Why We Should Vote Yes.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bertiebowl

Couldn't agree with u more my man. A YES vote will place us at the heart of an enlarged Europe and allow the applicant countries into the EU.

dathi1

all the above is bull.

Vote no to nice because weather you like it or not Ireland will experience a power downgrade under Nice. With a loss of power comes a loss of influence and with a loss of power and influence comes a loss of Trade and employment. Plain and simple. Politicians know a good thing when they see it coming i.e.: bums on seats in a new federal state with a president in control. as was hinted by our very own labour party....and they will U-turn to suit their own selfish agenda above their constituents see the u-turns below.

No power downgrade for Ireland no to nice on Saturday

Typedef

At the discression of your authoritarian governmnet feel free to vote in any shade of grey you like*

*note voting black will mean a return to the ballot box... welcome to democracy in Ireland

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

dathi1

Well how can you say its bull if you won't refute a single point?

I'm too busy on the road campaigning for a No vote.......word of mouth works best its quicker and you dont get cramped fingers trying to change the minds some of the pro bertie guys here..........wheres next?.....Limkillen road Greenhills..go go go!! No No No.
ps the buisness cards worked great!

Cork

I think - the Yes brigade could put their arguement on a postage stamp and have room left over.

This treaty leads us to a path of no return. It militarises the EU. God only knows where the Rapid reaction force will be sent and who will decide on its missions?

Maybe some brigadeer?

I

Originally posted by Cork
I think - the Yes brigade could put their arguement on a postage stamp and have room left over.

This treaty leads us to a path of no return. It militarises the EU. God only knows where the Rapid reaction force will be sent and who will decide on its missions?

Maybe some brigadeer?

I

Cork,
could you back up those statements, instead of making bland meaning less comments.
mm
p.s
My eyesight though a little strained can read that buisness card of dathai1's
All his attachments are well done-I'm still voting yes though:eek:

LFCFan

The Nice Treaty is NOT about enlargement. The 12 Applicant countries will have to negotiate individual Accession Treaties just as Ireland did in 1973. We got in easy but these new countries will have to take on 20,000 EU laws whether they like it or not. They will also have to abolish their National Currency and take the Euro even though Britain, Denmark and Sweden were able to opt out. Enlargement was part of the Mastricht Treaty and there is going to be another Treaty in 2004 to make more amendments to Nice.

The Nice Treaty is about balance of power and that balance will be firmly with Britain, German, France and Italy. They get this power automatically on the 1st of January 2005 even if none of the new nations have joined. We lose around 30 Vetos and we will have no say in what the RRF does. If the RRF is for peace keeping then why do they want to buy attack helicopters and Missiles?

Denmark managed to get a provision added to protect their Nueatrality, we didn't. To be honest though, how Neutral can a country be these days and we lost our right to it the day bombers refueled in Shannon on the way to bomb Afghanastan.

A law was passed in the Dail just before they broke up for Xmas that meant the old ways of giving both sides of the story was no longer an issue and the government have been able to pump tax payers money into campainging for a Yes vote. They are bombarding us with their propaganda so it's no wonder the Yes vote seems to be winning. This law was passed by the same c*nts who wanted to ban opinion polls before elections.

I could go on and on and on. How much do the yes voters ever say. We'll lose jobs. We owe it to the EU. We owe it to the new nations that want to join. There is no valid arguement coming from the Yes camp. The Treaty is NOT about enlargement so that wipes out 50% of what Bertie and his goons are going on about. In recent days, both Fianna Fail and Fine Gael have admitted that Mr. Romano Prodi was correct when he said enlargement will happen regardless of whether or not NICE is ratified.

Meh

Originally posted by LFCFan
The Nice Treaty is NOT about enlargement. The 12 Applicant countries will have to negotiate individual Accession Treaties just as Ireland did in 1973. We got in easy but these new countries will have to take on 20,000 EU laws whether they like it or not.

You mean the same 20,000 EU laws that apply to us and every other country in the Union? Are you saying that the new countries should be able to pick and choose which laws they want to implement, and ignore the laws that they don't like the look of?

They will also have to abolish their National Currency and take the Euro even though Britain, Denmark and Sweden were able to opt out.

They have chosen to join the euro.

The Nice Treaty is about balance of power and that balance will be firmly with Britain, German, France and Italy.

