 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Nice Treaty
|
|
|
Subject: Nice Treaty From: GUEST,JTT Date: 11 Jun 01 - 04:03 AM How odd that there's so little discussion online about the Nice Treaty. In fact, I can't even find one maillist discussing the EU! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice Treaty From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Jun 01 - 05:44 AM Too nasty for us nice people? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice Treaty From: sian, west wales Date: 11 Jun 01 - 06:01 AM Probably a casualty of the media focus on the election. From what I read (which is very little), the Nice Treaty wasn't absolutely necessary for EU enlargement ... so I'm not sure what it was meant to achieve. My info on the subject is superficial to say the least, but I've seen one Irish gov't spokesperson say that Ireland wouldn't vote for it because the beneficiaries would be East Europeans, not Irish. Which seemed more than a bit off, seeing as the Republic has certainly had its good long time in the financial sun. sian |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice Treaty From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Jun 01 - 06:14 AM That Irish government spokesperson would have been talking in favour of the treaty, so I'd take that with a pinch of salt.
My understanding is that enlargement can go ahead without theat treaty, and that most opponents of the treaty are in fact in favour of enlargement to admit Easstern European countries. Opposition to it seems to have centred on the suspicion that a lot of other stuff had been sneaked into it which threatened things that are valued in Ireland, such as an ability to keep out of foreign wars. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice Treaty From: Gervase Date: 11 Jun 01 - 07:14 AM It appears that Ireland has had its neutrality guaranteed, and that in return the rest of the EU seems set to chug along with integrating everyone from the Urals to the mid-Atlantic. (Oops - I sound like a Europhobe there, and I'm most definitely not. Interestingly, despite the dire and dread warnings of the little bald Tory chap, Wossname, about "European superstates" and "rule from Brussels", the EU directorate in Brussels employs fewer bureaucrats than Manchester City Council. But I digress...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice Treaty From: GUEST,JTT Date: 11 Jun 01 - 08:17 AM I don't think Irish neutrality is guaranteed. But (speaking as a Europhile, but not a one-nation-of-Europe-phile) the Irish people feel that while they're very grateful for all Europe has given them, they're not grateful enough to trade away their nation for it. The objections aren't to enlargement, in anyone I've talked to. They're to the two-tier Europe that's being attempted, where countries like Germany will have a permanent seat on the Council of Ministers, while small countries like Ireland (or Poland, or Croatia, when they come in) will not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice Treaty From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 11 Jun 01 - 05:21 PM Not sure that's right, is it Gervaase? Is it not that Manchester city council has more employees than the EU has bureaucrats? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice Treaty From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Jun 01 - 06:04 PM The interesting thing is that Ireland is the only country in the European Union where the citizens have to be consulted about this kind of thing. Everywhere else it gets nodded through by the politicians.
And that essentially was why people voted against the treaty, I'm pretty sure, because with the treaty (as it stands) in place that right to be consulted and to decide on many important things would have been at risk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice Treaty From: Gervase Date: 12 Jun 01 - 05:48 AM Good letter in the Guardian today, Kevin (I'm assuming there can't be two Kevin McGraths in Harlow with a good turn of phrase and succinct views on the Irish referendum process!). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice Treaty From: Ringer Date: 12 Jun 01 - 06:39 AM Can anyone explain just why everyone seems so keen to expand the EU to include Poland , the Czech Republic, and all the others? Even the Tory party, most Euro-sceptic of Britain's major parties, seems keen. I (you may deduce) am not. I think that the Irish referendum is a breath of fresh air - both for the fact that at least one country offered its citizens the right to have a say and also for the result. But then, I'm not just Euro-sceptic but Euro-phobic, if the Euro bit of the word implies a political entity, or economic and monetary union, or a United States of Europe, or, indeed, anything other than a geographic continent. But I saw a report that Bertie Aherne, on learning the result, had said (I paraphrase) "Not to worry: we'll hold another referendum and, if necessary, another one after that, until we get the answer we're looking for." And then, presumably, stop. Funny idea of democracy he seems to have. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice Treaty From: sian, west wales Date: 12 Jun 01 - 07:28 AM Thanks for this thread - it's kick-started me into getting some info on this Treaty. There's a fair bit that I'm not keen on, and I suspect that I would have also voted against it in a referendum. There's some good reading in the Irish Times on-line. Let me try a blue clicky here , says she breaking out into a cold sweat. Something which might be a bit misleading to others, McGrath: you are probably right that the Irish must be consulted through referendum, but I think it's a facility available to all EU memebers, but not generally exercised. Also, it seems that one of the Irish ministers will be making a statement re: the specifics of neutrality in the very near future. sian |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice Treaty From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Jun 01 - 07:11 PM Any government is entitled to call a referendum on anything it chooses. The difference in Ireland is that if any legislation looks like it might affect the constitution etc, there has to be a referendum, whatever the government thinks.
