-
Welcome, guest!
Why not take a moment to register an account?
If you already have an account, remember to Log In!
Ha !! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter path
- Start date
- Replies 31
- Views 3K
- Watchers 0
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2000
- Messages
- 11,319
yeah, a bit mad. one of the highest turnouts was somewhere in north-west dublin with around 39% or something and it looks like the farmers weren't bothered either...
Juicy boobies, eh?
After finding out all the info I could, I eventually voted "Yes".
*gasp!*
After thinking long and hard about it, I decided there were more reasons to vote yes than no, despite all the talk from various lefty types...I presume everyone else voted no...do your worst >
After finding out all the info I could, I eventually voted "Yes".
*gasp!*
After thinking long and hard about it, I decided there were more reasons to vote yes than no, despite all the talk from various lefty types...I presume everyone else voted no...do your worst >
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2000
- Messages
- 4,073
just to stir the shit - let's use this analogy...
the eu (brussels - whoever) have us by the balls and have for some time, no?
what do you do when someone has you by the balls?
piss them off? - well, we just did it - it'll all end in tears
also - could all the no voters here actually say what point they most disagreed with in the treaty - i don't want some diatribe(?) about how we shouldn't bow to the man, just the exact reason with reference to the treaty why you voted no. and not 'cos the big pretty posters told you to or a certain nationalist party told you to.
the eu (brussels - whoever) have us by the balls and have for some time, no?
what do you do when someone has you by the balls?
piss them off? - well, we just did it - it'll all end in tears
also - could all the no voters here actually say what point they most disagreed with in the treaty - i don't want some diatribe(?) about how we shouldn't bow to the man, just the exact reason with reference to the treaty why you voted no. and not 'cos the big pretty posters told you to or a certain nationalist party told you to.
i voted no because with the proposed changes to the voting rights arangement this was possibly the last chance we'd have to affect anything...
plus i'm not too happy with the direction the common defence policy is going
i must admit that being on the same side as the christian solidarity party felt a bit weird, but hey - anything that pisses off mary harney is fine with me....
plus i'm not too happy with the direction the common defence policy is going
i must admit that being on the same side as the christian solidarity party felt a bit weird, but hey - anything that pisses off mary harney is fine with me....
Okay...I have a diatribe.....sorry!!
Well I voted know for the following reasons. It has nothing to do with leftist policies, the common defence policy or pissing off the main political parties.
The fact of the matter is is that the Treaty of Nice is very bad for the future of Europe. Because Britain, France, Italy and Germany will have their vote trebled (we were to have ours doubled) it would mean that they are enshrining their dominance over Europe. Lionel Jospin (the French Prime Minister) indicated that there should be tax harmonisation in Europe...in other words we should have the same tax rates as everyone else in Europe.
Now, there are twelve countries wanting to come in. Their economies are not nearly as strong as those in the west. If they want to make their economies as strong those in the west, they will have to attract a lot of inward investment. Western countries have more established economies, have better infrastructures and populations where there are many fluent English speakers. Ultimately the West would and is be a better place to invest than the East. If the Eastern countries can set themselves a competitive tax rate it is a huge impetus for outside investment and therefore their economies have a better chance of becoming stronger (Ireland's 10% corporate tax rate has been a direct reason why many companies has invested in here). The Nice Treaty would not allow this to happen. The Nice Treaty would impose a glass ceiling on them, and they would, in effect, only become tributary economies to Germany.
If you look at any economy where all the power is in one area they tend to be very weak (in Russia the social, political and economic control stems from Moscow...Mexico everything is centred in Mexico city...and there are several other cases). De-centralised economies where the social, political and economic power is spread out among different areas are more successful. The United States is like this, China is like this and Germany is like this. The Nice Treaty spells out a Europe where everything revolves around the big four. What we need is a Europe which is de-centralised....a series of autonomous and vibrant economies that are inter-connected in an intrinsic way.
It would also be disasterous for the EU in that the free movement of labour would be capitalised upon by the populations of the incoming countries. It will take some time for these countries to achieve the standard of living that is prevalent in the west. Therefore it is likely that in the first decade of their membership people in the East are going to move into the West. In Germany, France and Britain there are liberal governments who are pro-Europe. An huge influx of these new Eastern EU citizens may not be welcomed by the populations of Britain, France and Germany. This could cause a swing to nationalist, conservative parties who are anti-European and pro-Nationalist. This is clearly not good for us, for them or for Europe. As I have said,
the Nice Treaty handicaps their economies as it gives more power to Germany, Britain, France and Italy.
