EU Constitution

[Ringo]

Labour in favour of EU constitution

29 May 2005 15:39
The Labour Party conference has voted overwhelmingly in favour of supporting the EU Constitution whenever the Referendum is held.

Delegate Eoghan Beecher from UCC urged delegates to vote against it, because the party was telling them what to think, and because it facilitated privatisation and globalisation.

But MEP Proinsias de Rossa claimed the Constitution had left wing values, and was a 'slap in the face for Thatcherism'.

On RTÉ's This Week programme, Labour leader Pat Rabbitte said the conference's decision yesterday to seek a pre-election pact with Fine Gael has infused Irish politics with a 'new dynamic'.

He said Labour principles would not be compromised by any deal.

In his address to the conference yesterday, Pat Rabbitte ruled out tax increases for hard working families and said Labour would instead close off tax loopholes.

[jofyisgod]

In his address to the conference yesterday, Pat Rabbitte ruled out tax increases for hard working families and said Labour would instead close off tax loopholes.

Oh God, the dreaded hard working family quote. As a pundit during the British Elcetion said, ' you never hear about the lazy or mediocre families!' :D

[dahamsta]

My cousin. I haven't discussed it with him but I agree with his recommendation.

Like him, I believe that it will lead to increased privatisation and globalisation, and although I'm certainly not fundamentally opposed to privatisation and globalisation, I don't believe they're being done with the best interests of people and states in the current climate. You only have to look at Railtrack and Eircom for examples of gross incompetence when it comes to privatisation. As to globalisation, there's no doubt that there are advantages, but corporations are becoming less and less responsible for their actions, and until something is done about that I think we need to take stock.

Similarly, I'm not opposed to the concept of Europe, in fact I'd consider myself a federalist, however I simply don't believe the constitution is just a gathering of the existing treaties as the politicians are trying to tell us, I believe that it's been framed to give politicians more power at the expense of the electorate and the states. The SW-PAT (Software Patent) debate alone demonstrates that there are serious issues with the existing system, never mind the system that'd being forced down our throats.

adam

[Éanna]

Go France :)

[Risteard]

People are going to be biased against supporting it because of governments disgraceful practices of ignoring the referenda anyway.

[Macy]

My cousin. I haven't discussed it with him but I agree with his recommendation.
I actually agreed with what he said, but thought he could've made more of an effort in the clothes department. On the TV, debating, in a comedy T shirt :eek: :D

[dahamsta]

I actually agreed with what he said, but thought he could've made more of an effort in the clothes department. On the TV, debating, in a comedy T shirt :eek: :DHe's a college student, he'd look like a Tory if he dressed up.

adam

[Jim Smith]

Delegate Eoghan Beecher from UCC urged delegates to vote against it, because the party was telling them what to think, and because it facilitated privatisation and globalisation.Open debate and dissension at a party conference? Was this on "rolling back the years" or some such pop history show?

[Ringo]

i don't agree with pre election pacts for any party. Each party should stand on their own principals & after the people have voted, its up to them to form a government. most people in France voted no to get back at the government.

[Macy]

I think the option of an alternative Government is essential. If you don't agree with it, don't vote for that party or don't vote along the pact lines.

Interesting you bring up France, as no pacts essentially lead for a free for all that had Le Penn in the final run off for President....

[Ringo]

The problem with a labour/fine gael "alternative Government " is that it usually isn't enough & the greens/Sinn fein or others will be needed to form it. Fair enough if fine gael are labours prefered partner , but if the maths don't work out, they've painted themselves into a corner.

[Macy]

A few things....

1) How come Bertie wants to respect the French and Dutch people, but didn't respect the Irish peoples No to Nice Vote?

2) Either Bertie lied to us after the first Nice vote, or he's lying now - as he's now of the opinion that no votes don't matter for the implementation

3) Why, as things stand, are the Government going to waste millions on a referendum that will never actually be ratified? UK basically admitting it's dead now, but Bertie saying we'll press on.

4) I really, really hope that it's a no vote if the Government are vain enough to press on with a referendum.

[carrickharp]

Bertie is a prat :mad: , if we vote no we will be made keep voteing until we get fed up and vote yes.

[Frank Blue]

Bertie is a prat :mad: , if we vote no we will be made keep voteing until we get fed up and vote yes.

What is the point? It is dead. No one wants it. The Dutch and French have overwhelmingly voted no. The UK would vote strongly against Blair and the "Yes" campaign, hence him being reluctant to allow a vote.
The whole idea of the EU and it's enlargement is in a crisis. It is also a way of signalling to the politicians that things have gone far enough. The Germans were not given a vote, as Schröder is more than well aware that it would be rejected. The CDU/CSU in Germany is campaigning to prevent Turkey from joining.

I think the NO vote is this message that the EU seems to be floundering and the people are less than happy with the current political and economic environment and the direction our "wonderful" leaders wish to take us all. Are all politicians this brazenly thick skinned?

[pete]

I know nothing about the issues so couldn't decide now.

[Macy]

I know nothing about the issues so couldn't decide now.
tbh Pete, that's not what I was getting at anyway. Just the FF hypocracy involving referendum's.

I'd be voting no anyway, but hope I don't have to as it's dead in the water already...

[patsh]

Well I would vote yes for the Constitution, as I have looked at it, and read up on it.
I voted yes in both Nice referendums, as I would be very pro-EU, but would like to have voted no the second time as I felt it was outrageous to have a second vote.
I firmly believe that it was the money from the ECC/EU which has turned this country around, there simply could not have been a "Celtic tiger" without the help of France & Germany in particular.

