Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Leroy42

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The entire commission is unelected. The commissions role is more like that of the executive branch of government rather than a civil service head of department.

There is no reason why the commission couldn't be drawn from the EU parliament, much like the way our Daily works.

So can anybody simply become a commissioner? Is it based on birthright, Christian names or date of birth maybe?

Professor Moriarty

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The entire commission is unelected. The commissions role is more like that of the executive branch of government rather than a civil service head of department.

There is no reason why the commission couldn't be drawn from the EU parliament, much like the way our Daily works.

Juncker was elected by the European Parliament.

Anteayer

There are arguments in favour of both approaches. In theory the reason that Seanad Éireann allowed for government appointees was to bring specific skills into the Oireachtas and one senator can in theory be appointed to cabinet too. Although, AFAIK, that's never been done.

All that happened in the Irish system was that the political parties abused the Seanad appointments to give fledgling or outgoing politicians a boost or to give them out like bars of chocolate to party loyalists.

The way the Westminster or Dail Éireann systems work, with a politician from the parliament pulled into the cabinet to head a department has the advantage of them being an elected politician, but it has the huge disadvantages too: They're non-expert and must rely on the civil service or special advisors (consultants) to keep them up to speed on everything and that's not the most accountable process always. Then you've got the problem that a minister is accountable more to their constituents than anyone else, so you can get parish-pump-politics feeding pet projects in their own constituency - and if you get into multiparty systems like Ireland, you've also got people who are from minor parties, ending up holding high political office without having any kind of party mandate to do so.

You can see the problems it creates when you get a politician out of their depth running a complex ministry and they're just being bounced around by civil servants and vested interests. It's happened quite a few times and then they end up being expected to carry the can for decisions they may not have made or may not have even understood. So, you often end up with a politically accountable whipping boy rather than actual accountability for those who made decisions and are expert in the area.

If you contrast that with an appointed cabinet, like say France, you get a panel of experts in their field put together and appointed to cabinet. The PM is drawn from the parliament and the president is elected. The ministers' decisions are scrutinised constantly by parliament and by the PM and they can be fired by the parliament at any stage, just like a line minster here, but without the political baggage and loyalties. There are disadvantages in the sense that they're not politicians and they may bring in all sorts of vested interests if they're not held to account properly, but if the system does its job and is setup properly (i.e. not like the Trump cabinet) then it should work quite well.

The Irish system also works quite well, if you have very active oversight and participation in decision making by the Dail committees in particular, and I think we are finally seeing more of that in recent years.

Neither system is perfect, but there's no particular advantage to having the commissioners appointed based on being MEPs. They just need to be very accountable to the collective body of MEPs and to be taking legislative direction from the parliament much more.

Kermit.de.frog

Coveney confirming May visit to Strasburg this evening.

Also saying (again) the Withdrawal Agreement can't be changed.

Hurrache

Hurrache wrote: »

So rumours now that May will be heading to Strazburg this evening followed by claims she has put a deadline of early evening for a breakthrough. The EU has said there's nothing to discuss based on what the UK had proposed, and at lunchtime the Irish government has said we're approaching the point of a hard brexit.

May be optics for May to say she made one last push ahead of tomorrows vote.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexit-vote-must-be-put-on-hold-mps-warn-theresa-may-3jkhl37gm?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1552306673

Connelly's update on what's happening.
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1105098504836399109

So the logic here is that an MEP from every country would become a Commisioner? Hardly works out that well for smaller countries who would lose some of their effective power within the parliament, giving larger ones a bigger voice.

It's interesting that people would have a problem with their head of state choosing the best person in the country for that role. Nothing in politics is perfect, but some of this stuff is just nonsense. Just regurgitating crap from whatever media aligns with their views.

Leroy42

So it appear that the EU are willing to move somewhat on the language to try and help TM (And this has been the case all along).

I wonder will TM be able to sell this, and whether is will be seen as, movement from the EU.

Cameron got no benefits from the movement in the EU position to try to help him, within hours it was seen as not enough.

I have the feeling that none of this will be enough either. Or, if it is enough to get her deal through, it will be little more than what we saw from the December 2017 agreement, that the likes of the ERG will see it as merely a staging post along the way and immediately start the process of rolling it back.

Anteayer

Not to get off topic into a discussion about the structure of European Governance, but it is relevant to the thread, I think the biggest problem is you've people who are just throwing around the 'it's not democratic enough' argument without any analysis of what the EU structures or how they work.

