Referendum Commission Misrepresentation - The Evidence

rebelmind

This referendum will be remembered for the gross misrepresentations by Government Agencies, which the tax payer pay for, not least of which is The Referendum Commission.

Here are a few examples in the information booklet on The Lisbon Treaty.

The European Council (Heads of Government) has decided that, if the Lisbon Treaty is in force, each member state, including Ireland, will continue to nominate a Commissioner.

That is quite simply untrue. At present, under the Treaty of Nice, commissioners are 'proposed' by 'each' member state:

Nice:
The Council, acting by a qualified majority and by common accord with the nominee for President, shall adopt the list of the other persons whom it intends to appoint as Members of the Commission, drawn up in accordance with the proposals made by each Member State.

If a state only proposes one candidate for the job, this is equivalent to nominating the commissioner. But that would change under Lisbon. 'Proposal' is watered down to 'suggestion' and 'each' is removed. The Irish government will, in future, be able to 'suggest' a candidate to act as Irish commissioner, but so will every other member state:

Lisbon:
The Council, by common accord with the President-elect, shall adopt the list of the other persons whom it proposes for appointment as members of the Commission. They shall be selected, on the basis of the suggestions made by Member States, in accordance with the criteria set out in paragraph 3, second subparagraph, and paragraph 5, second subparagraph.

There is no guarantee whatsoever that the Irish 'suggestion' will be accepted.

Is the Referendum Commission genuinely unable to understand the difference between suggesting a candidate for commissioner and nominating a commissioner?

8-10

rebelmind wrote: »

The Irish government will, in future, be able to 'suggest' a candidate to act as Irish commissioner

I'm confused by this term. You don't act as 'Irish commissioner'. The post is European Commissioner, the nationality doesn't affect the position, it's only fair that there is an equal representation of each EU nationality.

This commissioner cannot show bias to any one state and cannot refer to Ireland as 'my country' but simply as 'the country with which I am most familiar', or similar.

I reckon you probably know this but your terminology might confuse people into thinking that Irish Commissioner is a position rather than the nationality. Perhaps change text to 'Irish candidate to act as commissioner'?

namloc1980

rebelmind wrote: »

This referendum will be remembered for the gross misrepresentations by Government Agencies, which the tax payer pay for, not least of which is The Referendum Commission.

Here are a few examples in the information booklet on The Lisbon Treaty.


That is quite simply untrue. At present, under the Treaty of Nice, commissioners are 'proposed' by 'each' member state:



If a state only proposes one candidate for the job, this is equivalent to nominating the commissioner. But that would change under Lisbon. 'Proposal' is watered down to 'suggestion' and 'each' is removed. The Irish government will, in future, be able to 'suggest' a candidate to act as Irish commissioner, but so will every other member state:



There is no guarantee whatsoever that the Irish 'suggestion' will be accepted.

Is the Referendum Commission genuinely unable to understand the difference between suggesting a candidate for commissioner and nominating a commissioner?

2. Having carefully noted the concerns of the Irish people as set out by the Taoiseach, the European Council, at its meeting of 11-12 December 2008, agreed that, provided the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, a decision would be taken, in accordance with the necessary legal procedures, to the effect that the Commission shall continue to include one national of each Member State.

Taken from http://ec.europa.eu/ireland/lisbon_treaty/lisbon_treaty_progress/index_en.htm

So what the RefCom stated is quite correct and it is not as you put it simply untrue

rebelmind

namloc1980 wrote: »

2. Having carefully noted the concerns of the Irish people as set out by the Taoiseach, the European Council, at its meeting of 11-12 December 2008, agreed that, provided the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, a decision would be taken, in accordance with the necessary legal procedures, to the effect that the Commission shall continue to include one national of each Member State.

Taken from http://ec.europa.eu/ireland/lisbon_treaty/lisbon_treaty_progress/index_en.htm

Tiresome.
That is not what we are being asked to vote on.
It is not in the treaty &, more importantly, why?
It has all the weight of a FF election promise.
Period.

meglome

rebelmind wrote: »

Tiresome.
That is not what we are being asked to vote on.
It is not in the treaty &, more importantly, why?
It has all the weight of a FF election promise.
Period.

ah good sweet **** I can't listen to you any more.

namloc1980

rebelmind wrote: »

Tiresome.
That is not what we are being asked to vote on.
It is not in the treaty &, more importantly, why?
It has all the weight of a FF election promise.
Period.