France basically voted No because they are sick of Chirac, and Holland seems to be very worried about the influx of eastern Europeans. Neither of these things was a good reason for voting no, as the EU Constitution cannot affect the movement of people around the EU countries, and the anti-Chirac vote is an internal French issue.
Holding a referendum in Ireland now is ridiculous, but thats exactly the type of politics we get from Ahern and his gang of incompetents. McCreevy did, and now the f*cking PDs take the same almost anti-EU stance, totally ignoring the fact that the EU paid for virtually every bit of decent infrastructure this country has, as well as all the social and legal changes brought about by EU directives and law, which has greatly increased the lot of us all.
Personally speaking, the sooner we have a parliament in Strasbourg running this country and we can dispense with the inept, parish-pump ignoramuses that constitute the majority of our TDs, the better.

[Troy.McClure]

While seeing myself as fairly (but not hugely) pro European, one bit of your post made me laugh.


the sooner we have a parliament in Strasbourg running this country and we can dispense with the inept, parish-pump ignoramuses that constitute the majority of our TDs, the better.

Infairness, MEPs are prob the biggest mé-feiners in the world, worse thaan any TDs here :o

[Éanna]

I intend voting NO to every EU referendum for one simple reason: they refused to accept our democratic decision on Nice, and I don't trust them to behave in a democratic manner again. For the same reason, I'm delighted that the French and the Dutch have said no. I'm not opposed to the idea of the EU as a means of co-operation, but it is an arrogant, undemocratic bureacracy which at this stage seems to function for its own good. If the people running it want it to work, they need to have a long, hard look at what they're doing

[patsh]

While seeing myself as fairly (but not hugely) pro European, one bit of your post made me laugh.



Infairness, MEPs are prob the biggest mé-feiners in the world, worse thaan any TDs here :o
Well if we had a directly elected European Parliament, do you seriously think that the likes of Mary-Lou No-Nothing would be elected?
MEP's are a bit of a joke because too many people see it as a junket that doesn't affect them. It would be much much different if the European Parliament had real power.

[pineapple stu]

KIND OF A RANT ALERT! (Better warn you first! :) )

I will (would?) be voting no on the Constitution - and any other EU Referenda. I would be particularly anti-EU (though not anti-Europe). Various reasons - the main being that I think the EU has completely lost its way and isn't good for the average person in Europe any more.

It seems to have no concept of democracy - witness the Nice referendum, and the suggestions before the French referendum that if the result was No, it would be run again. If ever Ireland dare to vote against the EU, we're chastised as troublemakers, but when it suits the EU, we're the model students. This isn't politics - this is pure propoganda.

I don't believe Union has much to offer Joe Soap on the street either, and previous Referenda seem to have gotten through here based on propoganda from the Government. The euro in particular is brilliant because you'll now be able to see how much everything costs in Europe (lie - you could always see what stuff cost, and in any case, I don't care) and because it'll be so much easier to spend money in foreign countries (lie - credit cards and PASS cards made this easier long before). We were scaremongered with the idea that joining the euro was absolutely vital to our economy (lie - Denmark, Sweden and the UK are doing grand).

I personally feel the EU is getting rid of Irish culture too. The metric system is brilliant because...well, becasue we tell you it is. Postcodes are brilliant because of the wonderfully vague logic that "it's better for Irish business". We seem to have gotten on grand without these, and several letters in the Irish Times suggest that, underneath everything, the only thing postcodes are good for is increasing the volume of mail - which can only mean junk mail. I dislike intensely the way Ireland and GB is being forced to change everything (right down to the emergency services number) to fall in line with mainland Europe. It's probably petty, I know, but it doesn't say much for the EU's appreciation of the various cultures in its area. The fact that little or no attempt is made to justify these various changes - instead, we're bullied into making them - doesn't say much for the EU's agenda. Many people in Holland said they were voting no because they said Holland wasn't becoming less and less Dutch, so it seems I'm in no way alone in these views either.

I should qualify the remark that I'm anti-EU but pro-Europe by saying that I think the idea of all the countries in Europe getting together is probably one of the best in the history of the continent. However, the notion that we have to do everything the same and be effectively a United States of Europe is one I do not subscribe to at all.

Incidentally, regarding the Constitution, how many countries have actually passed it in a referendum? Spain is the only one, I think? Seven or eight countries have passed it through Government ratification. How can such a big issue (or indeed, many of the other big EU issues) be passed simply on the Government's say-so instead of by a referendum of the people? Or am I missing something here.

Feel better now - thanks foot.ie! :)

[pineapple stu]

Personally speaking, the sooner we have a parliament in Strasbourg running this country and we can dispense with the inept, parish-pump ignoramuses that constitute the majority of our TDs, the better.
A classic and misguided case of "far away hills are green". Do you honestly think Italian politicians are intrinsically better than Irish politicians? Or Greek politicians? Or British politicians?

[anto1208]

A few things....


2) Either Bertie lied to us after the first Nice vote, or he's lying now - as he's now of the opinion that no votes don't matter for the implementation
.


a polictian lying , surely thats unheard of :)

[Bluebeard]

I would be considered very much in favour of the Concept of a single unified Europe (teach Brazil to win the damned World Cup anyway!), and I wouldn't consider myself anti the EU or the idea of an EU constitution, but I find myself very sceptical.

Once more, we are not receiving the full details in the post - the little "Understanding the New Constition" book also seems unnecessarily short for the size of the actual Document (haven't got it yet - I'm reckoning that the price will drop now that it looks a non-runner).

I'm also worried about what it might or might not contain - I think that the Irish for Constitution serves it best - Bunreacht - Basic Rule. Like the Americans, I think that it shuold only give the most basic provisions for things, and not tie everything up too much, as we see under the original Big Brother or ONESTATE in We.

Another major question is where the emphasis of the Union is placed - colleagues of mine who claim to have read it maintain that it is once more putting the EU at the service of the private sector - that it's designed to advance multinationals, rather than the people of Europe.

Worries ahoy, and by the looks of it, it will take me near a month to read the damn thing, and I don't like voting on things I don't know for myself.

Who out there has actually read it at this stage?