I'm all for being able to move around freely and have the right to live where you like and work where you like, and so forth, and I'm happy for that to include places like Poland and especially the Czech Republic where they make brilliant beer. And the only reason I'd have any wish to "save the pound" would be that I like going to "pound shops", and the range of goods that could be got for a smaller unit like the euro would be a lot more restricted.
Most of the time I use plastic anyway, for anything over a couple of pounds, and so long as that worked everywhere, and there were cashpoints to give me drinking currency, I couldn't care less what the actual currency was. Cowries would be fine for me.
So when they get this referendum in the UK it'll be about quite the least interesting or crucial aspect of the European project. Ireland's accepted the idea of the euro as currency, no sweat. The referendum last week was about more significant aspects, and noone's going to consult us in England about those.
(And yes, Gervase, that was my letter in the Guardian - the main point of which was to point out that there'd also been a referendum on capital punishment, and the Irish voters has come out overwhelmingly against the death penalty, which is one in the eye for the patronising chattering classes of England.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice Treaty From: GUEST,petr Date: 12 Jun 01 - 09:01 PM hey bald eagle, why are you not keen on the Czech Rep. or Poland if Ireland can get in why not them. They have a strong industrial base and educational system. Up until ww2 Czechoslovakia was in the top 10 industrial nations, sure they have catching up to do, but lets face it where was Ireland 12 yrs ago, theyve really benefitted from all the EU investment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice Treaty From: Ringer Date: 13 Jun 01 - 05:25 AM Petr: if the EU were merely a trading group, I'd have no problem with their entry - in fact, the more the merrier. But it ain't. As things stand now, Greeks, French, Irish, Dutch, Germans, Spanish and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all have a say in the running of the UK. That's bad enough, but I don't want even more non-UKians having their say as well. You might argue, of course, that the UK has an influence on the running of GFIDGS and UTC and all, so there's a quid for the pro quo. But I've not the slightest desire to tell the rest of the world how to go about its business; unfortunately the EU does not adopt the complementary attitude to the UK. McGrath: aren't you being just a leetle disingenuous in saying that you don't mind losing the pound? Adopting the euro is giving away control of the economy - that's what matters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice Treaty From: Ringer Date: 15 Jun 01 - 09:53 AM Slightly off topic, but two points: *** Point 1 *** News today of rioting in Gothenburg (where the EU is holding a meeting). I know that most of the rioters are the usual anti-globalisation rent-a-crowd with whom I've little sympathy, but is it just possible that some of them are there protesting at the powerlessness of European citizens in the face of an arrogant, bloated and corrupt politico-bureaucracy? I heard today, for example, some French politician who, pressed by his interviewer, admitted that France would never offer the French a referendum on the Nice treaty because they could never win it. And Irish representatives have apparently told the EU meeting to go ahead with Nice because the Irish would vote "Yes" in the next referendum; if I were an Irish voter, that would make me very cross indeed. But what can I do? I haven't been offered my say in a referendum on Nice, and nor have the vast majority of my fellow Europeans. I shall continue to rant against the EU (I spit on the EU) here. *** Point 2 *** Quaintly, the EU presidency circulates among member nations. Currently, the presidency is Sweden's (which is why they are meeting in Gothenburg now), and the Swedish premier has just said that he favours a strong EU as a balance against American cultural and economic hegemony (again, I'm paraphrasing from memory of a news report)! So there we have it: Europe's raison d'etre is not anything positive, but is merely anti-Americanism. Not sharing his anti-Americanism, I've always wondered what the point of the EU was. *** Point 3 *** (Like the Spanish Inquisition, isn't it?) No one has yet come up with any arguments for enlarging the EU: does that mean there aren't any? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice Treaty From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Jun 01 - 01:14 PM There are plenty, if you are a politician! A chance to be a big fish in a slightly bigger pond. Further opportunity when they have hit a ceiling in their own country. Vastly more jobs for politicians. Endless junkets to the finest hotels and best restaurants in Europe. Given the deference normally reserved for royalty. For all these reasons no politician can be expected to have a dispassionate, unbiased opinion on the EU |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice Treaty From: mousethief Date: 15 Jun 01 - 01:38 PM Golly, if the EU prevents its members from going to war with one another, that will be a huge improvement over the Europe of the last 2,000 years, I'd say. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice Treaty From: Wolfgang Date: 15 Jun 01 - 02:02 PM Bald Eagle: No one has yet come up with any arguments for enlarging the EU You must mean here, in this thread, for that's the only way this sentence can make sense. Outside of this thread the arguments are easy to find if you want. You may not like them or may not share them, but that's something else.
