Why are people so bothered about having an Irish commissioner?

A Primal Nut

This seems, more than anything to be people's main reason for rejecting the Lisbon Treaty the first time, and are still suspicous of it second time around. They seem to not realise the EU commission is like our cabinet. Imagine our cabinet had to have one person from every consituency; pointless ministerial posts and extra bereacracy created just so everyone can be represented.

The EU parliament is where Irish people are represented; the commission is for people representing all of Europe and are supposed to be unbiased. Is there anything we have gained from Charlie McCreevy being Commissioner for Internal Markets, as opposed to a French or German?The EU commission should be the best people for the job (like in any normal government) and if that means 18 germans; who cares. You do realise that if everyone kept a commissioner they would probably create some stupid jobs like Commissioner for toilets just so everyone can have one. And yes, I'm aware the Lisbon treaty isn't creating a "best person for the job" situation but at least it does ensure the correct number of commissioners.

What annoys me most is the sense of entitlement, us Irish, a nation of just 4 million people have. Thinking that regardless of how much an individual is right for a certain post, he should get it just because he's Irish. If anything its a form of discrimination. Some people talk about it as if, by ensuring we have an Irish commissioner at all times, we are being represented in the Commission; which isn't true at all. They are representing all of Europe. Then there are those who think it will enable the bigger countries to control Europe; actually, each country is still an equal situation.

So why does this bother people so much. Surely there are bigger concerns which Lisbon might solve, which are more important than whether one of the Commissioners happens to be Irish. Nobody cares whether someone from their constituency is at cabinet level in Ireland, so why Europe?

I am asking this because it is the only major argument against Lisbon that isn't based on a conspiracy theory (abortion, neutrality, conscription, etc.)

ei.sdraob

I dont know

the way I see it, me and other people across the EU have to keep paying a bunch of highly paid bureaucrat and their staff that are no good for anything

but "the people have spoken" and the commissioner will stay if Lisbon passes so there goes that matter

Riskymove

most people are ignorant about the workings of the EU institutions and therefore it was quite easy to portray it as something sinister that would adversly affect Ireland

MCCreevy is there now, is he of benefit to ireland?

I mean if it was only Ireland that was giving it up, ok, but all States were agreeing to forego a Commissioner for a time. If it was so vital would Germany, France etc be willing to do it?

A Primal Nut

What made me post this was the fact that in the Metro (or Herald) this morning the letters page was full of people complaining about how there was no full guarantee we wouldn't lose our commissioner. This is still the main issue. Why does it bother people - is having McCreevy all that beneficial to us?

marco_polo

A Primal Nut wrote: »

What made me post this was the fact that in the Metro (or Herald) this morning the letters page was full of people complaining about how there was no full guarantee we wouldn't lose our commissioner. This is still the main issue. Is that all that bothers people these days - is having McCreevy all that beneficial to us?

Which rather overlooks the fact that if there was a 2/3 size commission post Lisbon the credibility of the EU project would be damaged beyond repair.

MrMicra

Commissioners are explicitly forbidden to make their decisions on the basis of what helps their own country. This obsession shows our own political immaturity, lickspittlism and sleveenism. We expect 'our' commissioner to lie under oath and scamp his duty to assist us.

I could speculate about the domestic political affiliation of these letter writers but I won't.

P. Breathnach

A Primal Nut wrote: »

...They seem to not realise the EU commission is like our cabinet ...

The problem is that the Commission is like our cabinet as it should be, not our cabinet as it actually behaves. Ministers distort the government programme in order to benefit their constituencies, and many Irish people think that an Irish Commissioner would do the same in the EU.

Stabshauptmann

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Imagine our cabinet had to have one person from every consituency; pointless ministerial posts and extra bereacracy created just so everyone can be represented.

The really obvious thing to do imo and in keeping with your analogy is to make junior minister like positions or co-commisioners. If theres more people than "departments" put more than one person into each department.

The EU parliament is where Irish people are represented;

The EU parliment has no power

the commission is for people representing all of Europe and are supposed to be unbiased. Is there anything we have gained from Charlie McCreevy being Commissioner for Internal Markets, as opposed to a French or German?

yes, though they are supposed to be impartial they rarely are. McCreevy's against the grain stance on the UCITS IV and regulation of CRAs is in Irelands best interest imo. McCreevy was at the heart of Irelands economic strategy when he was a minister and he does everything to protect it in Europe!