[patsh]

A classic and misguided case of "far away hills are green". Do you honestly think Italian politicians are intrinsically better than Irish politicians? Or Greek politicians? Or British politicians?
Thanks for you inaccurate, uninformed and presumptious view of what my motives are....:rolleyes:

Politicians from all countries being elected to a European Parliament would mean that we would be voting for Parties like the Greens, Christian Democrats, Communists etc. etc.
Not FF, FG which are the same, or having to put up with minority extremists who abuse power like the PDs.
The vast majority of the people elected would come with a pluralist, liberal based view of life, and a much larger outlook than the local clinic which gets "a house from the council for me daughter".
Local politics would be just that, local politics.

Those elected to the EU Parliament would deal with issues on a much larger scale, but which would have profound impacts on our lives.

Abortion,
The belief that we should have a society over an economy,
a fair taxation system that takes a fair amount from rich and poor alike,
a banking system that services people not rips them off,
Whether horses are more important than people,
The arms industry,
Fair trade
all the issues that we don't want to know about here in Ireland, and what double-speaking politicos cannot fairly debate without the mealy-mouthed "Irish solution to an Irish problem" type outcome.

The opening up of our society in Ireland has been a direct consequence of European law, and our engagement with the countries of the EU, their peoples, their ideas, their ideologies, their cultures.

The sooner we go the whole hog and become a federal state of the European Union, the better.

[dahamsta]

Threads merged.

[pineapple stu]

Politicians from all countries being elected to a European Parliament would mean that we would be voting for Parties like the Greens, Christian Democrats, Communists etc. etc.
Eh? :confused: You have Greens and Christian Democrats here as well - you can vote for them here! There's plenty of other parties too. Nobody's forcing you to vote FF or FG.


Those elected to the EU Parliament would deal with issues on a much larger scale, but which would have profound impacts on our lives...all the issues that we don't want to know about here in Ireland, and what double-speaking politicos cannot fairly debate without the mealy-mouthed "Irish solution to an Irish problem" type outcome.
But now, having ridiculed my post, you're actually repeating it! You're arguing that other politicians are better than ours! You're arguing that Irish politicians are intrinsically bad and that foreign ones are intrinsically better! This simply isn't the case! You rarely hear about the corruption and scandals in other countries, in the same way as I doubt anyone outside of Ireland has ever heard of Michael Lowry and those gardaí in Donegal or that nursing home.


The opening up of our society in Ireland has been a direct consequence of European law, and our engagement with the countries of the EU, their peoples, their ideas, their ideologies, their cultures.
Indeed it has. But you don't need to be united with other countries to share their cultures. That's the difference between a Community and a Union. That's why I'm in favour of the EC and against the EU (I know the one was always intended to merge into the other; I'm just using the names to indicate the different ideas).


The sooner we go the whole hog and become a federal state of the European Union, the better.
Utter nonsense - I'm afraid I can't agree. The sooner this happens, the sooner we lose any voice in our own affairs and culture that we retain at the moment. We've seen the scant regard the EU has for views which oppose its own - and you want them to continue on the road they're taking us?!

[patsh]

Eh? :confused: You have Greens and Christian Democrats here as well - you can vote for them here! There's plenty of other parties too. Nobody's forcing you to vote FF or FG.


But now, having ridiculed my post, you're actually repeating it! You're arguing that other politicians are better than ours! You're arguing that Irish politicians are intrinsically bad and that foreign ones are intrinsically better! This simply isn't the case! You rarely hear about the corruption and scandals in other countries, in the same way as I doubt anyone outside of Ireland has ever heard of Michael Lowry and those gardaí in Donegal or that nursing home.


Indeed it has. But you don't need to be united with other countries to share their cultures. That's the difference between a Community and a Union. That's why I'm in favour of the EC and against the EU (I know the one was always intended to merge into the other; I'm just using the names to indicate the different ideas).


Utter nonsense - I'm afraid I can't agree. The sooner this happens, the sooner we lose any voice in our own affairs and culture that we retain at the moment. We've seen the scant regard the EU has for views which oppose its own - and you want them to continue on the road they're taking us?!
Are you having some sort of difficulty today?
I'm posting my opinion, you are posting yours. NOWHERE have I said your opinion is wrong, attacked your position or your opinion, or ridiculed your posts as utter nonsense. STOP misreading my posts and throwing arguments at points I have NEVER made....:rolleyes:

[pineapple stu]

Are you having some sort of difficulty today?
I'm posting my opinion, you are posting yours.
This is a forum. It's for debating things. Querying your opinion is debating. Where's the problem?! :confused:

[Poor Student]

KIND OF A RANT ALERT! (Better warn you first! :) )

I will (would?) be voting no on the Constitution - and any other EU Referenda. I would be particularly anti-EU (though not anti-Europe). Various reasons - the main being that I think the EU has completely lost its way and isn't good for the average person in Europe any more.

I think you'll find the open borders quite handy for one. That heavily effects the average EU citizen. Possibly the greatest effect of the union on the average every day lives of its citizens.


It seems to have no concept of democracy - witness the Nice referendum, and the suggestions before the French referendum that if the result was No, it would be run again. If ever Ireland dare to vote against the EU, we're chastised as troublemakers, but when it suits the EU, we're the model students. This isn't politics - this is pure propoganda.

I agree there is a demographic deficit. The main bodies the Council of Ministers and particularly the Commission are not too directly accountable in a democratic sesne. I was upset at the situation of our being tarred as bad after the No vote in the Nice Referendum however the turnout was so low I don't think it was entirely a terrible thing to have another vote. Many countries do have a revote until a certain percentage of the electorate turns out. I'd have rathered the whole thing was handled better though.


I don't believe Union has much to offer Joe Soap on the street either, and previous Referenda seem to have gotten through here based on propoganda from the Government.

