Could we lose our Commissioner

Iwasfrozen · 13-06-2008 10:51pm #1

Under the Nice Treaty we agreed to cut the number of Commissioners, so far that has not been brought into effect in the hope that the Commissioner-sharing policy in the Lisbon Treaty would be a "fairer" system, now that the Lisbon Treaty has been regected the EU will be forced to lean back on the Nice Treaty and may cut the number of Commissioners, seeing as the EU is now "pissed of" at Ireland could our Commissioner be shown the door ?
We may have voted not to share our Commissiner but I think few Irish Voters where aware of this part of the Nice Treaty.

marco_polo · 13-06-2008 11:01pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Under the Nice Treaty we agreed to cut the number of Commissioners, so far that has not been brought into effect in the hope that the Commissioner-sharing policy in the Lisbon Treaty would be a "fairer" system, now that the Lisbon Treaty has been regected the EU will be forced to lean back on the Nice Treaty and may cut the number of Commissioners, seeing as the EU is now "pissed of" at Ireland could our Commissioner be shown the door ?
We may have voted not to share our Commissiner but I think few Irish Voters where aware of this part of the Nice Treaty.

It is possible if another agreement on the commisionwas made independently of the Lisbon Treaty. Wouldn't need a referendum either. Would be a brave Irish government that would agree to it though.

Iwasfrozen · 13-06-2008 11:04pm

They would be railroaded into it.
The Irish people do not understand what they have done. :mad:

dloob · 13-06-2008 11:07pm

It would be nice to see libertas explain how a No vote lost our Commisioner

marco_polo · 13-06-2008 11:07pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They would be railroaded into it.
The Irish people do not understand what they have done. :mad:

I am not saying it will happen but it is possible in theory. What was in the Lisbon treaty was meerly a proposal as to how this reduction would happen. There is nothing that I can see to stop other proposals as to how to go about this from being put forward in the aftermath of Lisbon.

sink · 13-06-2008 11:18pm

It is more than likely that the rotation system agreed to in Lisbon will come into effect next year. Unless in the next six months the European council comes up with a different consensus to the one they already have, which I don't think is very likely. I spent the last two months telling people this. I hope they demand an apology from Declan Ganley for lying to them for saying we would keep our commissioner if we voted no.

Scofflaw · 13-06-2008 11:21pm

marco_polo wrote: »

It is possible if another agreement on the commisionwas made independently of the Lisbon Treaty. Wouldn't need a referendum either. Would be a brave Irish government that would agree to it though.

There isn't much of an option. Nice makes it obligatory that the Commission be reduced. If it is not reduced, the Commission's legal basis would be rather shaky, to say the least. That in turn would make questionable the legal basis of legislation they propose.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 13-06-2008 11:22pm

sink wrote: »

It is more than likely that the rotation system agreed to in Lisbon will come into effect next year. Unless in the next six months the European council comes up with a different consensus to the one they already have, which I don't think is very likely. I spent the last two months telling people this. I hope they demand an apology from Declan Ganley for lying to them for saying we would keep our commissioner if we voted no.

I would love to see that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Pride Fighter · 13-06-2008 11:25pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

I would love to see that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So would I. I voted no but did not vote no the basis of 'losing our commissioner' which was a lie invented by Libertas, a grouping I despise.

Tar.Aldarion · 13-06-2008 11:31pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

There isn't much of an option. Nice makes it obligatory that the Commission be reduced. If it is not reduced, the Commission's legal basis would be rather shaky, to say the least. That in turn would make questionable the legal basis of legislation they propose.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Do you have the text of the Nice treaty about this? I saw it at some stage but can't remember it.
Somebody I live with says he heard there is some loophole where it is not reduced.

Maybe it is the idea that the Eu renegotiate the treaty in our favour to let us keep a fixed commissioner to vote yes...

Scofflaw · 13-06-2008 11:35pm

Pride Fighter wrote: »

So would I. I voted no but did not vote no the basis of 'losing our commissioner' which was a lie invented by Libertas, a grouping I despise.