It's a very easy accusation to throw when the majority of the audience you're talking to doesn't understand the system either, most of them don't even want to understand it and have a bias towards thinking it's an evil empire, largely because they've been fed a pack of lies for 40 years and dislike any kind of sharing power with foreigners to begin with.

The biggest criticism of the Commission that I would have is that, certainly in Ireland, the appointment of a commissioner is not taken seriously enough and we have a tendency to treat it either as a prize (similar to a Seanad appointment) or a way of getting someone 'sent off to Brussels' to get them out of national politics or at the end of their career. That's a massive failing of our system, not the European one.

I would like to see situation in Ireland where the appointment of a commissioner is a national debate and where candidates have to lay out their agenda for what they're going to do as commissioner. Ultimately, the job is all about upholding the treaties and working on behalf of the entire EU, not just the country that appointed you, but at the same time I think we should take the appointment much more seriously and try to ensure that we get the absolute best person for the job. Even if they're not directly representing Ireland, it's vital that the Commission is well run and that you've people who can actually make solid arguments and show real leadership, diplomatic and communication skills.

Peregrinus

Couple of thoughts:

1. Having the Commissioners drawn from the Parliament would represent a signficant shift of power away from national governments, which wouldn't necessarily make the process more democratically accountable. It would also be hard to reconcile with the rule that each country gets one commissioner; votes in the Parliament do not divide on country lines but on political lines. So the Commissioner from a small state would effectively be chosen by transnational party groups in which that state might have little or no representation.

2. As already pointed out, Commissioners would have to be drawn from a very small pool of talent - particularly the Commissioners from small states. And it's not talent that would necessarily have displayed any aptitude in the skills of management, leadership etc that a Commissioner needs.

3. As for a national debate in Ireland in which candidates lay our their agenda, one problem is that nobody knows what portfolio the Irish commissioner (or any other Commissioner) is going to have until after the Commission is appointed. How do you lay out an agenda for a job when you don't know what the job is? In general states are incentivised to send out Commissioners with a proven track record and with careers which have already demonstrated the relevant qualities and capacities; Commissioners of that kind will get the best portfolios, have the most influence and generally increase the stature and influence of the country that has nominated them.

Anteayer

On point 3: That's always going to be a challenge, but I think we have had an issue (more so in the past) of sending people "to the Park" or "To Brussels" to kind of give them a bit of a nice send off, rather than picking someone who's the best fit for that job.
I'd just like to see something like a joint Oireachtas Committee maybe working on candidate selection for the commission than just a simple appointment. I think it would be good for the commission if every country were expected to do something like that, to ensure that appointments were top notch as you might then get some better communication and leadership skills bubbling through.

On of the legitimate criticisms that have been levied at the Commission over the years has been that rather bland leadership that hasn't been capable of defending the EU or putting arguments forward that would counter the nonsense that's thrown by the likes of British tabloids. You'd have to go back to the days of Schuman, Monnet etc etc to see any real communication of grand visionary kind of positions coming from the EU senior leadership.

If you look at it on of the reasons that the EU has been so damaged by the far right is that you see very little presentation of what the positives of the EU are by the institutions itself. The communication tends to be technocratic because it's left to the EU bodies, which are essentially and necessarily bureaucratic by nature. You should have the likes of Juncker being able to make speeches that actually explain what Europe is and what it stands for. I see very little of that coming from him, it only ever seems to come from national leaders like Macron.

There are good people in there who are capable of doing that, I mean if you look at how Mairead McGuinness has been able to deal with some of the crazy accusations levied at the EU when she was on various UK media appearances over the last while, and how she can present a vision for Europe, it would seem more like that's the kind of calibre of person you should have as head of the Commission. Someone who actually has a bit of passion for what the EU is and can be.

MrMusician18

Anteayer wrote: »

Not to get off topic into a discussion about the structure of European Governance, but it is relevant to the thread, I think the biggest problem is you've people who are just throwing around the 'it's not democratic enough' argument without any analysis of what the EU structures or how they work.

It's a very easy accusation to throw when the majority of the audience you're talking to doesn't understand the system either, most of them don't even want to understand it and have a bias towards thinking it's an evil empire, largely because they've been fed a pack of lies for 40 years and dislike any kind of sharing power with foreigners to begin with.

The biggest criticism of the Commission that I would have is that, certainly in Ireland, the appointment of a commissioner is not taken seriously enough and we have a tendency to treat it either as a prize (similar to a Seanad appointment) or a way of getting someone 'sent off to Brussels' to get them out of national politics or at the end of their career. That's a massive failing of our system, not the European one.

