Study Shows Irish Voters Rejected the Nice Treaty Referendum Due to Poland's Entry Into the EU

Today is 17 March and for many St. Patrick's Day is being celebrated. But that topic has already been worn out on PolishForums in other posts so won't be addressed here.

Another threadbare topic is the quaint belief held by some that Poles and the Irish are kindred spirits, long-lost cousins, or common victims of British backstabbing (which admittedly is true), etc., etc. So that too won't be addressed here.

What is not widely known (because it isn't talked about) is that Poland's entry into the EU (along with several other Central and East European countries) was nearly scuppered by Irish voters way back in 2001. EU and Irish politicians played down the shock rejection of the Treaty of Nice Referendum and the reasons for it. But (like with the British and Brexit) the rejection of EU expansion and Poland's accession came from the Irish people and it was visceral.

A study of the Irish people's uppity dismay about EU expansion found:

EU ENLARGEMENT AS A FACTOR IN IRELAND'S NICE TREATY REFERENDUM

sam.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/JohnO%E2%80%99Brennan.pdf

- 'it is clear that a considerable degree of unease at the prospects of change can be evinced...there are 2.2 million farmers in Poland alone...there [has] not been an extensive discussion on the effects and cost of enlargement so as to ensure fairness and equity for all.'

- 'the ugly face...of the No to Nice campaign...[was] described...as an "isolationist, xenophobic, backward-looking, far-right rump."...exchanges on immigration again suggest that there is a great deal of uncertainty and unease in Ireland relating to Eastern enlargement of the Union.

- 'it is only in Ireland that concern about enlargement has really manifested itself openly...for all the talk of reunifying Europe..and the moral dimension to enlargement, there is still a long way to go before the candidate states are genuinely embraced and welcomed into the European family.'

As noted, the above study concluded that as far as the Irish were concerned it would take a very long time for candidate states like Poland to be "genuinely embraced and welcomed into the European family." It's quite rich though for the Irish to have held this haughty opinion considering that, despite joining the EU sooner, they remained completely neutral during WWII while Poland suffered and were only angry about EU expansion because as net beneficiaries of EU redistribution policies they saw Poland as a real threat to their own welfare handouts being reduced.

So what is the state of relations today?

Yes, many Poles have moved to Ireland for work, education and residency. But at the local level, year on year, there are always news stories of Poles residing in Ireland who are victims of rape, robbery, murder and discrimination.

Does the Irish government regard Poles as the right type of residents it wants in Ireland? I would argue not. In 2018, Ireland instituted 'Project Ireland 2040' which aimed at a variety of social and infrastructure projects to cope with a projected 1 million increase in its population by 2040. There have been debates as to whether this 1 million figure would be "natural" birthrates of the existing population or through mass migration. Given Ireland's recent ending of abortion restrictions, the fact that many urban areas of Ireland now have non-natives exceeding the number of natives, and Ireland's commitment to settling as many economic emigrants from outside the EU as possible, it is clear that this 1 million growth figure will not come solely from any freedom of movement between Poland and Ireland.

Will Ireland's devil-may-care globalist immigration policies affect (nay, undermine!) Poland's sovereign and responsible approach to immigration? Of course. All Ireland has to do is handout Irish passports like candy to immigrants from around the world and then Poland becomes a doormat. It's not only Poland's growth which would attract these particular economic migrants entering the EU through Ireland's backdoor. As seen in the States with the scandalous abuse of its H-1B visa program, once immigrants from certain countries enter middle and upper management in companies which require labour (and especially when they infest human resource departments) they only tend to hire their own kind and justify their discrimination against native peoples by preaching the need for more "diversity."

In summary, at both the local and government levels, the Irish have not genuinely embraced Poles as was warned.

For the Irish locals, Poles are just like any other resented immigrant group and have been subjected to violence because of it rather than regarded as fellow EU citizens deserving of dignity and respect.

For the globalist government in Ireland, Poles are merely a statistical metric to be adjusted as needed with anyone from anywhere.

Tid bit facts of St. Patrick.
St. Patrick is not an official Saint.
St. Patrick's Day falls on the anniversary of Patrick's death on March 17 in the fifth century.
His followers in Ireland began to celebrate his feast day on that day during the ninth and tenth centuries, even though he was never formally canonized by a pope.