Some of the arguments are: I can see that someone in far off Britain may think different, but for Germany it'll be an advantage, on the balance of the positive and negative, to enlarge the EU: A big new market at our front (or back, when you look from the other side) door with people that can pay for our goods (they can't really now), less pressure to emigrate for some of our our immediate neighbours, less bad blood among German workers by eliminating the biggest reason for extremely cheap labour (you can't concur with offers to work for less than a pound an hour which people crossing the border daily with extremely low costs of living at home can make). Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice Treaty From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Jun 01 - 02:20 PM Disingenous and proud of it.
Adopting the euro is giving away control of the economy That's already happened long time ago. The Single European Act was far more significant a step than the euro would be - and nobody consulted the voters on that. Unlike in Irekland, where there was a referendum on it, of course. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice Treaty From: GUEST,JTT Date: 15 Jun 01 - 04:52 PM The thing about the Nice Treaty isn't that it enlarges the EU - why not let the eastern Europeans in? They're brilliant techies and farmers, and we can do with their work - but that it makes for a two-tier Europe. With the changes of voting rights, the small countries will no longer be able to veto anything the big bullies want to sweep through. And the small countries will have no automatic right to their own ministers on the Council of Ministers any more. When we joined the EEC we were told that the great thing about it was that it was always going to be an association of equals. Suddenly we find that we're being shoved into the position of a little squeaky state on the periphery of a big powerful Europe ruled by the German reich. No thanks! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice Treaty From: GUEST,Claymore Date: 15 Jun 01 - 06:22 PM I'm not sure the Americans are getting a clear picture of what is happening with the voting on the Nice treaty. In fact if you search for the word "Ireland" in todays news, all you get are stories about Patricia Ireland leaving the radical-fem group NOW. From what I can read here in the States, the Irish are being denounced for dropping the taxes for corporations that do business in Ireland, to attract American business investment. The Irish are alleged that they are able to do this because of the massive EU investments in the country, which have caused the Irish economy to float free from Eurpoean hegemony, and that now as one of the more successful scions of the EU experiment, they don't want to rejoin the very comrades who raised them up. According to the AP, Ireland is now getting one half of all US investments in Europe ('way to go Paddy). In addition there appears to be an editorial concern over the Irish fears of large scale eastern Eurpoean immigration into Ireland to take the lower scale jobs, (a "Rio Shannon" mentality, as one commented, after the Tex-Mex conflicts in the US). The US liberals are commenting on "Irish racism," while the conservatives are worried about black EU helicopters. At this rate all the Irish need is the bomb, and Europe would have wedgie for decades. What's the true scoop from those on the ground? If this criticism keeps up, you guys will end sitting at the the table with the US and Israel, listening to the French scream from the kitchen, while Juan, Janos, and Abdul hop your backyard fence... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice Treaty From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Jun 01 - 07:09 PM You've got the Internet, you don't have to rely on the spin in the American press about this kind of stuff, you can go straight to the Irish sites.