I would like to see situation in Ireland where the appointment of a commissioner is a national debate and where candidates have to lay out their agenda for what they're going to do as commissioner. Ultimately, the job is all about upholding the treaties and working on behalf of the entire EU, not just the country that appointed you, but at the same time I think we should take the appointment much more seriously and try to ensure that we get the absolute best person for the job. Even if they're not directly representing Ireland, it's vital that the Commission is well run and that you've people who can actually make solid arguments and show real leadership, diplomatic and communication skills.

Would that be an election that you are describing there?

There is no reason that states couldn't run the election is a commissioner along similar lines of our presidential elections. Where the legislature selects the field of candidates and the population votes. That would maintain some control on it not becoming a farce and quality candidates being put forward.

There are lots of ways of improving democratic input into the EU, but yes it draws a privilege away from national governments in that it's a useful way to get rid of a political heavyweight quietly. The reality of how commissioners are appointed and the moment nullifies any argument about it limiting access to talent tbh.

The commission needs to establish a direct connection with the people otherwise it will continue to appear aloof and above the people and outside it's control.

Anteayer

Anteayer wrote: »

You should have the likes of Juncker being able to make speeches that actually explain what Europe is and what it stands for. I see very little of that coming from him, it only ever seems to come from national leaders like Macron.

I disagree. It's best it comes from recognisable EU leaders. Otherwise, it does make it look like the EU is some entity more powerful than them.

Anteayer

Deleted User wrote: »

I disagree. It's best it comes from recognisable EU leaders. Otherwise, it does make it look like the EU is some entity more powerful than them.

I don't agree at all. It think the problem with that is when you have Merkel or Macron for example representing the European Union's position (often totally inaccurately in the case of Macron in particular) it looks like one of the big two is running Europe. That's driving huge Euroscepticism in smaller countries who start to see it as a German or Franco-German project rather than a shared one.

I actually cringe when I see Macron getting up trying to speak on behalf of the EU when he has absolutely no mandate to do so. Merkel tends to at least do so with a degree of polite distance and seems to understand that her place is not to lead Europe and that doing so could be quite damaging to the EU.

Anyone speaking on behalf of the EU really has to be a recognisable pan-European figure, not a national one. Otherwise, you're straight into a driving a wedge between the EU and the general population.

I mean, do you think people in Greece for example would feel very comfortable having Merkel speaking on the EU's behalf ?

That is why you absolutely need charismatic and capable people from the Commission and the European Parliament to be able to be the face of the EU.

CelticRambler

MrMusician18 wrote: »

There is no reason that states couldn't run the election is a commissioner along similar lines of our presidential elections. Where the legislature selects the field of candidates and the population votes. That would maintain some control on it not becoming a farce and quality candidates being put forward.

On the contrary - that's probably the best way to turn it into a farce. The electorate in so many countries has been shown to be too easily swayed by clever marketing by hidden hands. As soon as you'd put up a field of "quality candidates" you'd have all kinds of headbangers coming out with exactly the same kind of nonsense on show in that Irish-Brexiteers-in-Britain article.

Enzokk

Hurrache wrote: »

So rumours now that May will be heading to Strazburg this evening followed by claims she has put a deadline of early evening for a breakthrough. The EU has said there's nothing to discuss based on what the UK had proposed, and at lunchtime the Irish government has said we're approaching the point of a hard brexit.

May be optics for May to say she made one last push ahead of tomorrows vote.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexit-vote-must-be-put-on-hold-mps-warn-theresa-may-3jkhl37gm?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1552306673

From your link it seems she will be asking (begging) the EU for help once again. I am an optimist and I think she has a plan and this is just part of the show for her to get her deal through. If we follow the stories this morning that wording was agreed between the EU and UK but it needed sign off from the top then it seems if she delays this until early tomorrow morning and she can claim the EU caved at the last minute (as they told us) and this is what she got. Basically she is playing a game to get her deal through.

The other option is for there to be legitimate chaos on the horizon and she is really begging the EU for help and if that is the case she has days left in the job. Because from this tweet it seems not much has changed, the backstop will not be removed or changed.

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1105098510070939648

First Up

MrMusician18 wrote:

The commission needs to establish a direct connection with the people otherwise it will continue to appear aloof and above the people and outside it's control.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the EU is and how it works. It is an association of sovereign states, not a superstate.

