Referendum on Lisbon Treaty

IRLConor

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. I don't think I'm under any illusion as to the extent to which Ministers physically write legislation. I do think you're rather a lot too sceptical, particularly given the lawyers in the Dáil.

As far as I know it's unusual for ministers to write legislation, but it's not unheard of for a minister to specify particular wording of sections. They do certainly read it though.

Whether your average TD in the Dail has read a piece of legislation is another story. I suspect most of them rely heavily on explanatory notes if they do look at the legislation at all.

Scofflaw wrote: »

In particular, I think it would be very foolish to simply assume that TDs are stupid.

Indeed. It's quite obvious that, at the very least, many of them have excellent "animal cunning".

Scofflaw

IRLConor wrote: »

As far as I know it's unusual for ministers to write legislation, but it's not unheard of for a minister to specify particular wording of sections. They do certainly read it though.

Whether your average TD in the Dail has read a piece of legislation is another story. I suspect most of them rely heavily on explanatory notes if they do look at the legislation at all.

I would think so, in the case of backbenchers. However, I have (to my shame) a tax specialist in the family, who is something of an aficionado of the legislation of the different Ministers for Finance over the years (to my even greater shame). Stylistically the Ministers do apparently have quite a lot of input into the legislation. He's quite keen on Bertie's stuff, but derives a positively satanic pleasure from Albert's and CJ's.

IRLConor wrote: »

Indeed. It's quite obvious that, at the very least, many of them have excellent "animal cunning".

Well, it's also amusing the way people are very quick to say "the Minister should have put (or not put) X into the law", yet simultaneously seem to be able to believe that Ministers have nothing to do with the legislation that emerges from their departments, because they're too stupid.

The idea that Bertie is simultaneously lethally cunning, and unable to read a treaty, doesn't wash with me - more generally, the idea that he simply signed what was put in front of him without having a boggy-eyed notion what was in it doesn't fly for a second.

Ireland negotiated the final passage of the EU Constitution, if you remember - the one all the No side say is essentially the same document as Lisbon. Somewhere, there's a very good pic of Cowen staggering out of the negotiations with Bertie holding him up.

cordially,
Scofflaw

IRLConor

Scofflaw wrote: »

The idea that Bertie is simultaneously lethally cunning, and unable to read a treaty, doesn't wash with me - more generally, the idea that he simply signed what was put in front of him without having a boggy-eyed notion what was in it doesn't fly for a second.

Agreed. I'm reasonably confident that he has the ability to read legislation and (with help) understand it. He's not the kind of politician to sign something without knowing the implications.

As an aside: I find it useful to differentiate between smart, cunning and educated when examining our TDs. There's quite a mix among the TDs.

dresden8

IRLConor wrote: »

He's not the kind of politician to sign something without knowing the implications.

Is this a deliberate attempt to get one up on Scofflaw about Bertie signing blank cheques?

If it is, Huzzah to you sir!

If not, oh dear. (Shakes head sadly and slowly walks out of the room)

IRLConor

dresden8 wrote: »

Is this a deliberate attempt to get one up on Scofflaw about Bertie signing blank cheques?

If it is, Huzzah to you sir!

If not, oh dear. (Shakes head sadly and slowly walks out of the room)

I'm afraid not, I was referring to legislation only (although my assessment that he's "not the kind of politician to sign something without knowing the implications" is partially based on an assumption that he's more careful now than he was). Sorry to disappoint.

I'm bored of news of Bertie's financial affairs and have lost interest in the details. I made up my mind a while ago that either:

• He's dirty, but smart enough to be able to duck and dive enough at the tribunal to muddy the waters and try to play the "they're all out to get me, this is a political smear campaign" card.
• He's clean, but not smart enough to keep the right records to be able to prove it. If this is the case, he has my deepest sympaty but not my vote.

Anyway, back to the topic:

I find it curious that the "Yes" speakers at the various debates come across so poorly. I wonder why? Is it lack of preparation? Is it lack of interest from the better speakers in politics? Is it that the debates are organised by the No campaign and they deliberately pick muppets for the yes side?

One thing that I suspect will be a factor over the coming months is that there aren't any real "big ticket", exciting, pro-yes items in the treaty that would sway the average voter. On the no side there's plenty of scope for dragging out the "EU Superstate", "They're stealing our neutrality/sovereignty" and "Faceless bureaucrats in Brussels" bogeymen as always, and I fear that it's easier for the no campaign to spread FUD because countering it requires either an in-depth explanation (which no-one wants to hear) or a mud-slinging match (which gets us nowhere).