The EU commission should be the best people for the job (like in any normal government) and if that means 18 germans; who cares.

the best thing for a german wont neccessarily be the best thing for Ireland. Interest rates are an obvious example. We are economically and culturally different and need to be represented. Even an impartial commissioner needs to "understand" Ireland.

You do realise that if everyone kept a commissioner they would probably create some stupid jobs like Commissioner for toilets just so everyone can have one.

Stop sensationalising it.

And yes, I'm aware the Lisbon treaty isn't creating a "best person for the job" situation but at least it does ensure the correct number of commissioners.

I thought we now had a legal guarentee to keep our commissioner?

What annoys me most is the sense of entitlement, us Irish, a nation of just 4 million people have.

Sounds a bit federalist to me, which is something I dont want. We are an independant country, and equal partners in the european project, our population is irrelevant.

I am asking this because it is the only major argument against Lisbon that isn't based on a conspiracy theory (abortion, neutrality, conscription, etc.)

No its not. The major argument against lisbon is the same as the one for it. Lisbon boils down to whether one feels further integration and enlargement is a good thing or not

ei.sdraob

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

The EU parliment has no power

It would gain more power under Lisbon hence the representatives people elect can do a better job at representing

molloyjh

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

The EU parliment has no power

What!? Of course it does. It can refuse Commissioners who are nominated and can force the entire Commission to step down, which it has done before over a single Commissioner.

The Commission tends to come up with legislation, not by itself, but in conjunction with the various Parliamentary committees. And when the legislation is introduced it must often pass through the Parliament to be approved. The Parliament can suggest amendments (which it does) and the Commission must take them on board should they want the legislation to pass.

It is toally untrue to say that the Parliament has no power.

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

yes, though they are supposed to be impartial they rarely are. McCreevy's against the grain stance on the UCITS IV and regulation of CRAs is in Irelands best interest imo. McCreevy was at the heart of Irelands economic strategy when he was a minister and he does everything to protect it in Europe!

McCreevy has not shyed away from punishing us when he needs to either. Certainly some things that he proposes/opposes/introduces benefit Ireland, there would be no point being in the Union if that were not the case, but he hasn't been particularly biased from what I've seen.

Furious-Dave

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Why are people so bothered about having an Irish commissioner?

Just to answer this directly. Irish people like to have a sense of ownership and fairplay, especially when it comes to the country as a whole. More to the point, they also hate to be at a loss. Libertas and Co preyed on this in Lisbon I by creating a sense of ownership about the Commissioner, and then planted the ideas that we would be loosing out and would not be fairly represented in the EU if the treaty was ratified.
It was all just a campaign tactic that they knew would hit a sensitive nerve and make alot of people reject the treaty without finding out if it was true or not.

granite man

A Primal Nut wrote: »

This seems, more than anything to be people's main reason for rejecting the Lisbon Treaty the first time, and are still suspicous of it second time around. They seem to not realise the EU commission is like our cabinet. Imagine our cabinet had to have one person from every consituency; pointless ministerial posts and extra bereacracy created just so everyone can be represented.

The EU parliament is where Irish people are represented; the commission is for people representing all of Europe and are supposed to be unbiased. Is there anything we have gained from Charlie McCreevy being Commissioner for Internal Markets, as opposed to a French or German?The EU commission should be the best people for the job (like in any normal government) and if that means 18 germans; who cares. You do realise that if everyone kept a commissioner they would probably create some stupid jobs like Commissioner for toilets just so everyone can have one. And yes, I'm aware the Lisbon treaty isn't creating a "best person for the job" situation but at least it does ensure the correct number of commissioners.

What annoys me most is the sense of entitlement, us Irish, a nation of just 4 million people have. Thinking that regardless of how much an individual is right for a certain post, he should get it just because he's Irish. If anything its a form of discrimination. Some people talk about it as if, by ensuring we have an Irish commissioner at all times, we are being represented in the Commission; which isn't true at all. They are representing all of Europe. Then there are those who think it will enable the bigger countries to control Europe; actually, each country is still an equal situation.

So why does this bother people so much. Surely there are bigger concerns which Lisbon might solve, which are more important than whether one of the Commissioners happens to be Irish. Nobody cares whether someone from their constituency is at cabinet level in Ireland, so why Europe?

I am asking this because it is the only major argument against Lisbon that isn't based on a conspiracy theory (abortion, neutrality, conscription, etc.)

Beyond belief! Is a conspiray theory a what? Please explain.