It is ironic that the EU is accused in some quarters of threatening to become a superstate, while others criticise it for failing to introduce EU wide voting - which is the essence of a superstate.

Anteayer

Enzokk wrote: »

From your link it seems she will be asking (begging) the EU for help once again. I am an optimist and I think she has a plan and this is just part of the show for her to get her deal through. If we follow the stories this morning that wording was agreed between the EU and UK but it needed sign off from the top then it seems if she delays this until early tomorrow morning and she can claim the EU caved at the last minute (as they told us) and this is what she got. Basically she is playing a game to get her deal through.

The other option is for there to be legitimate chaos on the horizon and she is really begging the EU for help and if that is the case she has days left in the job. Because from this tweet it seems not much has changed, the backstop will not be removed or changed.

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1105098510070939648

I think the problem is that May has a plan alright, it's brinkmanship by pushing Westminster to the edge of the abyss and hoping that they follow her back away from it again.

The concern I have is that she has done this multiple times, including calling a general election to increase her majority and she has miscalculated every time and caused chaos. I mean the Brexit Referendum itself was a gross miscalculation by Cameron who thought it would put the Eurosceptic movement in the Tories to bed once and for all with a comprehensive victory for Remain.

It's getting to the stage that she sounds almost like she's presenting one of those infamous Cunning Plans on Black Adder. They're so cunning that they're doomed to failure through their own complexity and reliance on assuming that she's able to outwit everyone else.

I think that's been an issue with the UK's negotiating position from the outset. It's been about manipulating and trying to pull a fast one to manoeuvre the EU into a position where they can get what they want, rather than having an honest, frank and sane discussion about what they want and how they can work together to achieve it.

Enzokk

Anteayer wrote: »

I don't agree at all. It think the problem with that is when you have Merkel or Macron for example representing the European Union's position (often totally inaccurately in the case of Macron in particular) it looks like one of the big two is running Europe. That's driving huge Euroscepticism in smaller countries who start to see it as a German or Franco-German project rather than a shared one.

I actually cringe when I see Macron getting up trying to speak on behalf of the EU when he has absolutely no mandate to do so. Merkel tends to at least do so with a degree of polite distance and seems to understand that her place is not to lead Europe and that doing so could be quite damaging to the EU.

Anyone speaking on behalf of the EU really has to be a recognisable pan-European figure, not a national one. Otherwise, you're straight into a driving a wedge between the EU and the general population.

I mean, do you think people in Greece for example would feel very comfortable having Merkel speaking on the EU's behalf ?

That is just two different ways of doing politics though. Macron may be more upfront and in the limelight while Merkel portrays a more modest view. The question is really where the power lies during the council meetings where the leaders meet and who actually steers the course.

Water John

Antea, there is one Irish example, Garret Fitzgerald made Jim Dooge a Senator and then appointed him to the Cabinet, Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Anteayer

Enzokk wrote: »

That is just two different ways of doing politics though. Macron may be more upfront and in the limelight while Merkel portrays a more modest view. The question is really where the power lies during the council meetings where the leaders meet and who actually steers the course.

It's about two very different political cultures:

Merkel knows how to do multilateral politics as she has to do it every day of the week in Germany to keep coalitions together. She knows that she isn't the EU leader and you use soft power carefully because otherwise you lose it. She operates in a multiparty, proportional representation and fully federal environment and one that also had to re-integrate after the fall of the Berlin Wall, so of course she values relationship building and alliance building. It's the same with the Irish Government vs the British Government - we're used to having to compromise and share power.

Macron is a first past the post elected executive president, working in a unitary state with very centralised power and with a majority in parliament too. He's absolutely not about careful negotiation. He's been anything but diplomatic in his domestic politics to the point that he's even inflamed violent street protests. Humility and diplomacy has come very recently as he's had to calm that down.

But in general, I just think it's dangerous to undermine the EU by having powerful national politicians speaking on its behalf. I think with Brexit they've thankfully mostly refrained form doing so and you can see that with the UK's attempts to find gaps and drive wedges that have largely failed.

Leroy42

Enzokk wrote: »

From your link it seems she will be asking (begging) the EU for help once again. I am an optimist and I think she has a plan and this is just part of the show for her to get her deal through. If we follow the stories this morning that wording was agreed between the EU and UK but it needed sign off from the top then it seems if she delays this until early tomorrow morning and she can claim the EU caved at the last minute (as they told us) and this is what she got. Basically she is playing a game to get her deal through.