Since fears for Irish neutrality and the risk of getting sucked into military entanglements were key factors in the referendum, I can't see much prospect of any great support for "sitting at the the table with the US and Israel". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice Treaty From: GUEST,Claymore Date: 15 Jun 01 - 07:45 PM Well McGrath, it's not that I haven't tried, but I must admit that my reading of such sites as the Irish Times was not sensitive to the Irish Neutrality Question, except as a minor aside to the Irish Loss of Identity Question, the Irish Immigration Question, and the Irish Corporate Tax Question. But maybe there are war clouds over Europe that we Americans are not aware of; it wouldn't be the first time. But since there are other countries in the EU that have maintained neutrality during several of the world's late unpleasantnesses, there must be some precedences for this sort of thing, how are the other countries handling the issue? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice Treaty From: GUEST,mgarvey@pacifier.com Date: 16 Jun 01 - 12:07 AM I hope each country gets what it needs. And about Chezkoslovakia...I ended up at a trade exhibition there just after the wall came down. I was amazed at what they could do under communism...imagine what they could do with more flexibility and resources...they built things solid...and pretty and clever...it was like a country of engineers and mechanics maybe...everything looked extremely well designed and like it was built to last 100 years...also they were the healthiest looking people I had seen in Europe...maybe just those at the fair, who seemed to only eat sausage and beer. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nice Treaty From: GUEST,Janet Ryan Date: 16 Jun 01 - 10:11 AM As an American who has followed the debate in Ireland over the Nice treaty, I can say it is quite easy to follow on-line by accessing a number of different types of sites. The Irish Times is conservative, reactionary & Dublin 4 West Brit, and they would be the last place I'd go for balanced, unbiased information--unless I wanted to know what the position was of the Dublin 4 West Brit "liberal" (and reactionary) constituency! The Irish Green Party was one of the main parties organized in opposition to the Nice treaty, as was Sinn Fein. A trip to those parties' websites might give people a different point of view, as well as additional insight into the thinking of progressive Irish voters opposed to the treaty. As someone else has also mentioned, a move to abolish all references to the death penalty in the Irish consitution was also on the referendum, and the Irish voters decided to abolish all references to it in their constitution. So the referendum wasn't even remotely concerned with being a knee-jerk, jingoist reaction by racist Irish nationalists. There was a definite Irish context regarding the Irish citzenry's values in regards to the death penalty, increased militarization within the EU, as well as a concern that the expansion of the EU will be accomplished by a gutting of the power sharing controls originally agreed to by EU members to protect the smaller and weaker economies of Europe from the large and more powerful ones. That simply doesn't equate to an Irish obsession with isolationist protectionism, but rather, with Irish concerns for the balance of power between the large and small economic powers within the EU itself. It should be of concern to all the smaller economies in the EU, especially now that it looks like the last European economic superpower (Britain) will likely be jumping on the Euro bandwagon as well. I don't think it's reasonable to make a leap of logic to say the vote was anti-Eastern European, or anti-immigrant, or knee-jerk nationalism, or racist. To say that just shows how little one actually knows about the vote on the ground in Ireland, not to mention about the power structure of the EU, the increased militarization of the EU, it's role in globalization and exploitation of poor countries, etc. As to whether this was a progressive, rather than liberal response by Irish voters (the liberal establishment in Ireland is usually pro-Nice, pro-EU, and rabidly anti-Irish nationalist), I would say it was definitely more a vote which came down on the side of the progressive left, rather than centrist liberal Eurocrats--oops, I mean democrats, of course! It had precious little to do with Irish nationalism. Rather, the debate and subsequent vote seems to have had more to do with the Irish perceptions of the distribution of power within the EU, and with Ireland's military neutrality (and the Irish citzenry's desire not to join the increasingly militarized "EU forces"). Irish troops already serve in military capacities through their involvement with NATO and the UN, and the Irish people aren't interested in becoming any further involved than that at this point (as the referendum has proved). Think about if folks--a vote against joining the expansion of a EU military force is also a vote against potential EU conscription of Irish troops by Brussels, to fight wars the EU powers choose to fight--which I assure you, will have precious little to do with the Irish or the Czechs...
|