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

Is this a deliberate attempt to get one up on Scofflaw about Bertie signing blank cheques?

If it is, Huzzah to you sir!

If not, oh dear. (Shakes head sadly and slowly walks out of the room)

Is it very important to you? I'm essentially of the same opinion on Bertie and his finances as IRLConor, except for not including option 2.

I genuinely don't think politicians are stupid - misguided, self-serving, short-sighted, pig-headed, etc etc, sure. They're just not generally dim, although they often do have the kind of intelligence that runs on narrow-gauge.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

IRLConor wrote: »

I find it curious that the "Yes" speakers at the various debates come across so poorly. I wonder why? Is it lack of preparation? Is it lack of interest from the better speakers in politics? Is it that the debates are organised by the No campaign and they deliberately pick muppets for the yes side?

That wouldn't work, though, because most of the debates are actually organised by people like the Forum on Europe.

IRLConor wrote: »

One thing that I suspect will be a factor over the coming months is that there aren't any real "big ticket", exciting, pro-yes items in the treaty that would sway the average voter. On the no side there's plenty of scope for dragging out the "EU Superstate", "They're stealing our neutrality/sovereignty" and "Faceless bureaucrats in Brussels" bogeymen as always, and I fear that it's easier for the no campaign to spread FUD because countering it requires either an in-depth explanation (which no-one wants to hear) or a mud-slinging match (which gets us nowhere).

Even if the poor old Yes speaker prepares themselves for all of those, he/she can still be blindsided by someone with a specific axe to grind - like slot machines as in rossibaby's example.

cordially,
Scofflaw

IRLConor

Scofflaw wrote: »

That wouldn't work, though, because most of the debates are actually organised by people like the Forum on Europe.

OK, fair enough. I had no idea who was organising the things.

Scofflaw

IRLConor wrote: »

OK, fair enough. I had no idea who was organising the things.

Well, if I was being snide, I might make the point that debates are almost always organised by the Yes side. The No side organises rallies, with only No speakers.

snidely,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Just a point in relation to something often raised by the No side: from the EU Lisbon Treaty site:

Why is the Treaty of Lisbon not easier to read?

Changes to the EU's Treaties have always come about through amendments to previous Treaties: this was true of the Single European Act, as well as the Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice. The Treaty of Lisbon uses the same technique. The Union's two main Treaties will be renamed the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The two Treaties will have the same rank.

A consolidated version of the Treaty will be published on 15 April on the web and on 9 May on paper version.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Moriarty

I've deleted the last three posts for being off topic. Please remember this thread is about the Lisbon Treaty. Thanks

johnnyskeleton

I've a few questions on the Lisbon treaty - sorry if they have already been answered but this thread is very long and, to be honest, very personal between posters.

1) When are we likely to have a referrendum on the treaty?

2) Sinn Fein have stated in their manifesto that the Lisbon treaty will deny Ireland's right to a referendum on future treaties. Does anyone know what the basis of this point is (as it is just glossed over in the manifesto)? It sounds to me that it was put in by a particular deputy who has on at least one previous occasion publicly shown his lack of understanding of the Constitution.

3) Some people have said that it will force Ireland to support nuclear power? Can anyone expand on this? Do we just have to be more involved in Euratom or is there something else there?

4) Why are no other countries having referenda when the constitution was rejected by those other countries?

Thanks,
js

Moriarty

I _think_ the government have said that the referendum will be in June or July this year. The specific date isn't set yet.

Scofflaw dealt with points 2, 3 and 4 in this and a couple of the following posts earlier in the thread when P_ONeil copied and pasted the Sinn Fein manifesto

Mossy Monk

Until someone comes out and says what exactly this treaty consists of I will be voting No.

oscarBravo

Mossy Monk wrote: »

Until someone comes out and says what exactly this treaty consists of I will be voting No.

Any special reason you'll wait for someone to tell you, rather than finding out for yourself?

johnnyskeleton

Moriarty wrote: »

I _think_ the government have said that the referendum will be in June or July this year. The specific date isn't set yet.

Scofflaw dealt with points 2, 3 and 4 in this and a couple of the following posts earlier in the thread when P_ONeil copied and pasted the Sinn Fein manifesto

Thanks very much; my suspicions have been confirmed as regards the no camp.