Patrick is the patron saint of Ireland, he was actually born in Roman occupied Britain in the fourth century to wealthy parents who might have converted to the Christian faith for the tax break.

Not much has changed since.

Yes, but did you know that the Irish opposed Poland's entry into the EU?

Do you think, like with the Brexit vote, they were justified in doing so?

They rejected it because it was one of two items on the ballot paper. The other was controversial, this wasn't. When the ballot was repeated with EU enlargement the only item, they voted differently.

You're wrong.

The study cited is authoritative and conclusive.

If the Irish didn't have a problem with EU expansion, particularly in regard to Poland's accession as explained, then there would never have been the need for another referendum.

You are lying as usual. What for? To stir resentful emotions between Poles and Irish? Only Pollacks are able to behave in such a way. Tfu.

No, Bieggers. The referendum contained more than one question, and was largely about abortion. They repeated the question (on its own) the following year and it passed.


Only a psychologist could answer that question.

It is simply not sufficient to baselessly call someone a liar when you can't show any discrepancy in the authoritative and conclusive study on this topic.

If you have facts to disprove the study then the burden is on you to produce them.

You see, this is how the real world works.

It is also known as masculine thinking.

You on the other hand have approached this with female thinking.

Indeed, you weren't interested in facts because you don't have any to counter with.

Therefore your only concerns regarded "emotions" and how you perceive how people "behave".

That's why women focus so much on appearances, rely on shaming language, and use shrilly expletives to try to end discussions.

They, like you, love a drama but can't handle a debate. :)


Nope. Enlargement had nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with fears over immigration, wages, and EU grants and subsidies.

If abortion had been a factor the thirteen page study would have mentioned it. It didn't.

They voted against both questions on the first referendum, and voted for EU enlargement on the second...


Would've, could've, should've might've. The Irish voted for EU enlargement.

Wrong again:

2001 Irish constitutional referendums

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Irish_constitutional_referendums

- Three referendums were held simultaneously in Ireland on 7 June 2001, each on a proposed amendment of the Constitution of Ireland.

- Two of the measures were approved, while the third was rejected.

- The two successful amendments concerned the death penalty and the International Criminal Court.

- The failed amendment concerned the Treaty of Nice.

So there you have it.

Abortion wasn't even on the ballot.

The only issue the Irish voters rejected was Poland and other CEE states joining the EU. The study I cited above explained why.

So what point are you trying to make anyway?

'Trying to', Bieggyboy? There's only one point. That the Irish voted for EU enlargement.

I can see that this is a very uncomfortable topic for you.

However, history is history and the fact remains.

The Irish did not vote for EU enlargement originally.

Poland (despite its thoroughly merited accession) loomed large as a reason for this as it stoked xenophobia and fear of reduced welfare among Irish voters as cited in the study.

Now, considering that you are quite old and British and have lived cheek by jowl with the Irish, what other personal insights can you provide for the Irish rejecting Poland's entry into the EU?

And with reference to your fellow Brits voting overwhelmingly for Brexit (which is only days away now!) do you think the Irish were justified in their no vote against Poland?

Very comfortable indeed, especially as the voters of Ireland voted for EU enlargement...


51.9 - 48.1. You have a flawed understanding of the word 'overwhelmingly'.

The Irish did not originally vote for EU enlargement which is the topic of this thread.

In the study a milder explanation for Irish reluctance in favour of Poland joining was that "there is still a long way to go before the candidate states are genuinely embraced and welcomed into the European family."

Why do you think the Irish would hold such condescending views when Poland has not only existed on mainland Europe but has been a nation here for over 1,000 years and one of the oldest constitutional republics in human history to boot?

Brexit discussions will be moved to Random - please focus on the original topic.

The Brits (with the Americans pulling the strings) pushed very hard to get as many former COMECON members as possible under the umbrella of the EU and NATO just in case the Soviets would change their mind. Pure strategic interest, the eastward expansion of the EU had nothing to do with Poland and its people.