The Nice Treaty serves Germany, France, Britain and Italy. It only looks to the short term future and it does not give the countries coming in the same opportunities to develop that ourselves, Denmark, Greece or Portugal had. If these countries do develop it will benefit everyone. It will give their own populations a good reason to stay. And it will provide strong markets that all the countries in Western Europe will be intrinsically tied into. Nice will not provide a Europe that is like this.
I'm sorry about the length of this, but the Nice Treaty covers a lot of separate and important issues. It was naive to bundle all these issues together and ask us to vote for them as one. It should have only covered the inclusion of these countries. The other issues within this treaty need more examination and more public scrutiny. Afterall, we were the only country to have a referendum....it is highly likely that the majority of other EU countries would have voted no too.
Phew!....
Well I voted know for the following reasons. It has nothing to do with leftist policies, the common defence policy or pissing off the main political parties.
The fact of the matter is is that the Treaty of Nice is very bad for the future of Europe. Because Britain, France, Italy and Germany will have their vote trebled (we were to have ours doubled) it would mean that they are enshrining their dominance over Europe. Lionel Jospin (the French Prime Minister) indicated that there should be tax harmonisation in Europe...in other words we should have the same tax rates as everyone else in Europe.
Now, there are twelve countries wanting to come in. Their economies are not nearly as strong as those in the west. If they want to make their economies as strong those in the west, they will have to attract a lot of inward investment. Western countries have more established economies, have better infrastructures and populations where there are many fluent English speakers. Ultimately the West would and is be a better place to invest than the East. If the Eastern countries can set themselves a competitive tax rate it is a huge impetus for outside investment and therefore their economies have a better chance of becoming stronger (Ireland's 10% corporate tax rate has been a direct reason why many companies has invested in here). The Nice Treaty would not allow this to happen. The Nice Treaty would impose a glass ceiling on them, and they would, in effect, only become tributary economies to Germany.
If you look at any economy where all the power is in one area they tend to be very weak (in Russia the social, political and economic control stems from Moscow...Mexico everything is centred in Mexico city...and there are several other cases). De-centralised economies where the social, political and economic power is spread out among different areas are more successful. The United States is like this, China is like this and Germany is like this. The Nice Treaty spells out a Europe where everything revolves around the big four. What we need is a Europe which is de-centralised....a series of autonomous and vibrant economies that are inter-connected in an intrinsic way.
It would also be disasterous for the EU in that the free movement of labour would be capitalised upon by the populations of the incoming countries. It will take some time for these countries to achieve the standard of living that is prevalent in the west. Therefore it is likely that in the first decade of their membership people in the East are going to move into the West. In Germany, France and Britain there are liberal governments who are pro-Europe. An huge influx of these new Eastern EU citizens may not be welcomed by the populations of Britain, France and Germany. This could cause a swing to nationalist, conservative parties who are anti-European and pro-Nationalist. This is clearly not good for us, for them or for Europe. As I have said,
the Nice Treaty handicaps their economies as it gives more power to Germany, Britain, France and Italy.
The Nice Treaty serves Germany, France, Britain and Italy. It only looks to the short term future and it does not give the countries coming in the same opportunities to develop that ourselves, Denmark, Greece or Portugal had. If these countries do develop it will benefit everyone. It will give their own populations a good reason to stay. And it will provide strong markets that all the countries in Western Europe will be intrinsically tied into. Nice will not provide a Europe that is like this.
I'm sorry about the length of this, but the Nice Treaty covers a lot of separate and important issues. It was naive to bundle all these issues together and ask us to vote for them as one. It should have only covered the inclusion of these countries. The other issues within this treaty need more examination and more public scrutiny. Afterall, we were the only country to have a referendum....it is highly likely that the majority of other EU countries would have voted no too.
Phew!....