Galliard

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I've a few questions on the Lisbon treaty - sorry if they have already been answered but this thread is very long and, to be honest, very personal between posters.

1) When are we likely to have a referrendum on the treaty?

2) Sinn Fein have stated in their manifesto that the Lisbon treaty will deny Ireland's right to a referendum on future treaties. Does anyone know what the basis of this point is (as it is just glossed over in the manifesto)? It sounds to me that it was put in by a particular deputy who has on at least one previous occasion publicly shown his lack of understanding of the Constitution.

3) Some people have said that it will force Ireland to support nuclear power? Can anyone expand on this? Do we just have to be more involved in Euratom or is there something else there?

4) Why are no other countries having referenda when the constitution was rejected by those other countries?

Thanks,
js

Just a reply to your second point.

We have a referendum because we are giving away control. That is it in a nutshell and for the full monty in all its legal glory you can have a look at the reasons given by the three Supreme Court judges in the famous Crotty case in 1987. Link here

To save time, you could start at the end where you will find the shortest of the judgments - it says this:

''It appears to me that the essential point at issue is whether the State can by any act on the part of its various organs of government enter into binding agreements with other states, or groups of states, to subordinate, or to submit, the exercise of the powers bestowed by the Constitution to the advice or interests of other states, as distinct from electing from time to time to pursue its own particular policies in union or in concert with other states in their pursuit of their own similar or even identical policies.

106. The State's organs cannot contract to exercise in a particular procedure their policy-making roles or in any way to fetter powers bestowed unfettered by the Constitution. They are the guardians of these powers -not the disposers of them. ''

So that was the case that forced the government to get your approval any time it wants to give away more of the powers that we the people have given to them on trust.

That is happening again now in the Lisbon treaty, so you have a say. Funnily enough some Yes people say that there is no transfer of power in the Lisbon treaty, as if the kind government would just have this referendum for fun. As if.

Now to the question about is this the last referendum. I saw an argument put up that said it is because of an article in Lisbon (48 I think) that allows EU treaties to be amended by a simplified procedure in future. I do not buy that argument myself.

But this may well be the last Irish referendum on the EU for a different reason. That is grounded in the Crotty case reasoning. That case made it clear that we had to have a vote because new areas of power were being passed into the EU (it was called the EEC then) by Ireland. But the Court said plainly that if there were no new areas of power passing then there would not need to be a referendum.

Since that time, we have had more power transfers under the Amsterdam, Maastricht and Nice treaties. Lisbon is the latest, and the areas of power it brings into the EU tent pretty much complete the set. There is not much left in terms of government powers that is left totally outside the EU remit once Lisbon goes through.

That is why I think Lisbon is our last referendum on the EU. Changes in voting systems like from unanimity to majority vote for example will make a difference to us in future, say in military policy, but they will not be changes that entitle us to a vote - our government will be able to go along with them without asking our permission.

They say they will come back to us to vote on one thing only, which is something called an EU common defence. But they haven't told us what that actually means, and there is plenty in Lisbon about mutual defence and military defence agencies and the like to keep the arms lobby happy for years to come:)

What were your suspicions about the No camp if you don't mind me asking?

Mossy Monk

oscarBravo wrote: »

Any special reason you'll wait for someone to tell you, rather than finding out for yourself?

All I see when trying to find out is non sensical garbage. Can you point me to somewhere that has it all simplified?

oscarBravo

Have a look in the other thread on the topic in this forum, there are a number of links there.

If it still doesn't make sense to you, perhaps abstaining would be more logical than voting against something you don't understand.

Scofflaw

Galliard wrote: »

Just a reply to your second point.

We have a referendum because we are giving away control. That is it in a nutshell and for the full monty in all its legal glory you can have a look at the reasons given by the three Supreme Court judges in the famous Crotty case in 1987. Link here

To save time, you could start at the end where you will find the shortest of the judgments - it says this:

''It appears to me that the essential point at issue is whether the State can by any act on the part of its various organs of government enter into binding agreements with other states, or groups of states, to subordinate, or to submit, the exercise of the powers bestowed by the Constitution to the advice or interests of other states, as distinct from electing from time to time to pursue its own particular policies in union or in concert with other states in their pursuit of their own similar or even identical policies.

106. The State's organs cannot contract to exercise in a particular procedure their policy-making roles or in any way to fetter powers bestowed unfettered by the Constitution. They are the guardians of these powers -not the disposers of them. ''

So that was the case that forced the government to get your approval any time it wants to give away more of the powers that we the people have given to them on trust.

