" regarding autocracy or high-handedness are due to there not being enough democracy in Europe. And the veto is not democratic. What would happen in our parliament if every TD had a veto? Nothing would get done! (yes, basically nothing gets done now but this is due to laziness and corruption, not the system preventing things from getting done.)
The purpose of the treaty is to start a process whereby power is handed away from permanant commissioners, toward the Parliament and Council of Ministers - that's why the commission structure is being revised. The vetos are being removed to allow actual democratic voting - countries have a show of hands to see if they're in favour of something - and most importantly, this show of hands has some bearing on the actual size of the countries. By removing the vetos we ensure that people do not get disillusioned with the EU every time the wishes of X% of the EU population is abrogated by 1 country using its veto.

To those that oppose the Common Defense Force, I ask this:

Who gets called out when there's someone drowning off our coast?

The RAF. Yes, the RAF - some OTHER country's defense force, that THAT country is paying for, saves our lives. Because our government won't pay for one.

When everyone was panicky over sept. 11th (yes, spew 9/11 garbage), who was allowed to fly over our airspace to protect us because we have no adequate defenses?

The RAF.

The EU Common Defense Force is there as an opt-in structure. The default is that you're out unless you sign up to it. Its purpose is simply to ensure that every time there's a crisis in the EU's sphere of influence, we dont have to go running to Uncle Sam to help up out (eg Kosovo). It allows those nations that are prepared to use a small number of their own forces to run peacekeeping or humanitarian missions, or to defend ALL the EU.

Would you object to the EU Common Defense Force being used to protect Ireland in the unlikely event of us being attacked?

Bali was bombed possibly to kill western (ie american) tourists - can you name another country that gets a lot of american tourists?

Slutmonkey57b

Yes the likelyhood of us being attacked is minimal, but the likelyhood of the CDF being used at all is minimal.

As to the "loss" of the right to set corporation tax, we are not losing that right at all - we are being asked to stop abusing an agreement between member countries to not institute tax havens, tax dodging schemes etc in the interests of preventing a system whereby EU countries are stabbing each other in the back with such schemes. The only reason we were allowed to tell companies "come to Ireland and pay no tax for 10 years" was because to achieve the same effect the EU would have had to subsidise those companies by a similar amount. It saved taxpayers in other countries money in the long run.

It's time to grow up. Ireland has lived too long as the greedy corrupt child of the EU. We are no longer a backwoods country with no economic impetus. We no longer have the need for the tax breaks, as shown by the recent influx of companies in deregulated telecoms/energy. When we were in need, other richer countries stepped up and extended the hand of friendship. We should do the same.

And we should do so with an EU structure that reflects a more level, democratic, accountable, and representative system. Nice may not be perfect in doing this, but future treaties will improve. Problems with the structures that become apparant during use can be changed. Sending the treaty back to the drawing board solves nothing. The same problems will still exist, and solutions will still have to be found. At least Nice makes some attempt to put a structure on the "maybe's" and "possiblys".

Slutmonkey57b

Originally posted by Greenbean
In general I agree with what bonkey says, but this one thing above I do not get. If we wanted companies to be here for free, then thats totally our perogative. If someone else wants to charge them 40% tax, then thats their own (greedy?) stance towards it. So how can this be something for which the EU complains? Go reduce your own tax. To turn it around and make it look like we are abusing other countries by taking a loss on taxation, when other countries can do the same.. well I don't buy it - its everyone else bullying the odd one out so they can have it both ways.

Very simple - Corporation Tax, or Company Tax, is one of the methods by which governments raise money. This may suprise you but money is needed for governments to do things. What is at issue is that everyone else was playing by the rules, but we were not. We are now being asked to play by the rules. We were the ones doing the "bullying" - not them.

Oh, just as a matter of interest, were you aware that all that EU money comes from taxpayers in other EU countries? And that if the likes of France and Germany hadn't had such high taxes they might not have had so much money to hand to this country on a plate? Of course, that's different I'm sure.

Meh

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
What is at issue is that everyone else was playing by the rules, but we were not. We are now being asked to play by the rules. We were the ones doing the "bullying" - not them.

But there is no rule that says we can't have our corporation tax rate "too low". The only rule says we have to have the same tax rate for foreign and domestic companies, so we're moving to a common rate of 12.5% (up slightly for foreign companies, down dramatically for domestic companies). Still a lot lower than the rest of the EU.

Nevyn

a certain large computer company ( thier name has 3 letters )
Had a production plant in italy, thier product which is sold to business has a very hefty price.

When Italy changed thier export tax so that all goods made for export where subject to a 15 % tax they decided that it would be cheaper to shut up shop and move to ireland despite the setup costs and the cost of building a factory from scratch.

So when this evening out of taxes occurs, the only way they will save would be in wages oh an wow look how many of the countries jockeying to join the E.U. have lower pay rates and cost of living nevermind better roads, cheaper electricty ect.


Think about it, oh and the live register for those who are currently unemployed has risen for the first time in 8 years.


Do the maths, read it for yourself , make up your mind and least take part and vote one way or the other.

I know what way i'm voting but if by some chance the other side wins and the precentage of those who did not vote
( those that are registered !!! but thats a differnce issue)
is twice what swung it for them I'll be livid to say the very least.

This referenda is going to be very very close

bonkey

Originally posted by Thaed
When Italy changed thier export tax so that all goods made for export where subject to a 15 % tax they decided that it would be cheaper to shut up shop and move to ireland despite the setup costs and the cost of building a factory from scratch

....

Do the maths,

Yes. The Italian increase immediately removed a masive amount of taxation before profit. Regardless of whether the company made money or not, it was facing either an increase of 15% of its product's end-price, or a corresponding decrease in its own income

The Irish increase to foreign investors is (on paper) 1/6 of this figure. Not only that, but it only gets applied to profit.

In short, the two situations are as different as chalk and cheese...when you (as you suggested) do the math rather than looking at the fact that both are taxation increases (about their only similarity).

Going further, you will also find that in many cases these companies who set up in Ireland had cheaper locations available but moved to Ireland because of a combination of factors - including the available skillsets in the marketplace - something we can be sure that the eastern nations do not have an advantage in right now.

Think about it, oh and the live register for those who are currently unemployed has risen for the first time in 8 years.

Gosh. There's a world recession, and yet somehow its a bad/surprising thing (and somehow relevant to Nice) that unemployment has risen?

jc

Nevyn

Well as i used for work for that company i know for a fact that is why they moved here and 2 of thier main suppliers for parts have recently moved into Croatia. Chances are they'll do so in the future

Lemming

I'm not going to get bogged down in most of the Nice Treay pros and cons here, but I'll ask this on the much vaunted subject of Irish neutrality ........ (since I find it quite amusing in a not-so-amusing way)

1. If someone attacks the EU tomorrow, whom are they attacking?

2. What union of european nations is Ireland a member of?

3. Therefore, Nice Treaty passed or no, are we are still a target for whomever decides to attack the EU?

4. Therefore, are we neutral when push comes to shove?