That`s how I remember it too, Polish media adn politicians didn`t make a fuss about the first rejection because they knew it had nothing to do with Poland. Why does SB try to say that white is black is a mystery to me, too. Why is that person lying and spreading false info in each of his/her post? And using such stupid arguments as below:


I see. That`s the main argument to defend your agenda. Indeed, true Pollack thinking it is. :)

Your anti European agenda is to thick. Don`yt count that Poles will stop cooperating with the EU after a few of your silly lies.

It's not a 'study'. It's an article - and a pretty irrelevant one at this stage. It was written nearly twenty years ago when the item was of interest to academics. We've all moved on a long way since then.

Incidentally I wouldn't be so quick to boast about your 'masculine thinking', as I'm afraid you'll find that your original post is full of factual errors regarding Ireland, including the howler that many urban areas of Ireland have more foreigners than native population :))

That seems to be exactly the purpose of this thread.

Fortunately, the person who started this thread isn't Polish or Irish.

What matters is how they finally voted and the actual effect of that. Nothing else.


Same here. I remember some 'hearts and minds' lobbying by Polish politicians and others. It worked, and relations between Poland and Ireland (and their relations with our EU) are strong.

It is simply unbelievable that one might try to smuggle in such blatant BS and expect people to swallow it like geese. I have a serious suspicion that it is admin or mods who play games with us through the false profile of ShBrits in order to introduce some spice into the forum and make us be more active. That member`s opinions and ways of discussing things are simply too grotesque to be true. :):):)

SB, in case you really exist, change your nick and start anew because, after the BS you presented here, you are blown. In every other thread where you appear you`ll find our allusions to your preposterous lies exposed here. :):)

Yes isn't it? People like that tend to thrive on the fact that most posters don't know any more about the topics under discussion then they do themselves and obviously have neither the time nor inclination to research them so a lot their rubbish goes largely unchallenged.

Finally, a relevant reply.

Yes, although democratic governments are elected and funded by their citizens the actual policies they pursue are another matter.

A lot of policies are indeed aimed at military security. However, more important to politicians and lobbyists is business.

Poland and other CEE states offered both new markets and highly skilled but lower labour costs (whether through free movement of said labour or relocation of plants and factories eastward).

So from a policy and business standpoint, Poland and tens of millions of Poles were vitally important to EU expansion goals.

As mentioned in my first post both EU and Irish politicians were stunned that the Irish voters rejected Poland's accession to the EU.

But this should not have come as a surprise to anyone.

Especially when it came to money.

Ireland joined the EU in1973 and for decades remained dependent on EU handouts.

Indeed, Ireland only became a net contributor to the EU budget in 2016! That's 43 years on EU welfare! WOW!

At the time Poland and CEE countries were not in a position to become net contributors as soon as joining the EU. Decades of dysfunctional and crony communist economic policies could never be corrected overnight.

Ireland, however, never had to endure the nightmare of a centrally planned economy the way Poland did.

The average Irish person though was fully addicted to EU subsidies, grants and other doled out benefits when the time came to vote on EU expansion.

They were simply terrified of seeing their welfare cut in order to share it with accession countries like Poland.

Worst of all for the Irish was the knowledge that any money taken away would be redistributed to Poles and other Central and East Europeans who were largely unknown and completely alien to them.

This is why they lashed out with a no vote.

In 2001 the Treaty of Nice Referendum died at the Irish ballot box and Poland's hard fought and richly deserved accession was unfairly and unjustifiably delayed for nearly two years.

What happened that in the next referendum most Irish voted yes? Can you tell us and show reliable sources?

I love the way you write like an entitled teenager.

Whereas in reality, most contributing to the thread know rather more and some have direct experience of the situation.


The rhetorical style owes a lot to South Park's Cartman character. It reminds me of a fat bloke from the Socialist Workers' Party who I once listened to; drivel dressed up in weak rhetoric.

Of course he can't. He hasn't a clue what he's talking about. However, just for a bit of fun, let's see him provide the evidence for the various lies he tells in the first post :)


Not true. Supply these stories.It baffles me why you would want to present Polish immigrants to Ireland as pitiful victims when in fact they have been very successful and are generally well liked.