I have to say, my antipathy for Libertas isn't based on their choice of side.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ircoha · 13-06-2008 11:36pm

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Do you have the text of the Nice treaty about this? I saw it at some stage but can't remember it.
Somebody I live with says he heard there is some loophole where it is not reduced.

Maybe it is the idea that the Eu renegotiate the treaty in our favour to let us keep a fixed commissioner to vote yes...

Sean Whelan was very clear on this point on the radio today on the PK show just before 1100.
The reason being that the big countries, and he specifically named germany were unhappy that they would not have a Comm for 5 years so the backdoor option was left there.
In SW's opinion the Comm issue is immediately solved if need be.

marco_polo · 13-06-2008 11:37pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

There isn't much of an option. Nice makes it obligatory that the Commission be reduced. If it is not reduced, the Commission's legal basis would be rather shaky, to say the least. That in turn would make questionable the legal basis of legislation they propose.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Really? This makes things very interesting indeed in that case.

Scofflaw · 13-06-2008 11:40pm

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Do you have the text of the Nice treaty about this? I saw it at some stage but can't remember it.
Somebody I live with says he heard there is some loophole where it is not reduced.

Maybe it is the idea that the Eu renegotiate the treaty in our favour to let us keep a fixed commissioner to vote yes...

Protocol on the Enlargement of the Union:

2. When the Union consists of 27 Member States, Article 213(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community and Article 126(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community shall be replaced by the following:
‘1. The Members of the Commission shall be chosen on the grounds of their general competence and their independence shall be beyond doubt.
The number of Members of the Commission shall be less than the number of Member States. The Members of the Commission shall be chosen according to a rotation system based on the principle of equality, the implementing arrangements for which shall be adopted by the Council, acting unanimously. The number of Members of the Commission shall be set by the Council, acting unanimously.’
This amendment shall apply as from the date on which the first Commission following the date of accession of the 27th Member State of the Union takes up its duties.

3. The Council, acting unanimously after signing the treaty of accession of the 27th Member State of the Union, shall adopt:
— the number of Members of the Commission,
— the implementing arrangements for a rotation system based on the principle of equality containing all the criteria and rules necessary for determining the composition of successive colleges automatically on the basis of the following principles:
(a) Member States shall be treated on a strictly equal footing as regards determination of the sequence of, and the time spent by, their nationals as Members of the Commission; consequently, the difference between the total number of terms of office held by nationals of any given pair of Member States may never be more than one;
(b) subject to point (a), each successive college shall be so composed as to reflect satisfactorily the demographic and geographical range of all the Member States of the Union.
4. Any State which accedes to the Union shall be entitled, at the time of its accession, to have one of its nationals as a Member of the Commission until paragraph 2 applies.

I don't see much of a loophole in that, myself.

cordially,
Scofflaw

genericgoon · 13-06-2008 11:41pm

I just hope this doesn't mean we get further shafted and we end up with a UN security counsil style commission. Unlikely thankfully. Wonder what kind of goodies the bigger countires would offer to get that arrangement however?

Tar.Aldarion · 13-06-2008 11:46pm

Thanks scofflaw.

Sean Whelan was very clear on this point on the radio today on the PK show just before 1100.
The reason being that the big countries, and he specifically named germany were unhappy that they would not have a Comm for 5 years so the backdoor option was left there.
In SW's opinion the Comm issue is immediately solved if need be.

Where exactly is this left open? What is the basis?

marco_polo · 13-06-2008 11:46pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Protocol on the Enlargement of the Union:

I don't see much of a loophole in that, myself.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So everything was in Nice already bar the exact number of commisioners to be retained. I was under the impression it had been more of a vague statement of intent.

leninbenjamin · 13-06-2008 11:54pm

wow, i have to say I'm very surprised at the amount still not familiar with all this, at least on boards. it's been an ongoing subject of discussion for the past few weeks.