Again free borders means a lot. Particularly on the continent. Also we have benefited massively from access to the free market. Particularly because as a door in the free market a lot of US companies were happy to locate here combined with the low corporate tax. We have also benefited greatly from EU infrastructural funding and the CAP.


The euro in particular is brilliant because you'll now be able to see how much everything costs in Europe (lie - you could always see what stuff cost, and in any case, I don't care) and because it'll be so much easier to spend money in foreign countries (lie - credit cards and PASS cards made this easier long before). We were scaremongered with the idea that joining the euro was absolutely vital to our economy (lie - Denmark, Sweden and the UK are doing grand).

Of course the Euro is great. You can compare prices without calculation. Currencies like the Italian Lira could be very unintelligible to people from Ireland. Those countries are managing fine but their citizens would have it handier when travelling around. No currency conversion no matter how many countries you cross, no conversion charge, easily comparable prices. Also enables trade across Euro countries to become more simplistic.


I personally feel the EU is getting rid of Irish culture too. The metric system is brilliant because...well, becasue we tell you it is.

It's brilliant because it is a modern system based on a very logical system of tens and hundreds. Also it offers a standard system which is used by the whole continent instead of the archaic Imperial system which is not used on the continent and was based on a more illogical 12s and I dunno what and varied on sizes and type of measure. Also this was just something exported from Britain. Hardly a facet of Irish culture. Good riddance to it.


Postcodes are brilliant because of the wonderfully vague logic that "it's better for Irish business". We seem to have gotten on grand without these, and several letters in the Irish Times suggest that, underneath everything, the only thing postcodes are good for is increasing the volume of mail - which can only mean junk mail. I dislike intensely the way Ireland and GB is being forced to change everything (right down to the emergency services number) to fall in line with mainland Europe. It's probably petty, I know, but it doesn't say much for the EU's appreciation of the various cultures in its area. The fact that little or no attempt is made to justify these various changes - instead, we're bullied into making them - doesn't say much for the EU's agenda. Many people in Holland said they were voting no because they said Holland wasn't becoming less and less Dutch, so it seems I'm in no way alone in these views either.

I don't know much about postcodes but again hardly something you'd call an aspect of Irish culture. To enable a smoothly functioning union and to foster a sense of cooperation across the continent of course we have to come into line with certain things and make changes but destoying Irish culture? Are you joking? We're more under threat from Americanisation than anything! Don't mind that right wing populist rubbish being stirred up in the Netherlands. Increasing tensions with muslim immigrants have allowed right wing politicians to work on the paranoia and stir up a load of rubbish there.


I should qualify the remark that I'm anti-EU but pro-Europe by saying that I think the idea of all the countries in Europe getting together is probably one of the best in the history of the continent. However, the notion that we have to do everything the same and be effectively a United States of Europe is one I do not subscribe to at all.

We're far from doing everything the same and far from a United States of Europe. It's highly unlikely. From the stuff I've been hearing from France it is too economically liberal and too Anglo-Saxon in its fiscal properties which I imagine means the members having a good deal of economic independence.


Incidentally, regarding the Constitution, how many countries have actually passed it in a referendum? Spain is the only one, I think? Seven or eight countries have passed it through Government ratification. How can such a big issue (or indeed, many of the other big EU issues) be passed simply on the Government's say-so instead of by a referendum of the people? Or am I missing something here.

Feel better now - thanks foot.ie! :)

The countries which have not used a referendum are well within their rights to. It is so complex and large it is basically beyond the understanding of many of the citizenry who simply do not have the time to examine and debate it. That is the job of the politicians who have been demcratically elected by the citizen body to make the big decisions on their behalf. However our particular constitution requires something of this nature to be ratified by the citizens via referendum.

[pineapple stu]

I think you'll find the open borders quite handy for one. That heavily effects the average EU citizen. Possibly the greatest effect of the union on the average every day lives of its citizens.
This is the technical difference I'm drawing though. Free travel is true, but again, you don't need Union for free borders - you just need Community. I'm not anti-Europe - just anti-EU. I'm all for the "Let's get together, be friends and help each other out" Europe, but opposed to the "Let's merge all our identities and do everything the same, etc." Europe. Goes for the free trade argument too. If that makes sense...


I agree there is a demographic deficit.
Demographic or democratic?


Of course the Euro is great. You can compare prices without calculation. Currencies like the Italian Lira could be very unintelligible to people from Ireland.
Now here I must disagree. 2000 lira = £1. Give or take. Quite simple, no? You can quite easily compare prices with anything above foundation level maths, or the ability to use a caulculator. And in any case, who cares? If I go to Italy and buy dinner, I'm may compare price to Ireland, but I'm hardly going to do anything about it if it is more expensive or cheaper. I'm hungry. I can compare if this is an expensive restaurant by local standards by comparing the single currency (here the lira) and so ensuring that I don't get ripped off.
A lot of the arguments made for he euro were simply mistruths. The idea that the euro would encourage price convergence across Europe was nonsense - that pre-supposes that I'm going to go to Greece to save a tenner on my hi-fi and therefore encourage Irish dealers to lower prices. The examples I gave earlier were also nonsense (you know what I mean! :) ). I'm sceptical of an organisation that needs so many mistruths to reach its goal.


Also this was just something exported from Britain. Hardly a facet of Irish culture. Good riddance to it.
We've had this discussion before! ;) The Imperial System, incidentally, is not as simple as something imported from Britain - that's a popular myth. They just standardised it. In fact, most of it (pounds, shillings and pence, miles, feet, ounces, etc.) were around in Roman times, and the likes of a foot (the length of your foot) and an inch (the width of your thumb) are as old as civilisation itself.