Wrong -- even under the areas that QMV does apply to, these four countries will not have enough votes to push anything through.

We lose around 30 Vetos

Everyone loses around 30 vetoes.

and we will have no say in what the RRF does. If the RRF is for peace keeping then why do they want to buy attack helicopters and Missiles?

The RRF is for peacemaking as well. Remember how useless the Dutch peacekeepers were at protecting those 7,000 Bosnian civilians in Srebnice? Future missions like this need to be able to protect civilians properly, with force if necessary.

Denmark managed to get a provision added to protect their Nueatrality, we didn't.

Denmark is a NATO member. They are not neutral.

bonkey

Originally posted by dathi1
With a loss of power comes a loss of influence and with a loss of power and influence comes a loss of Trade and employment.

By implication, Trade and employment come with influence and power.

One would wonder how the Irish ever managed to interest foreign trade and boost employment previously.

Originally posted by dathi1
I think - the Yes brigade could put their arguement on a postage stamp and have room left over.

Funny, considering that the points raised on this thread already supercede that, and the refutation of them has been "you're wrong, nah nah nah".

If, by some twisted logic, you believe that the "refuted" arguments must be left out of this postage-stamp, then I would ask you to provide the mass on unrefuted arguments from the No camp to show that they are somehow more copious?

Also - bear in mind that you seem to support the "thats just rubbish, but only cause I disagree with you" technique of refutation, so I can absolutely guarantee that the No arguments are no more quantiful.#

So - come on. Line them up. Bring on the "more than a postage stamp's size" of arguments for the No camp.

Otherwise why dont you just sit down, stop making noise, and let the people interested in serious discussion actually get back to it.

jc

Jak

Excellent post Meh.

With regard to the RRF I really do not see the issue - it is not like we are bringing in the draft or planning to invade Russia.

The modern world has not seen the end of war - and soldiers, even Irish ones, on occasion will have to fight (it is in the job description).

As for RRF helicopters etc. - I am afraid the days of an unarmed peace keeping army are long gone. I see no issue with having a well equipped modern army under a wider unified control. I believe bringing a military force under common control would also serve to further unite member states.

Ireland has *never* been truly neutral and frankly I would rather we took a stance on military issues of the day.

LFCFan

I like the way you only address the stuff I brought up that you have an answer for. What about the rest of it?

gandalf

My god daveirl I nearly cried reading your post. It pulled all the right heartstrings and pushed all the right buttons.

Unfortunately I feel you have oversimplified the situation. Eventhough 10 nations are pencilled in to join the EU not all of them will. Some will not be allowed because they will not meet the requirements in time (this is one of the reasons the Dutch government fell this week), some will vote against joining when referendums are held (the most likely been Hungary, Estonia & Poland I believe). Now with this in mind there is more than enought scope with the existing treaty of Amsterdam. By 2005 the Nice treaty will be superceeded by the next treaty (lets hope they actually make a better job of this one) and they can address the enlargement situation here.

Now onto the jobs smokescreen. To be honest both sides are talking complete and utter bolderdash about the treaty directly effecting jobs. A Yes or No will not deliver more or less jobs to Ireland. Our continued prosperity is linked to how competitive we are and not how much like sheep we vote in these referendums. The one area that does concern me greatly is the situation regarding tax harmonisation which I do feel will be on the way to been compromised if we do vote yes to this treaty given the geletine backbone our politicians have shown so far into this particular adventure.

Again the Seville declarations are just that. Our Neutrality should have been hardwired into the Treaty itself instead of been ignored and fobbed off in this manner. I do not believe the Seville Declarations protect our Neutrality and I believe a No vote is the only choice if people want to protect Neutrality.

Again I would like to reiterate that a NO vote does not stop Neutrality but why take my word here are the words of some of the leading Europeans at the moment to back them up.

"A No vote in Ireland will not prevent enlargement… It will not be too bad. The closure of negotiations will apparently be delayed a little – in this case you can trust the member states. Plan B is always in the drawer". - Christine Kirschbaum, staff member of Enlargement Commissioners Günter Verheugen at a conference on EU enlargement in Hamburg

"Legally, ratification of the Nice Treaty is not necessary for enlargement. It's without any problem up to 20 members, and those beyond 20 members have only to put in the accession agreement some notes of change, some clause. But legally, it's not necessary from this specific point of view, enlargement is possible without Nice." - Roman Prodi soon after the first rejection of the Nice Treaty by Ireland.

