Eamon Ryan to support new EU treaty

[newbie]

Green Party Minister Eamon Ryan has indicated that he will be backing a yes vote in next year's referendum on the new EU treaty.

He said that on balance the European Union has been good for Ireland on issues like the environment.

The Green Party is to engage in a process of consultation in advance of the referendum which is expected in 2008.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0907/eu.html

[Pidge]

Excellent!

[Aindriu]

Hmmm. So how long will it be before the EU decide to send troops to Afghanistan and Irish lads get sent there because we have adopted an EU constitution?

[Rivershannon]

Have they any Principles left?
Along with the dressing down Gormley got from the Ward Union Hunt this morning on Morning Ireland another bad day for the Greens

[rockofcashel]

Have they any Principles left?
Along with the dressing down Gormley got from the Ward Union Hunt this morning on Morning Ireland another bad day for the Greens

So, you'll be backing FG's stance for a No vote in the Referendum Treaty then ?

[MacCoise]

Sunday, May 27, 2001-Irish examiner


Green Party TD, John Gormley, argue against the Nice Treaty.

It's a bad deal for Ireland and Europe

By John Gormley

The Nice Treaty is a bad deal for Ireland and, more importantly perhaps, a bad deal for Europe. The partnership of equals which we joined in 1973 -- and which has undoubtedly brought benefits to this country -- is now being set aside for a new EU, where the bigger states will dominate.

It is an important step in the creation of a federal superstate to which France and Germany, in particular, aspire.

Proponents of this treaty have argued that Nice is first and foremost about enlargement. This is simply untrue -- as a cursory examination of the treaty will reveal.

Under the Amsterdam Treaty, the EU could already increase from 15 to 20 members. If we vote `no' to Nice, this enlargement can still take place, without the accompanying provisions, which make Nice unacceptable.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Brian Cowen, gives the impression that his heart bleeds for the Poles, Czechs and Hungarians and other applicant countries that seek EU membership. They have, he says, suffered for years under Communist rule and they deserve the sort of break that we got in 1973. On the face of it, that all sounds very laudable, but how many of these countries will join the EU if we vote `yes' by the time of the next treaty in 2004? The answer: probably none of them.

The Green Party very much supports enlargement, but why not do it now? Even when the applicant countries are accepted at some future date, there will be a seven-year moratorium on the acceptance of their migrant workers. The message to these countries is plain: we want your markets but not your workers.

The Attorney General, outlining his reasons why a referendum on the treaty was required, made no mention of enlargement. The major concerns surrounded the enhanced cooperation provisions in the treaty. These will enable states to make their own political arrangements within the EU. This is a very significant departure for the EU and will create a new VIP club within the club. A two-speed -- or two-tier -- Europe has often been mooted in the past; with Nice it becomes a reality.

The enhanced cooperation provisions are subject to the new qualified majority voting arrangements where Ireland will again end up the loser. At present, Ireland has three votes out of 83 in the Council of Ministers -- that's 3.6 per cent of the vote. After 2005 Ireland will have seven votes out of 237 -- or 2.9 per cent of the vote.

Even if there are no new members these arrangements will apply. If there are eventually 27 members, Ireland will have seven votes out of 345 -- or 2.03 per cent of the vote. This represents a total drop in our voting strength of 44 per cent. The comparable decline in Germany's voting strength is 29.3 per cent. No wonder, then, that when the details of the Nice Treaty became known John Bruton said: "It has truthfully been stated that one of the outcomes of Nice was to enhance the position of the bigger states in decision making."

Already Germany's Chancellor Schroeder has suggested the Council of Ministers should become a second chamber in the new federal Europe. Taoiseach Bertie Ahern has asked the Irish people to think about the future shape of Europe after the Nice Treaty -- but we should reflect now on the profound implications of voting `yes'.

We already have a de facto superstate with its own currency and military wing (more of that anon), but with an inequality of votes from each state. Contrast that with the United States of America, where two senators are elected to the US Senate from each state, regardless of its size. We will also lose our automatic right to a commissioner, which John Bruton considered a "serious blow" when it was announced. As well as all this, we also lose our veto in 30 new areas.

Much has been made of the fact that Ireland has retained its independence in relation to tax policy. Indeed this is so, but for how long can this realistically continue? I believe this is probably only a temporary reprieve. The Irish position has caused resentment among our partners, which was partly responsible for the reprimand of Minister McCreevey by his EU colleagues at the ECOFIN meeting.

I believe tax harmonisation will become a reality in the 2004 treaty. And remember, these treaties -- as the Referendum Commission has rightly pointed out -- must be seen as part of a sequence. Already there are proposals emanating from Belgium for an EU-wide defence tax. This would be entirely consistent with the militarisation of the EU, which continues in the Nice Treaty. If Europe is worth defending -- as some may legitimately argue -- then surely it is worth paying for that defence? The minister replies: "Don't worry we're still neutral!"

The minister's neutrality horse has been flogged to death at this stage. How can we be members of the European Rapid Reaction Force and still claim to be neutral? His case for neutrality now seems to rest exclusively on non-membership of Nato.


When I visited Nato headquarters recently I was informed by representatives from Sweden and Finland that they no longer claim to be neutral, because of their European commitments. I have repeatedly put this point to minister Cowen and have yet to receive a satisfactory answer. Nor have I received anything resembling a sensible reply on the question of a United Nations mandate for our forces. Where in the entire Nice Treaty is a reference made to UN mandates? Is there a protocol attached to the treaty insisting on Ireland's right to have a UN mandate?

The difficulty for the government is acute. Nice doesn't have any real selling points. It's a lose/lose situation and they know it. My constituency colleague Ruairi Quinn described Nice as a "disaster" and a "terrible setback" when the details became known. He was absolutely right. .

But the new constitution/treaty is ok?

[smiffy]

Hmmm. So how long will it be before the EU decide to send troops to Afghanistan and Irish lads get sent there because we have adopted an EU constitution?

A very long time, if ever, and certainly only after another Treaty, as the current one wouldn't require it.

[Kieran-walsh]

I have principals, and if you dont like them I have others.

[bradán feasa]

I’m flabbergasted. The Green Party is hardly recognisable today that that of the Green Party two years ago. This will be the last straw as far as transfers go!!!

Pidge what about important issues such as

1. Irish sovereignty
2. The EU’s move towards becoming a legal state
3. Increasing militarism of the EU
4. The EU’s anti democratic efforts to push their agenda through

[Kieran-walsh]

Well found Mac Coise, was going looking for hypocritical statements from said green party TDs. I have no problem with the greens forming a government with FF, so long as the Aim is to change government policy, not to be subsumed by the soldiers of destiny