As far as I know there are to be restrictions on any new States admitted to the EU with regard to freedom of movement of workers - they're not allowed in to the current member states for about 10 years, if I remember correctly.
davefluff
New Member
yeh the nice treaty wouldnt have come into being without such an agreement, because the germans are doing their best to keep out immigrants at the moment. they are actually helping the poles who are one of the prospective members of the EU keep immigrants out, because Poland is usually one of the destinations for immigrants from the east on their way to germany. my opinion on the treaty is that, hey look we've got to accept it, because it was clear to all but the most naiive of people this was what was eventually going to happen. since the 1950's the dutch etc have been talking about a european army so its not exactly a surprise. and anyway ireland isnt fucking neutral thats a bunch of crap, if we were neutral we wouldnt allow US air force planes in baldonnel and shannon on their way to iraq and bosnia. ireland turned down nato membership in the 50's because we'd of had to accept partician to join, in fact we proposed a two way pact with the yanks, twice "to fight the evils of communism". unsurprisingly the yanks said nope. and then people are shocked finding out the russians had a nuke aimed at shannon. grr. anyway i'm getting off the point, we need europe because this country cannot survive on its own, we havent got the natural resources to survive. and anyone talking about leaving the EU, well thats fine once you accept we have to pay off all the money we owe to the EU for making our infrastructure even half decent. in saying that i dont like the nice treaty, but i dont think theirs any way of escaping the fact that we'll have to accept it at some stage.
Ehhh I think you'd find that the people who take our money in exchange for their goods would continue to do so, whatever happens
We'd have to pay it back? I thought we got grants, not loans.....
Why? Prodi is saying 2 things - he expects us to ratify it, but it's not going to be renegotiated.... So what does he propose - send in the rapid reaction force to hold guns to our heads & force us to vote yes in the next referendum?
And what happens if (when?) we vote no again?
davefluff
New Member
well, i think the grants were given with a view to us being able to give something back to europe in the future, i dont think theyd just sit back and say, ok your leaving, bye. if we did leave, they'd plonk embargo's and stuff, like they put on austria for electing a far-right government. even if they didnt we'd loose out on a hell of a lot of trade and it'd be back to economic slump.
if they do do another vote, the gov will promote the nice treaty aggresively, they'll go out of their way to get it to pass and it will pass because people will think its somehow better.
if they do do another vote, the gov will promote the nice treaty aggresively, they'll go out of their way to get it to pass and it will pass because people will think its somehow better.
davefluff
New Member
and the natural resources thingy, what i mean by that is; if we were to leave the eu or begin to look like an anty eu country, people arent going to invest here and the multinationals would piss off to eastern europe. so if that happened we'd be buggered, because the eu would have their own trading arangements, like effectively they would plot to make us suffer! and we have to import to survive, and if they put up their prices... well we'd be really in trouble then... so basically we cant leave. as regards not renegotiating the treaty, well thats obvious because ireland doesnt possess any say of worth in the running of the EU :/
The EU Structural Fund grants were given with the intention of bringing our infrastructure up to the same standard as our European neighbours, so that we'd have the capability to be support the same levels of industrial development. The idea being that in time we'd become contributors to EU funds rather than recipients....
As far as I know the only embargo or restriction placed on Austria was in relation to their representation in the EU.
Anyhoo I don't think anyone's advocating withdrawing from the EU - it's more of a "Let's take a few steps back and have a breather while we see if we really want to go down this road" sort of thing.
I think if (when) there's another vote both sides will be out pushing aggressively.
(If anyone's confused / bored then have a look at http://www.ireland.com/special/nice/lobby/index.htm)
As far as I know the only embargo or restriction placed on Austria was in relation to their representation in the EU.
Anyhoo I don't think anyone's advocating withdrawing from the EU - it's more of a "Let's take a few steps back and have a breather while we see if we really want to go down this road" sort of thing.
I think if (when) there's another vote both sides will be out pushing aggressively.
(If anyone's confused / bored then have a look at http://www.ireland.com/special/nice/lobby/index.htm)
People (ie Multinationals) don't invest here because we're in the EU - they invest here because of the low corporation tax rate.
A low corporation tax rate which if the EU had their way would not exist, incidentally.
Ehh the multinationals don't owe us anything - it's just a matter of time before they bugger off anyway. The EU may have it's own trading arrangements, but I don't see the Swiss starving in the streets.....
Actually Ireland does have a say in the running of the EU - but it's a say that would have been drastically curtailed had the referendum been passed.
davefluff
New Member
ah. even though ireland is against the treaty, the eu says it will push ahead with it anyway. just like to know, what does this mean, like does this just mean to say, we'll be staying out of the RRF. does it actually affect englargement or anything?
davefluff
New Member
yes but the swiss have always been an independent and wealthy people. ireland has traditionally been pretty poor and backward. our say in europe is pretty small as it is, but does our rejection of the treaty mean things will stay the same as they are for the irish and everyone else who ratifies it will be forced to change? the fact we're part of the eu opens up lots of trading opportunities, if we we're to be outside the eu and the trade wasnt free, well like what happened in the economic war with britain in the 30's all our companies would leave.