@Marco: Nice was a bit vaguer than that if i'm not mistaken. i don't think it went on to specify how exactly the positions will be rotated at least...

marco_polo · 14-06-2008 12:00am

leninbenjamin wrote: »

wow, i have to say I'm very surprised at the amount still not familiar with all this, at least on boards. it's been an ongoing subject of discussion for the past few weeks.

@Marco: Nice was a bit vaguer than that if i'm not mistaken. i don't think it went on to specify how exactly the positions will be rotated at least...

I was avoiding the politics forum recently so I probably missed a few topics.

I thought the Scoflaws post was the text of the Nice treaty I think I got confused.

leninbenjamin · 14-06-2008 12:04am

marco_polo wrote: »

I thought the Scoflaws post was the text of the Nice treaty I think I got confused.

no that is. it just mentions rotation system, but i don't think goes into any further details as to how it would be implemented. Scofflaw can clear it up anyway i'm sure...

tolosenc · 14-06-2008 12:06am

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the phrase "Irish Comissioner" a bit misleading in the first place? I thought he was an EU comissioner who just happened to be from Ireland, but was in charge of, say, fisheries?

marco_polo · 14-06-2008 12:07am

leninbenjamin wrote: »

no that is. it just mentions rotation system, but i don't think goes into any further details as to how it would be implemented. Scofflaw can clear it up anyway i'm sure...

Damn right the first time. I'm the exact same when I play roulette.

axer · 14-06-2008 9:40am

So am I right in thinking that 26 commissioner is still less than the number of countries? Who determines how many commissioners there will be then?

Duffman · 14-06-2008 9:49am

Scofflaw wrote: »

Protocol on the Enlargement of the Union:

I don't see much of a loophole in that, myself.

cordially,
Scofflaw

We are required to agree to a reduction. The exact manner in which this is to happen is to be agreed unanimously but we need to agree to something that leads to a reduction by the deadline.

Failure to do so would probably constitute a failure to meet our obligations under Community law.

Like it or not we're losing a Commissioner, only now our bargaining strength has been all but destroyed.

axer · 14-06-2008 9:50am

Duffman wrote: »

Failure to do so would probably constitute a failure to meet our obligations under Community law.

and if an agreement is not reached?

Duffman · 14-06-2008 9:57am

axer wrote: »

and if an agreement is not reached?

There's a whole load of stuff that can happen, the most serious possibility being suspension of our voting rights in the Council.

Duffman · 14-06-2008 10:05am

obl wrote: »

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the phrase "Irish Comissioner" a bit misleading in the first place? I thought he was an EU comissioner who just happened to be from Ireland, but was in charge of, say, fisheries?

You're dead right. Fisheries is a pretty appropriate example too because we'll be lucky to get that portfolio next time round.

axer · 14-06-2008 10:13am

Duffman wrote: »

There's a whole load of stuff that can happen, the most serious possibility being suspension of our voting rights in the Council.

Would Ireland be the only ones to lose those voting rights?

Duffman · 14-06-2008 10:30am

axer wrote: »

Would Ireland be the only ones to lose those voting rights?

Ireland would if it was the only country holding up the process. It would never come to that in reality though, the government already has the power to agree to the necessary changes. I wouldn't want to be the one navigating that political minefield.

BMH · 14-06-2008 10:36am

obl wrote: »

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the phrase "Irish Comissioner" a bit misleading in the first place? I thought he was an EU comissioner who just happened to be from Ireland, but was in charge of, say, fisheries?

The whole concept is an oxymoron that the Yes side should have stamped out from the beginning.

Scofflaw · 14-06-2008 11:06am

leninbenjamin wrote: »

no that is. it just mentions rotation system, but i don't think goes into any further details as to how it would be implemented. Scofflaw can clear it up anyway i'm sure...

I'm afraid that is the text from the Nice Treaty - the Protocol on the Enlargement of the Union. It is quite specific.

Dropping a single Commissioner from each rotation would not fit the strictures of the Protocol - particularly, the requirement that there be no more than a term's difference between any two member states.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Could we lose our Commissioner

Comments