I watched an interesting youtube opinion video today regarding how the UK got itself into the Brexit mess it finds itself (I can't for the life of me find it now).

Anyway, the video itself is not important, but one of the points made was that the UK has always seen the EU in economic terms, it joined because its economy was poor and now that in recent years it has done better it doesn't see the need for it as much.

And that drives it's thinking that the EU will capitulate at the 11th hour. Because economically, a crash out is bad for the EU. So why would it allow it to happen? It fails, to take into account that EU sees itself as far more than an economic block, though of course economy is a major part of it.

IT is why the UK totally underestimated the support that the EU would give to Ireland. Economically it makes no sense for the EU to side with Ireland on this, it would surely opt to keep the UK on side.

They appear to still be thinking that way (German car manufacturers etc) .

Anteayer

I think though to understand this you have to understand the Tories more than the UK. I don't think the UK as a whole sees the EU as a purely economic project, but I think the Tories and their supporters tend to see the world in purely economic terms.

They look at the UK as 'this economy' not as 'this country'. You see that all the time in how they try to tackle social issues with financial incentives or punishments and it's usually their downfall too : universal credits, Poll Tax, sanctioning the unemployed who can't find jobs in depressed areas, you name it: they tackle it with financial measures.

From their perspective, I don't think they really understand that there's a bigger EU picture and they also don't seem to even understand how big the EU is and how Brexit starts to matter a lot less the further you move away from a UK frontier.

They've also got an imagined notion of what the Republic of Ireland is - seeing it more like a rogue UK province rather than a country that's actually developed its own trade links and that no longer totally depends on them. I mean, yes it will be bumpy for Ireland, but I don't think it will be catastrophic. If anything it could make us far more robust in the medium term as we have already diversified our trade enormously away from the UK.

If you're not prepared to look at facts and real statistics, and you're not prepared to do any analysis of European geopolitics and believe that you've such incredible political ability that you can somehow outwit the world into falling into line, the result is going to be fairly embarrassing.

Kermit.de.frog

Some tweets from UK journos a bit miffed that the Irish govt let slip on May's last minute dash

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1105098358023249920

FrancieBrady

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Some tweets from UK journos a bit miffed that the Irish govt let slip on May's last minute dash

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1105098358023249920

What is she going for though?

Sam Russell

Anteayer wrote: »

I would like to see situation in Ireland where the appointment of a commissioner is a national debate and where candidates have to lay out their agenda for what they're going to do as commissioner. Ultimately, the job is all about upholding the treaties and working on behalf of the entire EU, not just the country that appointed you, but at the same time I think we should take the appointment much more seriously and try to ensure that we get the absolute best person for the job. Even if they're not directly representing Ireland, it's vital that the Commission is well run and that you've people who can actually make solid arguments and show real leadership, diplomatic and communication skills.

We have had 11 commissioners to date - 7 FF 4 FG. Now all have been good at what they were required to do, and few had poor or low status portfolios. All were in public political life, and none have disgraced themselves. Peter Sutherland was noteworthy, as was Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, but most performed very well.

How could we improve on that record by having a public vote?

Leroy42

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Some tweets from UK journos a bit miffed that the Irish govt let slip on May's last minute dash

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1105098358023249920

It is as if they still think that Brexit is simply a UK issue.

MrMusician18

First Up wrote: »

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the EU is and how it works. It is an association of sovereign states, not a superstate.

It is ironic that the EU is accused in some quarters of threatening to become a superstate, while others criticise it for failing to introduce EU wide voting - which is the essence of a superstate.

If a characteristic of a superstate is running elections that span across states then wouldn't the European Parliament elections fit that condition?

The EU is not merely an association of states.

MrMusician18

Sam Russell wrote: »

We have had 11 commissioners to date - 7 FF 4 FG. Now all have been good at what they were required to do, and few had poor or low status portfolios. All were in public political life, and none have disgraced themselves. Peter Sutherland was noteworthy, as was Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, but most performed very well.

How could we improve on that record by having a public vote?

Even P "try it sometime" Flynn?

Leroy42

MrMusician18 wrote: »

If a characteristic of a superstate is running elections that span across states then wouldn't the European Parliament elections fit that condition?

The EU is not merely an association of states.

Is that a characteristic of a superstate? Where did you get that from?

An Ciarraioch

Don't see the point of this unilateral UK statement on the backstop, given it would have no legal standing, and accordingly both Dublin and Brussels can safely ignore it?