Sinn fein and the new lisbon

oscarBravo

Maybe I'm short-sighted, but I don't see the word "Ireland" anywhere in that quote from McCreevey.

Frankie Lee

That is acting in big corporations interests not Ireland's.

Eurosceptic2008

oscarBravo wrote: »

Maybe I'm short-sighted, but I don't see the word "Ireland" anywhere in that quote from McCreevey.

No because he doesn't want it to be seen as anything other than acting in the EU interest. But its hardly a coincidence that it corresponds with the Irish national interest. It's like how McSharry was credited with obtaining the $8 billion Albert said we got with Maastricht. Likewise, German Commissioners have tended to oppose tighter fuel-efficiency standards for the automobile industry which is crucial in their economy.

Scofflaw

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

No because he doesn't want it to be seen as anything other than acting in the EU interest. But its hardly a coincidence that it corresponds with the Irish national interest. It's like how McSharry was credited with obtaining the $8 billion Albert said we got with Maastricht. Likewise, German Commissioners have tended to oppose tighter fuel-efficiency standards for the automobile industry which is crucial in their economy.

McCreevy opposes financial regulation - pretty much full stop. Such a good idea that's turned out to be, and yet you're arguing that he did it because it was in Ireland's interests? How many takers do you think you'd have for that argument?

So will you be voting Yes on account of retaining our Commissioner?


regards,
Scofflaw

K-9

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

When he opposed Tax Commissioner Laslo Kovacs' plan for a CCCTB (Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base) which would have forced companies operating in Ireland to pay their taxes proportionately to the countries of sales-destination. As Ireland exports 90% of what we produce, that would have particularly damaged the Irish govt's tax revenues.

Well by the sounds of many in the No side, CCTB is inevitable anyway, Irish Commissioner or not.

Eurosceptic2008

Scofflaw wrote: »

McCreevy opposes financial regulation - pretty much full stop. Such a good idea that's turned out to be, and yet you're arguing that he did it because it was in Ireland's interests? How many takers do you think you'd have for that argument?

So will you be voting Yes on account of retaining our Commissioner?


regards,
Scofflaw

The worst kept secret of the financial crisis is the role the American Left had in helping create it, through legislation like the Community Reinvestment Act that forced financial institutions to take on subprime borrowers on pain of being fined. There is plenty of blame to go around, but remember that no Irish bank has collapsed yet. This problem originates in the US. The seeds of the domestic factors in the Irish recession were - imho - sown after McCreevy left for exile in Brussels and Bertie came out as a Socialist. Tax and spend FF was reborn then and public-spending was allowed to spiral out of control, with benchmarking treated as an ATM courtesy of the taxpayer rather than an opportunity to deliver improvements in public-sector work-practices. The govt stopped cutting taxes, and turned a blind-eye to the dodgy practices in local govt that were fuelling property-inflation such as rezonings. They refused to implement the Bacon Report recommendations on social and affordable housing, instead allowing property-developers to buy their way out of it.

Seanies23 wrote:

Well by the sounds of many in the No side, CCTB is inevitable anyway, Irish Commissioner or not.

That is not my opinion. In fact, it was only after the no vote that the French EU presidency dropped CCCTB from the agenda. Whether it remains off it is another matter, but I don't see the evidence for what you are saying.

Canada J Soup

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

Meaning we would have lost our Commissioner 1/3rd of the time so the no side were correct.

Putting aside for the moment the fact that not having an Irish appointed commissioner for one out of every three commissions is under no circumstances equivalent to Ireland "losing our commissioner"....what is the downside of the rotating selection for Ireland? How does being subject to the same system as every other member state with respect to appointing a commissioner place us at a disadvantage?

Most importantly, does the possibility that an Irish commissioner will better represent Irish interests if there is no reduction in the size of the commission outweigh the benefit of having a commission of a more manageable size that can work more effectively? I don't believe it does.