That is happening again now in the Lisbon treaty, so you have a say. Funnily enough some Yes people say that there is no transfer of power in the Lisbon treaty, as if the kind government would just have this referendum for fun. As if.

Now to the question about is this the last referendum. I saw an argument put up that said it is because of an article in Lisbon (48 I think) that allows EU treaties to be amended by a simplified procedure in future. I do not buy that argument myself.

But this may well be the last Irish referendum on the EU for a different reason. That is grounded in the Crotty case reasoning. That case made it clear that we had to have a vote because new areas of power were being passed into the EU (it was called the EEC then) by Ireland. But the Court said plainly that if there were no new areas of power passing then there would not need to be a referendum.

Since that time, we have had more power transfers under the Amsterdam, Maastricht and Nice treaties. Lisbon is the latest, and the areas of power it brings into the EU tent pretty much complete the set. There is not much left in terms of government powers that is left totally outside the EU remit once Lisbon goes through.

It's worth bearing in mind that the areas of exclusive EU competence are also very limited - they are the following:

Management of:

1. the customs union, made up of an internal free trade zone between members who apply the same European customs duties (taxes) to goods coming into the EU zone, regardless if they are being imported into Ireland or Estonia.
2. the economic and monetary policy of the EU, including sharing a single currency, the euro, overseen by the European central bank. Under the stability and growth pact, the 12 eurozone members operate common economic policies, and promise to keep their budgets and spending under control.
3. competition laws to ensure a level playing field between European businesses, controlling state aid from national governments and the actions of companies bestowing unfair competitive advantage through mergers or acquisitions. The European Commission and the DG for Competition Policy have primary competence for enforcing EU competition law.
4. a common position in international trade negotiations such as the WTO trade rounds, as part of a common international trade policy
5. conservation of marine biological resources (part of the common fisheries policy between EU states)
6. as well as the concluding of some international agreements.

All other competences are at most "shared competences", which means that the national governments have recognised that the EU can be useful in them - usually, the EU sets minimum standards, and the national governments do the rest.

It's also worth noting that the EU acts almost entirely through national governments.

Galliard wrote: »

That is why I think Lisbon is our last referendum on the EU. Changes in voting systems like from unanimity to majority vote for example will make a difference to us in future, say in military policy, but they will not be changes that entitle us to a vote - our government will be able to go along with them without asking our permission.

Not sure at all that that's true. A change from a shared competence to an exclusive competence would also require a referendum, of course - indeed, no new exclusive competences are being granted to the EU in this treaty at all.

However, there is a reason why we wouldn't be expecting another referendum any time soon, which is that the institutional changes made by this treaty are expected to make the EU workable for the foreseeable future.

Galliard wrote: »

They say they will come back to us to vote on one thing only, which is something called an EU common defence. But they haven't told us what that actually means, and there is plenty in Lisbon about mutual defence and military defence agencies and the like to keep the arms lobby happy for years to come:)

That's a very interesting assertion...would you like to produce a source for that?

intrigued,
Scofflaw

jawlie

My apologies.

When you had said

Scofflaw wrote: »

The Commissioners answer to their national governments, and to the Parliament.

, I had assumed you had meant they answered to their national government and the parliament and not

Scofflaw wrote: »

We've been over this.



Second, the individual Commissioners are put forward by their national governments, so a Commissioner who is not satisfactory will not be put forward again - and since everyone seems to assume that once they have their snouts in the EU gravy they think of nothing else, that's accountable.

Fourth, it would be extremely unlikely that a Commissioner would hang on if asked to resign by their national government, since the national government is responsible for putting them forward in the first place, and they are almost invariably national politicians.

So, by by "answering" to their national governments you mean it is unliklely they will not be put forward again by their national governments for the office of commissioner once their current term finishes?

I'm not sure about anyone, else, but in a democracy that is just not good enough. You seem to oppose even the idea that they should be elected and thats your position. For many, that is just not good enough.

I can only repeat that the commissioners are not elected by the electorate over which they hold so much power, and we should not transfer to them any more power until such times as they are directly elected by universal sufferage.

Bertie Ahern is elected by universal sufferage and we can all see how how he is clinging on to power by his fingertips. The only consolation we have is that he will get his comeuppance at the next election, as will the ministers who are propping him up. that very fact alone will make them act more swiftly and more decisively.