And another thing - all along we were told by the Yes side that the Nice treaty was about enabling the enlargement of the EU, and a No vote would be a "slap in the face" to potential new member states.
And yet now we're being told that even though the Treaty cannot now be ratified due to our voting no, enlargement is to proceed....
(Some Yes campaigners had castigated the Referendum Commission for not mentioning enlargement in the document sent to voters, but the Commission pointed out that the Nice treaty made no mention of enlargement.)
And yet now we're being told that even though the Treaty cannot now be ratified due to our voting no, enlargement is to proceed....
(Some Yes campaigners had castigated the Referendum Commission for not mentioning enlargement in the document sent to voters, but the Commission pointed out that the Nice treaty made no mention of enlargement.)
The Nice Treaty was a hastily negotitated treaty as the French Government (who were holding the presidency at the time) wanted to look like they had a great vision for Europe. This is the opinion of Jacques Delors, the former EU president.
There was a lot of hostility during the negotiations and it would be fair to say that this treaty is not fully supported by every side.
Because of this the Treaty of Nice is clearly a case of opportunism by Germany and France especially. It takes the issue of expansion...an event that many people in Europe agree will and should happen. And then they add extra conditions to this treaty to increase their powers (which no matter what way you look at it, it does). This is a rather sneaky way of trying to get all the smaller countries in Europe to agree to increasing and enshrining the big four's power and influence in Europe.
There was a lot of hostility during the negotiations and it would be fair to say that this treaty is not fully supported by every side.
Because of this the Treaty of Nice is clearly a case of opportunism by Germany and France especially. It takes the issue of expansion...an event that many people in Europe agree will and should happen. And then they add extra conditions to this treaty to increase their powers (which no matter what way you look at it, it does). This is a rather sneaky way of trying to get all the smaller countries in Europe to agree to increasing and enshrining the big four's power and influence in Europe.
The European Union has been economically successful due to the success of it's smaller economies such as Ireland, Finland, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands. In fact it is the only major economic area that has largely avoided the recent worldwide slump.
Now, Ireland has benefitted hugely from Europe and we would be still quite backward without the funding. However, our economy is booming because we have a very well-educated workforce (education reforms started in the 60s...before we joined Europe), our highly competitive tax regime, our fluency in English, our close ties with Britain and successful pay deals between the social partners...all non-European factors.
The incoming countries would not be able to create competitive tax regimes. This is going to seriously hinder the growth of their economies. In fact, it will mean that they will have to be dependent on the Big Four.
It will ultimately prove to be bad for us if they remain weak when they join. It will mean that most structural funds will go into their economies. The focus will remain entirely on the East.
If they are given the opportunity to expand their economies and make them attractive places for outside investment it will mean that we will have a much larger market for our goods and services. Europe wasn't doing much business with Ireland before the many of these American I.T. companies came in. We were dependent on Britain until we got our shit together. Under the current EU structure we were able to get our shit together. The Europe after Nice won't allow these incoming economies to get their collective shit together (eugggh!). It will turn out that they will have to be politically, economically and socially dependent on Germany.
Now....if anyone has done history...who remembers Lebensraum. Sounds drastic, but that is a big big big reason why the smaller countries in Europe need to retain equal voting rights.
Now, Ireland has benefitted hugely from Europe and we would be still quite backward without the funding. However, our economy is booming because we have a very well-educated workforce (education reforms started in the 60s...before we joined Europe), our highly competitive tax regime, our fluency in English, our close ties with Britain and successful pay deals between the social partners...all non-European factors.
The incoming countries would not be able to create competitive tax regimes. This is going to seriously hinder the growth of their economies. In fact, it will mean that they will have to be dependent on the Big Four.
It will ultimately prove to be bad for us if they remain weak when they join. It will mean that most structural funds will go into their economies. The focus will remain entirely on the East.
If they are given the opportunity to expand their economies and make them attractive places for outside investment it will mean that we will have a much larger market for our goods and services. Europe wasn't doing much business with Ireland before the many of these American I.T. companies came in. We were dependent on Britain until we got our shit together. Under the current EU structure we were able to get our shit together. The Europe after Nice won't allow these incoming economies to get their collective shit together (eugggh!). It will turn out that they will have to be politically, economically and socially dependent on Germany.