You are tiresome sir. You made a claim that based on what the Refcom said in their literature The European Council (Heads of Government) has decided that, if the Lisbon Treaty is in force, each member state, including Ireland, will continue to nominate a Commissioner that it was untrue. I have pointed out to you that indeed it is true. The European Council did decide such a thing.

marco_polo

1) Size of Commission = 27
2) Number of Member States = 27
3) Number of Commissioner suggested by each country = 1
3) Size of pool of commissioners = 27 * 1 = 27
4) 27 man commission selected from 27 man pool.
5)1 commissioner per country
6) 1 commissioner is Irish

/Thread

This kind of intellectual bankruptcy might fly elsewhere lads but not here

8-10

rebelmind wrote: »

Tiresome.
That is not what we are being asked to vote on.
It is not in the treaty &, more importantly, why?
It has all the weight of a FF election promise.
Period.

You do realise that Ireland could lose it's right to nominate/suggest a commissioner under Nice if we vote No?

In the event of a No vote on October 2nd the existing rules under the Nice Treaty will have to be implemented.
This treaty simply states that the number of members sitting on the commission must be less than the number of member states.
Unlike the Lisbon Treaty, it does not stipulate a formula for reducing the size of the EU. Neither does the Nice Treaty include the clause in Lisbon that allows the proposed reduction in size of the commission to be overturned through a unanimous vote from the 27 EU heads of state.

If we vote no, there will have to be a reduction in the number of commissioners. If we vote yes, we have a guarantee to keep 27, 1 of each nationality of member states.

If you don't believe the guarantee, then there's nothing. But why wouldn't you believe it? Voting no guarantees less than 27 commissioners, and nobody knows which countries will miss out. Voting yes means 27. Simple.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0918/1224254798648.html

We voted YES to Nice, we voted YES to reducing the number of commissioners. If that's an issue for you, you should vote YES to Lisbon.

Scofflaw

The reason for the change of wording is to bring it into line with what actually happens. Under both Nice and Lisbon, the procedure for 'appointing' a Commissioner is the same:

1. the member state puts forward a name or names for the post

2. the European Council and the President-elect of the Commission draw up the list of nominees

3. the nominees are subject to a vote of Parliament as a body.

It is not possible for anyone but the member states to propose Commissioner candidates, and member states will not be proposing Commissioner candidates for any other state.

Let me repeat that the situation above is the same under Nice or Lisbon. The member states do not now simply 'nominate' someone for the post of Commissioner - their proposal is subject to the negotiations at (2) and the vote at (3), under both treaties.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

rebelmind wrote: »

Tiresome.
That is not what we are being asked to vote on.
It is not in the treaty &, more importantly, why?
It has all the weight of a FF election promise.
Period.

Please do not continue to make factually incorrect statements. The legal nature of the guarantees has been explained to you repeatedly, and they are not "FF election promises".

moderately,
Scofflaw

rebelmind

marco_polo wrote: »

1) Size of Commission = 27
2) Number of Member States = 27
3) Number of Commissioner suggested by each country = 1
3) Size of pool of commissioners = 27 * 1 = 27
4) 27 man commission selected from 27 man pool.
5)1 commissioner per country
6) 1 commissioner is Irish

Quite correct.
Under Nice.
Not under Lisbon.

/Thread

Why the hurry to close this thread?

This kind of intellectual bankruptcy might fly elsewhere lads but not here

Yes, bring on the lads..this one can see.., maybe a few Ogra types would intimidate me sufficiently.

namloc1980

rebelmind wrote: »

Quite correct.
Under Nice.
Not under Lisbon.

Under Nice please tell us you do realise the number of Commissioners will be reduced to less than 27 when the current Commission finishes up??

It has already been pointed out to you that European Council decided that when/if Lisbon is ratified every member state will continue to have a Commissioner

8-10

rebelmind wrote: »

marco_polo wrote: »

1) Size of Commission = 27
2) Number of Member States = 27
3) Number of Commissioner suggested by each country = 1
3) Size of pool of commissioners = 27 * 1 = 27
4) 27 man commission selected from 27 man pool.
5)1 commissioner per country
6) 1 commissioner is Irish{/quote]

Quite correct.
Under Nice.

Did you read my post? Under Nice the number of commissioners will be reduced. We voted on that. Did you vote? Under Lisbon it will be 27 commissioners, under Nice it is guaranteed to be less.

It's old news. Lisbon I tried to define the reduction because Nice didn't. But we Irish voted in favour of reducing the commission when we said YES to Nice.

I'll repeat one more time because you don't seem to get it. If we vote NO, the number of commissioners will reduce, and it's guaranteed to be less than 27, as Nice says less commissioners than member states.

If this issue bothers you, and you want to ensure there is 1 commissioner per member state in future, you are compelled to vote YES to Lisbon.

Simple.