If he were a commissioner, we would have no mechanism to oust him or get rid of him, and there would be no need for swift of decisive action by anyone.

That reason is good enough for many to vote no to a treaty which gives these unelected commissioners power over us. Vote No.

IRLConor

jawlie wrote: »

Bertie Ahern is elected by universal sufferage and we can all see how how he is clinging on to power by his fingertips. The only consolation we have is that he will get his comeuppance at the next election, as will the ministers who are propping him up. that very fact alone will make them act more swiftly and more decisively.

1. Loads of people predicted that before the last election.
2. We don't have a mechanism to remove Bertie. We can refuse to re-elect him but that's not the same thing. For all I know he could be in government for a full term again. Unless he loses support from his own power base he's not going anywhere.

jawlie wrote: »

If he were a commissioner, we would have no mechanism to oust him or get rid of him, and there would be no need for swift of decisive action by anyone.

We have no mechanism to oust Bertie. We have no mechanism to get rid of him. How is he different from a commissioner?

If you want the European Commission and/or the Dail to have a recall facility then fair enough, argue on that, but it has nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty.

To me your arguments smack of "If I can't have the whole cake* I don't want a slice either**, I'll have bread instead***".

* Direct democracy in all levels of the EU.
** Democratic improvements in the Lisbon Treaty.
*** Status Quo.

jawlie

IRLConor wrote: »

...
We have no mechanism to oust Bertie. We have no mechanism to get rid of him. How is he different from a commissioner?

I think the very fact that our local TD's have to vote for Bertie if a vote of no confidence is called, and then our local TD's have to face us again at electino time, is a substantial difference.

I am not arguing that democracy is perfect, but I am arguing that it is better to be elected by universal sufferage than to be "appointed" by one person.

I think what amazes me here is that there seem to be some who feel that it is preferable to be appointed into a position of power over the millions of people in the EU, rather than to have been elected by those people over whom will hold power as a commissioner.

Ar eyou really arguing that you think universal sufferage is an inferior way to appointing a commissioner into power?

And if this is the case for commissioners, are you then arguing universal sufferage is generally an inferior way for anyone to be elevated into political power?

IRLConor wrote: »

If you want the European Commission and/or the Dail to have a recall facility then fair enough, argue on that, but it has nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty.

.

I don't want the Dail or the EC to have a recall facility (whatever that may be, I merely want the commissioners to be elected by universal sufferage by those peopel over whom they will exercise considerable power.

The fact that others may think it extraordinary that we should have the possibility of such democracy in the EU is a sad reflection on their lack of faith in the ability of the people to select those who hold power over us. And that they should think it mroe appropriate that these commissioners are better "appointed" by a few politicians is deeply perplexing.

I love the EU and most things about it, but find the opposition to making it more democratic inexplicable. We need more democracy and should constantly search for ways in which we can make all the institutions more democratic and more accountable.

Scofflaw

jawlie wrote: »

My apologies.

When you had said , I had assumed you had meant they answered to their national government and the parliament and not

So, by by "answering" to their national governments you mean it is unliklely they will not be put forward again by their national governments for the office of commissioner once their current term finishes?

I'm not sure about anyone, else, but in a democracy that is just not good enough. You seem to oppose even the idea that they should be elected and thats your position. For many, that is just not good enough.

I can only repeat that the commissioners are not elected by the electorate over which they hold so much power, and we should not transfer to them any more power until such times as they are directly elected by universal sufferage.

Bertie Ahern is elected by universal sufferage and we can all see how how he is clinging on to power by his fingertips. The only consolation we have is that he will get his comeuppance at the next election, as will the ministers who are propping him up. that very fact alone will make them act more swiftly and more decisively.

If he were a commissioner, we would have no mechanism to oust him or get rid of him, and there would be no need for swift of decisive action by anyone.

That reason is good enough for many to vote no to a treaty which gives these unelected commissioners power over us. Vote No.

The only mechanism we have for getting rid of Bertie is to not elect him at the next election - and that's not actually in the hands of anyone but the voters of DNC. I'm not in DNC, and have no say whatsoever in whether Bertie gets re-elected. If he is elected, I have no say in whether the FF party (or the Dáil, technically) make him Taoiseach.

Commissioners have 5-year terms. At the end of that time, our government will get rid of the Commissioner if they feel he hasn't been worthwhile - or if they feel he is making them unpopular.