I don't know much about postcodes but again hardly something you'd call an aspect of Irish culture. To enable a smoothly functioning union and to foster a sense of cooperation across the continent of course we have to come into line with certain things and make changes but destoying Irish culture?
The postcodes thing might be a pedantic example (as I warned in my post!), but the case for it has been "It's better for business" - QED. I think this is typical of the EU's attitude, and it's a very dangerous one. It's similar to my point about using mistruths (or very very vague arguments) to get to your goal. If it's beneficial, say why. Don't just fob people off (the theory that this purely assists junk mail has been raised a few times in the Irish Times, which would at least explain why they won't explain to us why it's good!). We've never had a problem with our postal system before - I resent suddenly being told to have a problem with something we've never had a problem with before. And of course, because Ireland and Britain have very much different cultures to mainland Europe, we're the ones who have to change all the time, which I also don't appreciate. It's basically calling our ways of doing things plain wrong.


We're far from doing everything the same and far from a United States of Europe. It's highly unlikely.
I don't know how unlikely it is, to be honest. It is (or at least was) the stated aim of some member states. I think they have died down on the idea a little bit, but it's still the broad way they're heading. It's been brought up on the BBC News just now in fact (specifically, that it mayn't work because the EU is now too big, but not for any other reason)


The countries which have not used a referendum are well within their rights to. It is so complex and large it is basically beyond the understanding of many of the citizenry who simply do not have the time to examine and debate it. That is the job of the politicians who have been demcratically elected by the citizen body to make the big decisions on their behalf. However our particular constitution requires something of this nature to be ratified by the citizens via referendum.
I wonder what a vote would go like in those countries if one was held? Fair enough the constitution allows politicians to pass something this big on their own (though it just sounds wrong...), but we keep hearing that ten (or however many) countries have passed the constitution, representing so many millions. A similar argument was made in America that the UK and Spain (and others) were fully behind the war - amounting to however many millions. Obviously not comparing the two incidents themselves, but I just wonder how much support there is for the Constitution in these countries...

[Poor Student]

This is the technical difference I'm drawing though. Free travel is true, but again, you don't need Union for free borders - you just need Community. I'm not anti-Europe - just anti-EU. I'm all for the "Let's get together, be friends and help each other out" Europe, but opposed to the "Let's merge all our identities and do everything the same, etc." Europe. Goes for the free trade argument too. If that makes sense...

We're not merging our identities. Had they decided one some lingua franca like English or French you may have a case but our cultural identites are entirely secure. With the sheer mass of the EU and the multiplicity of cultures and identities it is simply not a viable suggestion.



Demographic or democratic?

Yes, democratic. That was just a typo. Though there is a demographic deficit taking place too in a sense. :p



Now here I must disagree. 2000 lira = £1. Give or take. Quite simple, no? You can quite easily compare prices with anything above foundation level maths, or the ability to use a caulculator. And in any case, who cares? If I go to Italy and buy dinner, I'm may compare price to Ireland, but I'm hardly going to do anything about it if it is more expensive or cheaper. I'm hungry. I can compare if this is an expensive restaurant by local standards by comparing the single currency (here the lira) and so ensuring that I don't get ripped off.
A lot of the arguments made for he euro were simply mistruths. The idea that the euro would encourage price convergence across Europe was nonsense - that pre-supposes that I'm going to go to Greece to save a tenner on my hi-fi and therefore encourage Irish dealers to lower prices. The examples I gave earlier were also nonsense (you know what I mean! :) ). I'm sceptical of an organisation that needs so many mistruths to reach its goal.

Now come on here Stu. It is easier to calculate and compare prices. It is not simple to do these things. I spend a lot of time in Slovenia where 1 Euro=230SIT and it just confuses the hell out of me. The case is not seeing if how such and such a place compares to Ireland. You could be being totally ripped off in some places or circumstances and it may not occur to you at the time. By the way imagine driving from Slovenia to France for example. One would have to bring Schillings, Marks and Francs for a car journey. By 2007 no currency change will be necessary at all! No more currency change and no more currency charges alone are a great thing without the comparing advanatages.



We've had this discussion before! ;) The Imperial System, incidentally, is not as simple as something imported from Britain - that's a popular myth. They just standardised it. In fact, most of it (pounds, shillings and pence, miles, feet, ounces, etc.) were around in Roman times, and the likes of a foot (the length of your foot) and an inch (the width of your thumb) are as old as civilisation itself.

Yes the British standardised an inferior and terribly olf system and due to our linking/occupation or whatever you care to call it to Britain they system was in use here. It was based on 12s and 14s and inconsistent. The metric system is a modern creation and a logical system based on 10s and 100s and is standard on the continent.



The postcodes thing might be a pedantic example (as I warned in my post!), but the case for it has been "It's better for business" - QED. I think this is typical of the EU's attitude, and it's a very dangerous one. It's similar to my point about using mistruths (or very very vague arguments) to get to your goal. If it's beneficial, say why. Don't just fob people off (the theory that this purely assists junk mail has been raised a few times in the Irish Times, which would at least explain why they won't explain to us why it's good!). We've never had a problem with our postal system before - I resent suddenly being told to have a problem with something we've never had a problem with before. And of course, because Ireland and Britain have very much different cultures to mainland Europe, we're the ones who have to change all the time, which I also don't appreciate. It's basically calling our ways of doing things plain wrong.

And in some ways the things we do are pretty wrong. Practises like the post codes and metric system came out of the French Revolution where tradition was torn up and new systems placed in based on modernity. You sound a bit paranoid to be honest Stu. It's as if your thoughts stem from a Euro scepticism as opposed to the other way around. That's politics. When campaigning for something they'll try to pull out as many suggested positives as possible. You make it sound like some concerted effort to wipe out our cultural through small structural changes. We're out of line with continental practises. Certain modernising structural changes are born out of the revolution which Britain avoided and hence so did we. Ireland continues to be Anglo-Saxon in a lot of senses.



