Conference tallis::celt

    What's the wording on the referendum paper ?
    
    From reading the newspapers one can imagine it to be 
    
    	"Do you want �6M or not?".
    
    
    I agree with George I think greater European unity is the way to go
    for Ireland, both economically and politically.
    
    
    Tony.
    

    I was speaking to someone in Ireland yesterday. He voted NO because of
    conscription!!!
    
    Is that in the treaty- it's the first time I heard of it!
    
    Therese

    
     I read the other day that Ireland would not consent to EC
    conscription.
    
      

    
    Tallies say it's a `yes' vote
    
    - as high as 3 to 1 in some areas.
    
    

    
    The "No" campaigners seem to be composed of anti-abortionists,
    feminists, Sinn Fein, the neutrality lobby, Lefties, the ignorant 
    and the generally disgruntled. The most motley crew you couldn't
    dream up in your worst nightmare. But that's Democracy.
    
    My symapthies are with the ignorant who are the way they are
    because of the feeble campaign run by the political parties,
    with the honourable exception of the Progressive Democrats.
    As individuals, John Bruton and Albert Reynolds showed strong
    leadership, but some of their parties were pretty limp and
    lukewarm.
    
    It bodes ill that the most effective campaign has come from
    the (self-proclaimed) "pro-lifers". To these, it is a 
    curtain raiser for a campaign to insert a new "pro-life"
    amendment in the Constitution. Battle will join as soon
    as the dust settles from this referendum. Hold on to your
    hats - it's not going to be pretty!
    
    Personally, I am "Yes" with reservations on women's issues,
    and on the timing of the whole rush to European Union.
    The treat may have to be re-negotiated in any event, however
    Ireland will have done its share.
    
    Toby

    Tipperary says 3:1 yes. I was at the count and I would put it 5/2 or
    3/1 based on the ballot papers I saw and talking to the "counters".
    
    This is a significant vote in one way as a local Clonmel based
    councillor had ran a very strong NO campaign with little response from
    other parties also Des Hanifin of "you play my game or I will spoil the
    game" fame resides about 20 miles away.
    
    I was slagged by FF activists at the count including Noel Davern TD about
    how inactive FG were on the ground with the yes campaign. I replied
    that he was right we did'nt put in the same effort as FF did when they 
    were "neutral(against)" during the Divorce referendum.
    
    As a politican myself, I felt there were a few problems in getting the
    troops out in FG and the other parties.
    1 - No information on the treaty until a very late stage. This was very
        arrogant, (typical) in assuming that the Irish people would follow
       them like sheep based on trusting the Govt !
    
    2 - panic set it and 6 Billion which was is negoiatation but not agreed
        became "THE REASON TO VOTE YES". WHen this myth was exposed the
        credibility of the treaty was suspect and this suspicion was 
        exploited by clever No campaigners.
    
    3 - Red herrings/single issues and maybes were used very effectivitly
        and that coupled with a suspicion of the Govt. because of the way
        they treated the electorate made the NO campaign effective.
    
    
    4 - The complexity of the issues involved meant that canvassers would
        have to spend days/weeks studying the subject matter before they 
        could knock on doors. I still don't understand it all and if I were
        confronted with a Q that I couldn't answer fully, there is a danger
        that I could ADD to the No campaign.
    
    If Mastrict had failed there would be a "London" treaty but the EEC
    would go ahead towards consolidation (I hate that word now !) with or
    without Denmark. Irl etc. I want Ireland to be talking with rather
    that been talked about.
    
    I reckon a 65/33 vote.
    
    Rgds
    
    Dom
    
    
       

    Early editions of the evening papers are estimating a yes vote with
    about 67% for the treaty. The ratio in rural areas is 3 to 1 with the
    urban areas coming in at just above 2 to 1 
    
    To add to Tabys earlier not about the "motley crew" on the no side -
    the following is a list (not complete - but demonstrates the
    ideoligical spread)
    
    Anti- abortion group and the pro abortion groups
    Democratic left and the new Christian (something) party- right wing)
    Youth Defence and Senile dementia (Des Hannafin &co).
    
    Personally, if I had known nothing about the Maastricht treaty one look
    at this crew would have been enough to convince me to vote yes!
    
    Rgds........Gerry

    re  conscription/neutrality mentioned in pre note.
    
    My UNDERSTANDING rather that a dictate is that the treat committs us to
    discussing a commen defence policy but if a decision to join a defence
    force of Europe will be subject to referendum.
    
    Having said that Ireland does not have neuterality in the Constitution.
    It is Govt policy dateing back to WW11 which was continued by Govt
    since.
    
    As an aside, I was talking to a PD campaigner who was "out on the
    hustings". He said it was a "dirty out there". I still reckon the
    Divorce campaign was the ultimate is dirty tactics.
    
    It is now 1.15pm and it looks like a convincing win for a YES vote.
    
    Next come the "Pro_life" (not my name for them) referendum. God bless
    Democracy warts and all!!!!
    
    In case this is my last not before the heave-ho on 26th. regards to all
    and best of luch in the future.
    
    Dom

    
    
    Can anyone enter the salient points from the treaty so that I can
    understand why it is being touted as the `best way forward'.
    
    I (mis)understood the treaty to have an impact on Irelands sovereignty
    with central resolutions becoming policy in Ireland potentially against
    the wishes of the Irish .
    
    How far off the truth am I ??
    
    Feargal . 
    
    PS: Don't all jump up and down on me for being `ignorant' it's just
    that this treaty has not got much air-play or column inches here in
    Scotland .

    
    Every binding international treaty surrenders some degree of
    sovereignty, and this treaty is no different.
    
    We agree to a common foreign and security policy, excluding defense.
    
    We will discuss defense issues to come to some arrangement by 1996. 
    Any agreement that involves Ireland in a defense commitments will
    (it is promised!) require a further referendum.
    
    We agree to control our money and fiscal policies to keep them in
    line with the rest of Europe so as to move towards a common currency
    by 1999.
    
    The European Community (union) is committed to cohesion.  Every policy 
    must take into account cohesion.  This means that money must be spent
    to overcome the tendency towards the centre and away from the periphery
    which would be a natural consequence of a common market.
         
    All countries in EC bar U.K. agree (in the Social Policy - which
    Tories would not accept) to try to promote employment and fair
    working conditions. 
     
    

    What were the pertinent womens' issues that lead to feminists being on
    the same side as the anti-abortionists?
    

    
    There was nothing in the body of the treaty, but . . .
    
    The `masterminds of the right' got the government to place a protocol
    in the treaty which said that nothing in the treaty would affect
    the operation of article 40.3.3 of the Irish constitution, the
    so-called `pro-life amendment.'
    
    After this protocol was inserted and agreed to by the other governments
    the `X' case came up in the Irish courts, the case  of the 14 year
    old rape victim who was prevented from going to England for an 
    abortion.  
    
    The judgement in the `X' case gave a limited right to abortion,
    but indicated that a woman would not necessarily have a right to
    travel for an abortion.  Previous judgements on article 40.3.3 had
    also limited the availability of information on abortion.
    
    The Pro-Life people were against Maastricht because the protocol
    underpinned the limited right to abortion which their constitutional
    amendment had been interpreted as providing.
    
    The Pro-choice people were against Maastricht because the protocol
    limited a woman's right to travel and to information.  
    
    So, strange bedfellows!