Not true. Bet you don't know anything about the Donegal Corridor and the Battle of the Atlantic. Anyway Irish people did our bit in that war, 70,000 Irish joined the British forces including 5,000 Irish men who deserted from the Irish army, eight Victoria Crosses is not a bad record for a neutral country. Many members of my own family died serving in the British forces in WWII.


Another lie. Where are your stats?


What policies are those? Outline them, with supporting evidence.


Exactly Jon.

Mods, yes I know, too many quotes but Sh*tty is telling lies, making up fairy tales in his own head and pretending that they're facts. Cant' have that.

Btw Sh*tty, one of the people you quoted in your post (I read the article) was Rosemary Scallon better known to us as Dana. She's actually from Northern Ireland, anyway, not the Republic. This is she. As you can imagine, she's not taken very seriously in Irish politics.:

youtube.com/watch?v=5ykEiUeP_58

In matters of Irish politics, whether you like her a lot, at least she knows all kinds of everything...

In other threads you strongly oppose Poland`s membership in the EU.
So, explain this contradiction because you seem to be engaged in heavy doublethinking. Can we help you with that? :)

Yes, and she's an acknowledged expert on snowdrops and daffodils, not to mention butterflies, bees and things of the seas. No wonder the farming community has so much respect for her, not to mention the Fisheries I'm sure :D

There is no contradiction and I'll be very happy to help you understand this with another learning moment for you.

Poland is a sovereign nation.

Yes, really, you read that right!

Your communist indoctrination and privileged PRL-era upbringing keeps misleading you into believing (nay, more important to you, "feeling"!) otherwise but it is a fact.

True Poles know that Poland has been free and independent throughout many centuries of its 1,000 year history. It is Poland's natural state of being.

Your Soviet-influenced existence is but a mere speck of dust which is not representative of true Poland at all.

As a sovereign nation Poland is free to join, challenge the direction of, and leave international unions and alliances as befits its own national interests.

Indeed, Poland has flexed its sovereignty within the EU many times most notably by declining to join the disastrous Euro currency and refusing to accept unneeded and unwanted non-EU economic migrant quotas from Brussels.

Poland has also sought direct bilateral trade agreements around the world in the interests of Poland's export markets.

Poland has looked to Washington not Brussels on military matters.

Poland has also been very active in maintaining ties with and assisting Polonia worldwide.

Even the EU paid lip service to this reality of Polish sovereignty in its 2018 State of the Union Address:

European sovereignty is born of Member States' national sovereignty and does not replace it. Sharing sovereignty - when and where needed - makes each of our nation states stronger.

ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/soteu2018-speech_en_0.pdf

So why did the EU need to make this statement at all?

Because EU politicians know the EU is despised and they will grudgingly say anything now to buy themselves more time.

Because the EU has morphed far beyond its original purpose when Poland finally did join despite being delayed unfairly and unjustifiably by xenophobic welfare queens in Ireland.

And yes, Poland's accession was hard fought and richly deserved.

Not only in the context of its suffering during WWII.

Not only in the context of its struggle against and its final victory in defeating communism (even while some PRL-era commie fat cats with the right connections were living large in America at the time).

In order to even qualify for EU accession Poland had to purge and transform everything from top to bottom especially PRL-era laws, regulations and policies which stifled its social and economic potential.

Poland's economy underwent "shock therapy" to allow it to integrate into the free market (which was the original purpose of the EU when it was the EEC).

Privatisation and economic restructuring in Poland lead to a rapid rise in unemployment, inflation, and removal of many social safety nets. But this proved to be a short term hardship. Compare Poland today with other neighboring countries like Ukraine which was slow to transform its economy after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Political considerations aside Ukraine is still not economically prepared to join the EU decades after it became independent.

Your ill-informed posts on this topic simply demonstrate how PRL-era professional students like yourself have enjoyed an uninterrupted, cosseted livelihood completely detached from the rest of Poland's economy and Polish society ever since the 1990s.

Indeed, how can any professional student understand what has really been going on in Poland, and the issues experienced by real Poles, when for decades their time has been divided between their big city apartments, high school level Ivory Towers, and their private countryside dachas with the only distractions being regular, leisurely trips on a gilded and completely subsidised Grand Tour of Europe during an already short work schedule during the year?