I don't know how unlikely it is, to be honest. It is (or at least was) the stated aim of some member states. I think they have died down on the idea a little bit, but it's still the broad way they're heading. It's been brought up on the BBC News just now in fact (specifically, that it mayn't work because the EU is now too big, but not for any other reason)

It's not likely. It's not where we're heading. The Constitution was trying to simply bring the jumble of treaties together and was even economically liberalising the union which is a good idea. And yes the size does make such a project very unlikely. This is felt one reason why Britain was so keen on expansion. But again you see a lot of Euro hype and Euro scepticism in the British media. I'm not surprised this came up on the BBC.



I wonder what a vote would go like in those countries if one was held? Fair enough the constitution allows politicians to pass something this big on their own (though it just sounds wrong...), but we keep hearing that ten (or however many) countries have passed the constitution, representing so many millions. A similar argument was made in America that the UK and Spain (and others) were fully behind the war - amounting to however many millions. Obviously not comparing the two incidents themselves, but I just wonder how much support there is for the Constitution in these countries...

I think the Scandinavians, the Dutch, the French and the British are the only ones likely to not ratify it by referendum. I don't remember the states who passed it offhand by parliament but I reckon they aren't very Euro sceptical.

[Student Mullet]

NOWHERE have I said your opinion is wrong, attacked your position or your opinion, or ridiculed your posts as utter nonsense.

You did say:


Thanks for you inaccurate, uninformed and presumptious view of what my motives are.

[Student Mullet]

If I may make a few points:

Post Codes are being brought in by FF and have nothing to do with europe.

Part of respecting the different cultures in Europe is to respect other countries right to ratify a treaty without a referendum.

The metric system is infinately better than the imperial one.

I'm personally in favour of a european economic community but I see no need or demand for the EU to hold much power in other areas. I do however like the fact that they keep an eye on our Government and tell us when they're breaking the law in, for example, envoirnmental areas.

I strongly dislike the lack of democracy in europe and I think that the european parlement as it is is a complete waste of space and money. It should either be given power over the other branches of government in europe or be disbanded, my preference is for it to be disbanded.

[Poor Student]

If I may make a few points:

Post Codes are being brought in by FF and have nothing to do with europe.

Part of respecting the different cultures in Europe is to respect other countries right to ratify a treaty without a referendum.

The metric system is infinately better than the imperial one.

I'm personally in favour of a european economic community but I see no need or demand for the EU to hold much power in other areas. I do however like the fact that they keep an eye on our Government and tell us when they're breaking the law in, for example, envoirnmental areas.

I strongly dislike the lack of democracy in europe and I think that the european parlement as it is is a complete waste of space and money. It should either be given power over the other branches of government in europe or be disbanded, my preference is for it to be disbanded.

The European Parliament has been increasing its power over time and I think Pat Cox pushed for this during his presidency. It depends on your vision of the EU. If you want a supranational kind of superstate then giving those powers to the parliament would be a good idea and make the EU far more directly democratic. However if you want to take the more inter governmental approah then you get what we have. A Commission appointed by the government we have elected and the Council of Ministers a council of ministers appointed by a government we have elected. It's a round about way to democracy but it is not totally undemocratic. The EU operates with a balance of both the supranational and the inter governmental but with the balance towards the intergovernmental aspect with the Commission and the Council of Ministers still having more power than the Parliament. However do not underestimate the power of the parliament as they can block a new Commission as they did recently with the Buttigleone (sp?) affair. I believe they also sacked a Commission in the early 90's.

[mypost]

Some of the terms used to describe the EU Constitution after the recent referendums were sensationalist. "Fatal", "dead", "killed off", and so on. Why use those terms when the Constitution never existed in the first place? It was simply a blueprint to run the EU in future. The trouble however, was that drawing up the proposed EU Constitution was a waste of ink, a waste of paper, and a waste of time.

After the 10 new states came into the EU, the bigger countries started to get cold feet. So they agreed to draw up a provisional Constitution. It was no coincidence that it was drawn up by an ex French President. As France, and Germany are political bedfellows, Germany were enthusiastic for it, and the Pro-EU British PM liked it too. The whole idea of the Constitution was to centralise power in the EU, taking it away from member states, and create a USE "United States of Europe". The proposed Constitution would supersede State constitutions, taking away individual sovereignty, so that everyone would obey the orders of France and Germany. It was doomed to failure.

The proposed Constitution had critical flaws:

A permanent President; Instead of the current six-month rotating Presidency, the new Presidency would last for 30 months. Would the Presidency be from countries such as Austria, Slovenia, Latvia, Portugal, or Ireland? No, it would be more likely to be a carve-up between France, Germany, UK, Italy, and Spain, who would rotate it exclusively amongst themselves. That would be very much to the disadvantage of smaller, less influential nations.

A Central Bank for all member states based in Frankfurt, again German based. Our Central Bank in Dublin would effectively be made redundant, as all our economic policies would be dictated by Frankfurt, regardless of how our economic outlook would be at the time.

An EU foreign minister. For what?? :confused: The EU is made up of 25 diverse nations, each with different personas, agendas and ideologies. Why does the EU need a foreign minister? How would it elect sorry, nominate one? Where would he/she come from? The big countries of course, representing their interests, and not necessarily the EU as a whole.

And most crucially, the polticians forgot sorry, ignored the fact that a number of countries (some pro EU, some not) may want/have to put the proposed Constitution to their electorate to ratify in state referendums, in the knowledge that ALL member states would have to ratify the treaty, for the Constitution to come into effect. 2 of the 3 countries to have held referendums have rejected the Constitution, so the Constitution cannot come into force under current EU legislation, regardless of how many of the remaining countries ratify it.

Barroso said this week, that 45% of the EU's population have already ratified the treaty. No, they haven't. 45% of the EU's parliaments of ratified the treaty, which was no shock, as most of the various parties are in favour of it. Spain accepted it in their refererendum, despite the fact that there was a very poor turnout, and the Spanish government is still enjoying their honeymoon period after winning last year's general election.