"The solution will not be to ignore the vote, but to handle the situation. Probably it requires taking what is needed from the Nice Treaty necessary to carry through the enlargement," - Valery Giscard d'Estaing President of the Convention on the Future of Europe in Denmark July 2002.

There is really one choice if you care about this country & democracy in the EU on Saturday and that is a No to Nice vote.

Gandalf.

Meh

Originally posted by LFCFan
I like the way you only address the stuff I brought up that you have an answer for. What about the rest of it?

OK, here goes:

The Nice Treaty is NOT about enlargement. The 12 Applicant countries will have to negotiate individual Accession Treaties just as Ireland did in 1973.

If Nice is rejected, the reforms that Nice makes to the EU will have to be put into the accession treaties. Having 12 separate individual accession treaties will be twelve times as difficult as the Nice treaty. Remember how the negotiations at the Nice conference nearly failed to agree on a treaty at all? Take those difficulties and multiply them by twelve...

To be honest though, how Neutral can a country be these days and we lost our right to it the day bombers refueled in Shannon on the way to bomb Afghanastan.

So you're saying 1) we're not neutral 2) Nice threatens our neutrality. Make up your mind please.

A law was passed in the Dail just before they broke up for Xmas that meant the old ways of giving both sides of the story was no longer an issue and the government have been able to pump tax payers money into campainging for a Yes vote.

No such law was passed. The McKenna judgement means that the Constitution forbids the government to use public money to fund one side over the other. Previously, the government funded both Yes and No sides. Now they are funding neither. Instead they are giving money to the independent Referendum Commission which is running an information campaign.

They are bombarding us with their propaganda so it's no wonder the Yes vote seems to be winning.

You mean that the Yes campaign are actually trying to persuade people to vote Yes? How evil of them.

This law was passed by the same c*nts who wanted to ban opinion polls before elections.

Irrelevant.

The Treaty is NOT about enlargement so that wipes out 50% of what Bertie and his goons are going on about. In recent days, both Fianna Fail and Fine Gael have admitted that Mr. Romano Prodi was correct when he said enlargement will happen regardless of whether or not NICE is ratified.

Enlargement will happen if Nice falls. However, it will definitely be delayed -- nobody knows for how long. These countries have been waiting more than a decade to join the EU. A No vote would leave them out in the cold for several more years.

I think that covers everything I missed out in my earlier post; let me know if you want any more of your arguments refuted.

LFCFan

At the end of the day it's all opinion. In my opinion Nice is bad. In your opinion Nice is good. The only way we are ever going to know which side is right is by waiting and seeing what happens. Nice won't destroy us and if a Yes vote is the outcome I don't think it's gonna be majorly bad. I think the Nice treaty is bordering on a good treaty but I think it needs to be renegotiated and then we can accept it. I am not Anti Europe. I am not Anti Enlargement and I am certainly not Anti more money for my pocket but I don't think the Nice Treaty is the right way to go, not in it's present form anyway. The Euro is already faltering and adding more weaker economies can't be good. There is gonna be another treaty in 2004 that deals with enlargement anyway so Nice is irrelevant in that case.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

Originally posted by daveirl
3. WTF? Another Treaty? What are you talking about?

in 2004 the negotiations for the successor to the Nice Treaty are scheduled to be held. Should Nice fail to pass in Ireland, it is most probable that these will be used to negotiate an alternative to Nice.

Regardless of what gets negotiated, the next Treaty is tentatively scheduled for 2007 I believe.

This, of course, is highly unlikely to actually happen within that timeframe should Nice pass. The EU wont have had sufficient to judge its new structure to be able to effectively consider "the next step".

jc

LFCFan

Originally posted by daveirl
1. The Euro is getting stronger. Just look up the Euro-Dollar rate from a year ago and now.

The Euro was getting stronger and in June/July was on par with the dollar. Since then it has weakened again and the European Central Bank have refused to reduce interest rates to try and stregthen it. At the moment the Euro is worth 97 cents so it has weakened and it continues to weaken. Also 95% of Germans want the DM back. Things aren't so rosey in Euro land.

2. WTF? Another Treaty? What are you talking about? [/B]

There is going to be a grand constitutional EU Treaty in 2004 that will deal more with enlargement than Nice ever will.