With Nice the Commission could just have been reduced to 26, meaning we would keep our Commissioner 95% of the time

Or, under Nice, it could also be reduced to 18. Remember that 25 of 27 Member States have agreed to a commission of 18 in their ratification of Lisbon and the governments of the remaining two also support it. If a proposal to reduce the commission to 18 under Nice is made, who will vote against it?

I don't understand where you get that idea from. The next Commission president will decide who gets what portfolio. He/she will be chosen by QMV

You can't think where I might have possibly come up with the notion that there might be political pressure for the commissioners chosen by the larger member states to be presented with the more important portfolios?

the Nice form of QMV is more favourable to small states who are overrepresented per head of population, unlike Lisbon where they are not.

Incorrect. The Lisbon form of QMV, as I believe has been discussed a number of times in this forum, is more beneficial to smaller member states as it increases their overall voting weight (unless of course you ignore the member state portion of each vote and focus solely on making an apples and aardvarks comparison of the population half of the proposed new system against the weighted single vote of the existing one).

K-9

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

The worst kept secret of the financial crisis is the role the American Left had in helping create it, through legislation like the Community Reinvestment Act that forced financial institutions to take on subprime borrowers on pain of being fined.

Sorry for going off topic, but that is not correct. I've seen figures that mortgages granted through this mechanism were in a minority. More were granted by banks for investments, often based on poor affordability ratios, many were sub prime and many didn't even have to have any proof of income. The Act in itself wasn't bad, the greed and lack of regulation let it spiral out of control.

Eurosceptic2008

Canada J Soup wrote: »

Putting aside for the moment the fact that not having an Irish appointed commissioner for one out of every three commissions is under no circumstances equivalent to Ireland "losing our commissioner"....what is the downside of the rotating selection for Ireland? How does being subject to the same system as every other member state with respect to appointing a commissioner place us at a disadvantage?

Most importantly, does the possibility that an Irish commissioner will better represent Irish interests if there is no reduction in the size of the commission outweigh the benefit of having a commission of a more manageable size that can work more effectively? I don't believe it does.

I think it does. If efficiency was the priority, we would have a dictatorship because decisions would be made quicker. If a bigger Commission means decisions take longer, then that is not necessarily a bad thing. Too often Brussels can get in the way. Remember how Commissioner Kroes scolded the govt for its deposit-guarantee scheme?

Or, under Nice, it could also be reduced to 18. Remember that 25 of 27 Member States have agreed to a commission of 18 in their ratification of Lisbon and the governments of the remaining two also support it. If a proposal to reduce the commission to 18 under Nice is made, who will vote against it?

With Lisbon it's would, while with Nice it's could. I prefer could to would. At least there's a chance the Commission will be larger. And arguably, while I am still unwilling to vote for Lisbon 2, the retention of the Irish Commissioner - if it happens - would vindicate the no vote as without it this wouldn't even be on table.

You can't think where I might have possibly come up with the notion that there might be political pressure for the commissioners chosen by the larger member states to be presented with the more important portfolios?

Of course there always has been such pressure but I fail to understand how that relates to the rejection Lisbon? Care to clarify?

Incorrect. The Lisbon form of QMV, as I believe has been discussed a number of times in this forum, is more beneficial to smaller member states as it increases their overall voting weight (unless of course you ignore the member state portion of each vote and focus solely on making an apples and aardvarks comparison of the population half of the proposed new system against the weighted single vote of the existing one).

The existing system (Nice) requires the agreement of 50% of the states including (usually) 73% of the weighted-vote. Lisbon requires 55% of the states including (usually) 65% of the EU's population. By my calculation, this would allow 4 Big States (or 3 Big States plus 1 small one) to block all legislation in the Council of Ministers, whereas 11 small states on their own could block nothing in QMV votes, as they would not be able to breach the 35%+ threshold to form a blocking-minority. I consider that a bad deal for small countries, not least when you consider that the old system had a numerical weighted-voting system that overrepresented small states, which is being abolished in favour of a system partly-based on the actual proportion of the EU population living in a state.