With all member states needing to ratify the Constitution for it to come into effect, there was almost no chance of it happening. Public opinion generally, is very sceptical towards the EU at the moment, even in so-called Pro-EU countries. People in Holland, and France saw what could happen to their lifestyles, if they voted yes in their referendums. They voted No, because they didn't like the way the EU was heading, because they recognised that the EU Constitution was one step too far towards EU Integration, which would have a negative impact on their economies and futures, and because they wanted the Eurocrats to take on board one message. Listen to the people who you claim to represent in future.

[Poor Student]

They voted No, because they didn't like the way the EU was heading, because they recognised that the EU Constitution was one step too far towards EU Integration, which would have a negative impact on their economies and futures, and because they wanted the Eurocrats to take on board one message. Listen to the people who you claim to represent in future.

Don't have time to address your other points at the moment. I have not analysed the Dutch vote too well but the French one does not say that. Part of the French no vote came from socialists annoyed because the constitution was not socialist enough. Another part of the No vote was a simple protest vote against Chirac and the government. Just a way to stick it to the man without really caring about the issue. You must also take into account the rising xenophobia in France as reflected by the significant vote total of Le Pen in the last presidential election. It is easy for right wing populists to stir up anti-EU sentiment and inform people poorly and scare them into rejecting European agreements on the false basis it will erode sovereignty.

[pineapple stu]

Now come on here Stu. It is easier to calculate and compare prices. It is not simple to do these things. I spend a lot of time in Slovenia where 1 Euro=230SIT and it just confuses the hell out of me.
You can't divide by 230?! :confused:

Times by 4, divide by 1000 - and you're done! You're a bit out - no more than 10% - but it's immaterial anyway (even more so as the rate is now 240 SIT to E1). What do they be teaching people in school these days?! ;) Anyway, lazy maths is no justification for losing financial indepenence. Even the point about helping companies is fairly restricted - I'd say 70% - 75% of Irish companies have no trading with other EU countries, which would probably rise to 90% to 95% if you included countries who trade only with the UK. Anywhere else, this would be the rich helping the rich, globalisation, politicians being bought, etc., etc. But here, it's OK because people don't want to do some maths...? That's the way I look at it anyway.


You could be being totally ripped off in some places or circumstances and it may not occur to you at the time.
No you couldn't - not within a single country, as you seem to be implying. Not so long as Slovenia itself has a single currency and you can compare prices in the immediate area. Which, let's be fair, is all you'll ever want.


By the way imagine driving from Slovenia to France for example. One would have to bring Schillings, Marks and Francs for a car journey. By 2007 no currency change will be necessary at all! No more currency change and no more currency charges alone are a great thing without the comparing advanatages.
There's no extra advantage - bring a credit card. Bring a PASS card. There's no need to be going into the bank before you set out working out what countries you're going to be passing through.

On the charges - I'm a hell of a sceptic, but I don't for one second believe banks just accepted that they'd be losing out on currency commission when the euro came in. I would be pretty sure that much of the income just got reallocated to different areas. I think there's no rate on foreign currency credit card transactions (none when I use mine anyway), and there's a small charge for using your PASS card, so you're not even saving much in the way of bank fees either.


We're out of line with continental practises. Certain modernising structural changes are born out of the revolution which Britain avoided and hence so did we. Ireland continues to be Anglo-Saxon in a lot of senses.

This is the view I don't like. No-body ever had a problem with the Irish way of doing things until we were told to have a problem. I'm very traditional, I will admit (big shock there, I'm sure! :) ), and I still don't see that there's any problem with the Irish way. Which is why I resent the EU coming along and saying we're wrong here, there and everywhere.


I think the Scandinavians, the Dutch, the French and the British are the only ones likely to not ratify it by referendum. I don't remember the states who passed it offhand by parliament but I reckon they aren't very Euro sceptical.
Think only Spain have passed it in a referendum?


It is easy for right wing populists to stir up anti-EU sentiment and inform people poorly and scare them into rejecting European agreements on the false basis it will erode sovereignty.
I think this is a very unbalanced statement. Granted, it is the case to an extent, but it's not as if the pro-EU side haven't been doing the exact same thing (we must vote for Maastricht/Nice/the other EU referenda or else our economy will be left far far behind - simply not true, as hindsight has shown). You can't label the anti-EU side when the pro-EU side are doing the same thing only more of it.

[pineapple stu]

Incidentally, how's about a poll on the Constitution, out of interest?

[GavinZac]

I intend voting NO to every EU referendum for one simple reason: they refused to accept our democratic decision on Nice, and I don't trust them to behave in a democratic manner again. For the same reason, I'm delighted that the French and the Dutch have said no. I'm not opposed to the idea of the EU as a means of co-operation, but it is an arrogant, undemocratic bureacracy which at this stage seems to function for its own good. If the people running it want it to work, they need to have a long, hard look at what they're doing

so its a case of a constant ÉANNA SAYS NO banner?

the Nice vote was hijacked by the opposition parties in this country, as cheap shots at bertie. the first was not passed because the opposition lied and said that if we voted yes, we'd become part of an EU military, when in reality, a small donation to a conceptual "rapid reaction force" which would never have been called upon (can you really see north africa or russia launching a ground assault on us without years of build up?) was all that was needed.

of the few irish people that did vote, the majority of those who voted no were either following the party line or were voting no the the RRF.

the government then took the time to actually educate people as to what the treaty was about, and despite another attempted hijacking, intellegent, thinking people voted for the treaty to be passed.