As I said before, I don't know why you think this is different from the 5-year terms of TDs, when you've pointed out yourself that "only consolation we have is that he (Bertie) will get his comeuppance at the next election, as will the ministers who are propping him up". You then go on to say that, even though a Commissioner doesn't have to be reappointed the next time they're up for selection (5 years, same as Bertie), "there would be no need for swift or decisive action by anyone". Quite aside from anything else, the Commissioner could be asked to step down at any time by the government that appointed them (this is the same principle as a cabinet shuffle).

We can't do anything about Bertie once he's elected, and I don't get to elect him in the first place...but this is magically lots more democratic?

cordially,
Scofflaw

IRLConor

jawlie wrote: »

Ar eyou really arguing that you think universal sufferage is an inferior way to appointing a commissioner into power?

And if this is the case for commissioners, are you then arguing universal sufferage is generally an inferior way for anyone to be elevated into political power?

jawlie wrote: »

The fact that others may think it extraordinary that we should have the possibility of such democracy in the EU is a sad reflection on their lack of faith in the ability of the people to select those who hold power over us. And that they should think it mroe appropriate that these commissioners are better "appointed" by a few politicians is deeply perplexing.

I love the EU and most things about it, but find the opposition to making it more democratic inexplicable.

Both you and I agree that universal suffrage* would be a better way of selecting the commissioners. Arguing that I don't is either a misunderstanding on your part or mudslinging. I hope it's the former.

How about I make a little table to make it more clear:

                    jawlie         IRLConor
Universal suffrage: Best method    Best method
The current method: Unacceptable   Acceptable, but non-optimal

So insinuating that I "think it mroe appropriate that these commissioners are better "appointed" by a few politicians" or I am in "opposition to making [the EU] more democratic" is nonsense.

jawlie wrote: »

I don't want the Dail or the EC to have a recall facility (whatever that may be, I merely want the commissioners to be elected by universal sufferage by those peopel over whom they will exercise considerable power.

A recall facility would be a method where citizens could force an election outside of the normal election cycle without needing the government parties to agree to it.

jawlie wrote: »

We need more democracy and should constantly search for ways in which we can make all the institutions more democratic and more accountable

Yes, I fully agree with you. Where we disagree is that I don't believe that voting No on the Lisbon Treaty will bring us any closer to a more democratic EU, nor will it force any such democratic reforms to be considered.

* Note suffrage, not sufferage. The word has nothing to do with suffering (thank $DEITY).

Scofflaw

jawlie wrote: »

I think the very fact that our local TD's have to vote for Bertie if a vote of no confidence is called, and then our local TD's have to face us again at electino time, is a substantial difference.

I am not arguing that democracy is perfect, but I am arguing that it is better to be elected by universal sufferage than to be "appointed" by one person.

I think what amazes me here is that there seem to be some who feel that it is preferable to be appointed into a position of power over the millions of people in the EU, rather than to have been elected by those people over whom will hold power as a commissioner.

Ar eyou really arguing that you think universal sufferage is an inferior way to appointing a commissioner into power?

And if this is the case for commissioners, are you then arguing universal sufferage is generally an inferior way for anyone to be elevated into political power?

Interesting question, although I don't see that you're actually open to any other viewpoint!

The main argument in favour of election by universal suffrage isn't that it produces the best people to run complex government departments - quite clearly it does no such thing (Roche, Kebabs, umpteen other disastrously bad Ministers, plus the vast array of mediocre ones) - good Ministers are actually very few and far between.

One of the two main reasons for doing it is that a system of appointments would rapidly lead to a self-sustaining 'aristocracy' and oligarchic government - but this is not applicable to the EU, because the Commissioners don't appoint each other, nor are they appointed by anyone else in the EU. Ireland appoints 1 Commissioner out of 27, and who gets appointed depends on who is in power in Ireland at the time. Under those circumstances, it is almost impossible for a closed clique to monopolise the Commssionership, or even the position of Irish Commissioner (except to the extent that Fianna Fail monopolise Irish government).

The other major reason for doing it is democratic accountability pure and simple - that Mary Hanafin's tenure as Minister will be judged at the polls. Unfortunately, this doesn't really apply, because Mary Hanafin will be judged far more on what she does for Dun Laoghaire. This is exactly what the EU wishes to avoid in the case of Commissioners. If Charlie McCreevy depended on the goodwill of the Irish electorate, he would concentrate on the interests of the Irish electorate to the disadvantage of other EU citizens - and so would every other Commissioner.