Now....if anyone has done history...who remembers Lebensraum. Sounds drastic, but that is a big big big reason why the smaller countries in Europe need to retain equal voting rights.
Dan
New Member
Ireland is now being regarded by most other european countries as a selfish nation and to be honest I agree. The "Celtic Tiger" has turned us into a nation of materialistic, selfish, short memoried fucking twats. You can argue all the reasons for voting no, but the main reason jane and john doe voted no is because they thought they MIGHT lose out when the smaller nations joined. The EU was set up as an organisation designed to improve standards of living for all member states. It certainly did this for us. Argue all you want that we built this great nation of ours all by ourselves, but we didn't. We got a lot of help. Now that we are being asked to let some poorer nations on board, we say no. Its embarrasing. Also, obviously, the government has a lot to answer for for being so complacent about the whole thing.
I'll tell you why I would've voted No, cause I had'nt a notion what the treaty really invovled. Maybe that makes me ignornt or stupid, but I tried to read the leaflets that came in the door (a lot of legal mumbo jumbo was my conclusion) I looked art the posters of soliders and of scary slogans and was still confused, I read the papers that had lots of big headlines and confusing graphs and maps, I listened to Bertie talk about secret funding from right wing Americans...... I felt very confused.
At then end of it all I could'nt figure out what the treaty was about, and i'm not prepared to say yes to something I don't understand, (or, for added paranoia) something I feel somebody does'nt want me to understand but agree to anyway.....)
I'd rather have heard Bertie explain in plain english what the treaty is, and what are the pros and cons of voting yes or no, I would've expected the government to send out leaflets (or at least make them availble) cleary defining what I'm voting on, rather then hear Bertie resort to bully boy tactics of slagging off the No campaigners (right wing US remarks).
And I think I'm not alone in that, there are people who understand the treaty, and now they are the same people who are coming up with whacked out reasons for Irelands no vote and slightly scary 'possible' concequences because of it, but I think the majority of normal joes did'nt understand whart was being voted on (thus the low turnout to) and voted NO.
The best thing Bertie can do if he wants he re-vote is try and explain the treaty of Nice, rather then embaress himself making crazy comments that ultimalty sound like sour grapes.
(oh I did'nt vote no because the polling station in the city centre I was to votwe at closed at 9pm, and I turned up at 9.20pm..... is'nt 9pm a shade early for a station in the centre of the capital???)
(also in more election comedy I found I was registered to vote twice in 2 different towns I've lived in recently.... surely mistakes like this should make the refurendum null and void???)
At then end of it all I could'nt figure out what the treaty was about, and i'm not prepared to say yes to something I don't understand, (or, for added paranoia) something I feel somebody does'nt want me to understand but agree to anyway.....)
I'd rather have heard Bertie explain in plain english what the treaty is, and what are the pros and cons of voting yes or no, I would've expected the government to send out leaflets (or at least make them availble) cleary defining what I'm voting on, rather then hear Bertie resort to bully boy tactics of slagging off the No campaigners (right wing US remarks).
And I think I'm not alone in that, there are people who understand the treaty, and now they are the same people who are coming up with whacked out reasons for Irelands no vote and slightly scary 'possible' concequences because of it, but I think the majority of normal joes did'nt understand whart was being voted on (thus the low turnout to) and voted NO.
The best thing Bertie can do if he wants he re-vote is try and explain the treaty of Nice, rather then embaress himself making crazy comments that ultimalty sound like sour grapes.
(oh I did'nt vote no because the polling station in the city centre I was to votwe at closed at 9pm, and I turned up at 9.20pm..... is'nt 9pm a shade early for a station in the centre of the capital???)
(also in more election comedy I found I was registered to vote twice in 2 different towns I've lived in recently.... surely mistakes like this should make the refurendum null and void???)
Users who are viewing this thread
Activity
So far there's no one here
21 Day Calendar
Landless: 'Lúireach' Album Launch (Glitterbeat Records)
The Unitarian Church, Stephen's Green
Dublin Unitarian Church, 112 St Stephen's Green, Dublin, D02 YP23, Ireland
Dublin Unitarian Church, 112 St Stephen's Green, Dublin, D02 YP23, Ireland
Similar threads
Support thumped.com
Support thumped.com and upgrade your account
Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...
Upgrade now