[Éanna]

so its a case of a constant ÉANNA SAYS NO banner?

the Nice vote was hijacked by the opposition parties in this country, as cheap shots at bertie. the first was not passed because the opposition lied and said that if we voted yes, we'd become part of an EU military, when in reality, a small donation to a conceptual "rapid reaction force" which would never have been called upon (can you really see north africa or russia launching a ground assault on us without years of build up?) was all that was needed.

of the few irish people that did vote, the majority of those who voted no were either following the party line or were voting no the the RRF.

the government then took the time to actually educate people as to what the treaty was about, and despite another attempted hijacking, intellegent, thinking people voted for the treaty to be passed.It was their own fault for not educating the people in the first place. The Nice referendum was classic EU- "here's a treaty, go on sign it, its good for you, don't bother asking whats in it, you don't need to know anything, except that its good for you" People say no, so they're treated like kids and told do it again. It was profoundly undemocratic and it is the reason I will never vote in favour of ANY European treaty again. How can you trust a body that ignores what the people say?

[Lionel Ritchie]

It was their own fault for not educating the people in the first place. The Nice referendum was classic EU- "here's a treaty, go on sign it, its good for you, don't bother asking whats in it, you don't need to know anything, except that its good for you" People say no, so they're treated like kids and told do it again. It was profoundly undemocratic and it is the reason I will never vote in favour of ANY European treaty again. How can you trust a body that ignores what the people say?

Well said Eanna.

I consider myself extremely pro-Europe and I voted No to Nice on both occasions -militantly so the second time 'round when we were told we were wrong now get back in there and vote the right way.

Paranoid nonsense to say the opposition used Nice as a cheap shot at Bertie. Typical FF crap thinking there's nothing more important to people than scoring points against Bertie Ahern.

I believe in a nation-state-based strong united Europe.

[CollegeTillIDie]

Interesting thread so far...

Two thoughts

1/ The government were able to get away with a re-run of the Nice treaty for one simple reason.... less than 50% of the electorate bothered to vote on it the first time. Ergo the vast majority of people did not express an opinion , so therefore the No Vote recorded a victory represented a minority of the population here. The same cannot be said for the French or Dutch votes against the Constitution in which turnouts were over 65% in both countries.

2/ How many people who voted no in France and or Holland and indeed who intend voting No here have actually read some or all of the damn document?
I would hazard a guess that very few did.
I intend to peruse it at least before making up my mind.
The best way to bash the government between National Elections is to bloody their noses at Local government and European Parliament elections as was done here recently. This issue is way too important to vent your spleen about the government by voting No in a kneejerk reaction.

If having read the document( or some of it) you dislike what it represents then by all means vote it down. But give it a chance before kicking it in the crotch!

[GavinZac]

It was their own fault for not educating the people in the first place. they werent quite prepared for the topic being turned into "should ireland lose its neutrality, yes or no?"

The Nice referendum was classic EU- "here's a treaty, go on sign it, its good for you, don't bother asking whats in it, you don't need to know anything, except that its good for you" all the information was there, readily available for the public to take note of. instead, "the people" ate out of the sensationalist media's ahnds because its just easier, isnt it?
People say no, so they're treated like kids and told do it again.
a minority of the people of ireland said no, the government address their concerns and then asked them to reconsider.
It was profoundly undemocratic
i dont see how presenting the public with a choice was undemocratic.

and it is the reason I will never vote in favour of ANY European treaty again.
im trying to stay away from personal issues, but from the opinions ive seen you voice in the internet, it always seems to be a case of black and white.

How can you trust a body that ignores what the people say?
they didnt ignore what "the people" say. they addressed the concerns of the MINORITY of irish people who voted no to losing their neutrality, and managed to cut through the lies and present the case. "the people" then agreed. democracy, sweet sweet democracy. an open forum with discussion and opnions based on facts rather than prejudices, and an effort to portray the truth 100%.

[GavinZac]

Paranoid nonsense to say the opposition used Nice as a cheap shot at Bertie. Typical FF crap thinking there's nothing more important to people than scoring points against Bertie Ahern.

im not a FF supporter - but in any partisan political arena, it is certainly not paranoia to suggest the opposition will use anything it can to hurt the current government.

[pineapple stu]

a minority of the people of ireland said no, the government address their concerns and then asked them to reconsider.

they addressed the concerns of the MINORITY of irish people who voted no to losing their neutrality, and managed to cut through the lies and present the case.
This has to be beat off stiff competition for the stupidest post ever. The majority of people voted no - that's why it wasn't passed! If you're referring to the fact that less than 50% of the Irish people voted no (taking no votes into account), then a) the minority - a smaller minority - also voted yes, and b) a minority voted yes the second time around, so we should all vote again!

And while we're at it, a minority of people voted for Fianna Fáil, so let's re-run the elections until 2 million people all vote the same way. A minority of people voted for the euro - let's pull out and run the vote again.

Is the concept of democracy that alien to you?! :rolleyes:

[GavinZac]

This has to be beat off stiff competition for the stupidest post ever. The majority of people voted no - that's why it wasn't passed! If you're referring to the fact that less than 50% of the Irish people voted no (taking no votes into account), then a) the minority - a smaller minority - also voted yes, and b) a minority voted yes the second time around, so we should all vote again!

And while we're at it, a minority of people voted for Fianna Fáil, so let's re-run the elections until 2 million people all vote the same way. A minority of people voted for the euro - let's pull out and run the vote again.

Is the concept of democracy that alien to you?! :rolleyes:

what's your point, well done on grasping the conecpt of multiplying fractions, or was that all you were trying to say?

[CollegeTillIDie]

In some countries which have presidential elections, if less than 50% of the electorate population vote the poll is scrapped and then re-run. I think there is merit in this idea.

[GavinZac]

If you're referring to the fact that less than 50% of the Irish people voted no

less than 50% voted at all. apathy is not a part of democracy.

[Macy]

less than 50% voted at all. apathy is not a part of democracy.
Poor turnout was the fault of the yes campaign as anyone else. In any election it's only a vote of those that turnout - perhaps we should have a referendum on changing the consitution so that elections are only valid if over 50% turnout?

btw Do you honestly think if it had been a yes vote for Nice with under 50% turnout we would've gone again?