Now, it's generally agreed that one of the worst things about Irish politics is the way our supposedly national Ministers frequently use their Ministry to the benefit of their home constituency. Direct election of Commissioners would give us that problem in spades, with Peter Mandelson favouring the UK in Trade, László Kovács favouring Hungary in taxation, etc etc.

So, given the main reasons for election are either inapplicable or positively detrimental in the case of EU Commissioners, the insistence that we should use a method that doesn't actually produce the best person for the job anyway seems absolutely bizarre.

cordially,
Scofflaw

serfboard

oscarBravo wrote: »

If it still doesn't make sense to you, perhaps abstaining would be more logical than voting against something you don't understand.

Oh I dunno - since the political classes want us to vote in favour of it, I think that voting against it if you don't understand it is a perfectly logical thing to do. If it does get rejected, then they will have to do a better job of explaining to us why we should vote in favour of it before they ask us again.

Chunky Monkey

I was reading the No side's opinion on the ogra sinn fein site there which said the treaty will have a detrimental effect on healthcare, then referred to articles 188 and 188a which have no reference to heathcare, directly or otherwise.

According to this site: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/en/treaties/dat/12007L/htm/C2007306EN.01020201.htm it's articles 151 and 167 that deal with public health. But according to this site: http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/pdf/pdf20/fco_ref_cm7294_eureformtreaty it's article 152. It only talks about amendments though. Would anyone be able to post up what the actual articles say please? I can't find them, it seems my googling skills are rather limited

Someone said to me recently that healthcare will come under shared competences and that the NHS will be taken down and privatised instead. However according to Robert Schumann on this site: http://www.robert-schuman.eu/doc/divers/lisbonne/en/10fiches.pdf member states will actually have exclusive competence over healthcare.

Goddamnit this is very confusing!

Scofflaw

serfboard wrote: »

Oh I dunno - since the political classes want us to vote in favour of it, I think that voting against it if you don't understand it is a perfectly logical thing to do. If it does get rejected, then they will have to do a better job of explaining to us why we should vote in favour of it before they ask us again.

Meh. Why not say that since people want us to vote No, we should vote Yes and get them to explain better why we should vote No?

apathetically,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Chunky Monkey wrote: »

I was reading the No side's opinion on the ogra sinn fein site there which said the treaty will have a detrimental effect on healthcare, then referred to articles 188 and 188a which have no reference to heathcare, directly or otherwise.

According to this site: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/en/treaties/dat/12007L/htm/C2007306EN.01020201.htm it's articles 151 and 167 that deal with public health. But according to this site: http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/pdf/pdf20/fco_ref_cm7294_eureformtreaty it's article 152. It only talks about amendments though. Would anyone be able to post up what the actual articles say please? I can't find them, it seems my googling skills are rather limited

Someone said to me recently that healthcare will come under shared competences and that the NHS will be taken down and privatised instead. However according to Robert Schumann on this site: http://www.robert-schuman.eu/doc/divers/lisbonne/en/10fiches.pdf member states will actually have exclusive competence over healthcare.

Goddamnit this is very confusing!

Just to further your confusion, these are also relevant:

...the following interpretative provisions, which shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:

ARTICLE 1

The shared values of the Union in respect of services of general economic interest within the meaning of Article 16 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union include in particular:
– the essential role and the wide discretion of national, regional and local
authorities in providing, commissioning and organising services of general
economic interest as closely as possible to the needs of the users;
– the diversity between various services of general economic interest and the
differences in the needs and preferences of users that may result from
different geographical, social or cultural situations;
– a high level of quality, safety and affordability, equal treatment and the
promotion of universal access and of user rights.

ARTICLE 2
The provisions of the Treaties do not affect in any way the competence of Member States to provide, commission and organise non-economic services of general interest.

The NHS is a "non-economic service of general interest". My own reading is that the Treaty attempts to provide for a landscape that includes both government public services (either as monopolies or alternatives) and commercial public services - and to apply the internal market and competition rules to the latter without prejudicing the ability of governments to provide the former.

Essentially, if Ireland wanted to create an INHS, that would be perfectly possible, by virtue of the national competence, and the competition rules would not apply. If Ireland chose to do it via a privatised or commercialised service, they can also do that, but in that case the internal market competition rules apply.

That may not have helped, of course.

cordially,
Scofflaw