Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is Libertas playing loose and fast with the truth about the commissoner?

Options
  • 10-06-2008 5:02pm
    #1
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭


    The ad we are running says "Our commissioner; Gone for 5 years at a time".

    Coming out of a thread on the ad in Feedback I wanted to chase that point because it would appear that we have already signed our commissioner away in the Nice treaty and the Lisbon treaty simply sets out the terms and details of that.

    I've heard the Yes side of the argument, I'm interested to hear from the NO camp as to how they can defend the claim that Libertas are at best muddying things and at worst are blatantly scaremongering with a tenuous link to the truth, at best.

    DeV.


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Call Me Jimmy
    Registered Users Posts: 8,449 ✭✭✭Call Me Jimmy


    Look I am not a blind yes'er or anything but there is just no defending it because it is nothing but a specific lie. I think it so outrageous because it is not arguable. Nobody can say it's not an attempt to mislead. It's obvious their ideal conclusion one should make from it is that our views won't be heard and we will have no influence in europe for five years out of fifteen imo. "Oh we just wanted people to know what has already been agreed to so they can vote no on this new treaty", not to mention the fact that it's impact is arguably very small anyway. grrr...

    Also, I doubt you'll get many No advocates who come in and give a coherant argument about this because a lot of them seem to be basing everything on sound-bites, sensationalism and speculation just like that in the ad.

    Having said that, I don't think that ad should be taken down because technically it would be making a judgement on interpretation.


  • Options
    #3
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    This isnt about the ad's presence... thats a topic for feedback.

    What I want to hear is an argument from the NO camp about how its an acceptible point to make or for them to come here and say "yeah, actually, its completely bogus". Or something.


    DeV.


  • Options
    #4
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,621 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    You'll probably have more luck at politics.ie.

    There is a heap of Libertas heads over there. The site owner is a director.

    Personally I think some no groups, Libertas, COIR/Youth Defense and the socialist workers party have blatantly lied to the electorate with their signs and rhetoric. Its interesting to note Libertas have been quick to backtrack on their statements about taxation and neutrality when challenged.


  • Options
    #5
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    Actually if that's true, in my eyes, it weakens what little belief I have in the government's "facts" about the treaty when they have already given away our say on such an important issue, when even though we rejected it the nice treaty was disgustingly forced down our throats in a blatent fascist effort not so long ago (The keep voting till you get the right answer debacle) .
    Yet people will read FF's list of positives without even questioning them. Man i have so little faith in my fellow irishman these days..


  • Options
    #6
    Call Me Jimmy
    Registered Users Posts: 8,449 ✭✭✭Call Me Jimmy


    What's your point? What exactly are talking about? The point about the commissioner?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    Yes, lets stay on topic. I'm just trying to establish who I can believe in this debacle. (I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that the answer is, no one).

    I'm just not wild about being a vector for misleading statements....

    DeV.


  • Options
    #8
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    DeVore wrote: »
    I'm just trying to establish who I can believe in this debacle. (I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that the answer is, no one).
    Have I ever lied to you? ;)


  • Options
    #9
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    You said you'd respect me in the morning....... :o


    DeV.


  • Options
    #10
    kowloon
    Registered Users Posts: 13,316 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    What about the claims that the common defence plans are being withheld until after the vote is done and dusted? If that was true it would weight my decision more in favour of a No.
    Nobody is going in to this well informed; the real agendas are probably so far off the mark that even the handful of people who actually read the treaty don't know what it will mean in the long run.
    It's all a big game of Chinese whispers.


  • Options
    #11
    Hitman Actual
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,362 ✭✭✭Hitman Actual


    kowloon wrote: »
    What about the claims that the common defence plans are being withheld until after the vote is done and dusted? If that was true it would weight my decision more in favour of a No.
    Nobody is going in to this well informed; the real agendas are probably so far off the mark that even the handful of people who actually read the treaty don't know what it will mean in the long run.
    It's all a big game of Chinese whispers.

    That's hardly on topic to what Dev is asking, now, is it? And the key word in your comment is "claims", i.e. nothing more than idle speculation. Libertas aren't speculating or making idle "claims" about the Commissioner, they are clearly distorting the truth. I seriously doubt that any no supporter will be able to come up with a logical argument to the OP.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    h2s
    Registered Users Posts: 287 ✭✭h2s


    http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87311


  • Options
    #13
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    kowloon wrote: »
    Nobody is going in to this well informed; the real agendas are probably so far off the mark that even the handful of people who actually read the treaty don't know what it will mean in the long run.
    It's all a big game of Chinese whispers.

    This is probably off topic, but thats the best post ive read today (as its the only one that's probably not speculation or opinion) and one of the major reason im voting no. I dont trust when things can't just be said in plain straight forward speak. Its suspicious.


  • Options
    #14
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    I want to stay focused on the commissioner and the future for him in the cases of a

    a. A Yes vote.

    b. A No vote.

    DeV.


  • Options
    #15
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    a. If we ratify Lisbon, the Commission stays as is until 2014, at which time it will be reduced to 18 members. For five out of every fifteen years, every member state will not appoint a commissioner.

    [edit: that might be unclear. The Commission seats will be rotated evenly among the member states. For each five-year term, 18 out of the 27 countries will nominate a commissioner. All countries take it in turn to skip a term.]

    b. If we don't ratify Lisbon, the Commission will be reduced to 18 members in 2009, as agreed in the Nice treaty. No mechanism for rotation was agreed in Nice; the Lisbon rotation would probably be used (but there's no guarantee of that).


  • Options
    #16
    Call Me Jimmy
    Registered Users Posts: 8,449 ✭✭✭Call Me Jimmy


    And might I add that whatever happens, because of the agreement in the Nice treaty to reduce the number of commissioners to less than the number of member states that means there has to be some time where some states don't have a commissioner. So with lisbon it is just setting in stone the 100% fair way to implement the Nice agreement.

    In fact, if you're arguing against this point you're not arguing against the lisbon treaty imo.


  • Options
    #17
    ixtlan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,209 ✭✭✭ixtlan


    DeVore wrote: »
    Yes, lets stay on topic. I'm just trying to establish who I can believe in this debacle. (I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that the answer is, no one).

    I'm just not wild about being a vector for misleading statements....
    DeV.

    Who can you believe? Everyone and no one.

    Most of the points raised have grains of truth in them. This is why there is such confusion. It's like Obiwan Kenobi said to Luke, when Luke asked why he had been told that Darth Vader betrayed and killed his father... it was true "from a certain point of view".

    We will lose a commissioner for 5 out of 15 years. You have to decide 1/ How important is the commissioner ?- you need to understand what they do and who they represent 2/ How are the other countries treated as regards their commissioners? 3/ How likely is a renegotiation to reverse the Nice decision to reduce the commission? 4/ Is a commission with 27 members a good idea?

    I'm a yes, but I'm sure you would agree these are reasonable questions that a no or undecided voter should consider.

    As regards, policy aspirations on tax and common defense. Again these are true. The questions would surely be. 1/ Are we compelled to agree to these? 2/ How many other countries are likely to agree or block these agendas (important to consider the arguments of whether we would be forced to abandon the veto even if we had it). 3/ Is there a history in the EU of forcing countries to adopt policies by threats? 4/ Is there a history in the EU of pushing through major policy changes with disagreements (ie, how important is consensus). 5/ How often are vetos actually used? Can other countries generally be trusted?

    You can see I mean these as kind of rhetorical... but they are valid for both groups.

    Ix


  • Options
    #18
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    So...

    "Yes Vote" :
    1. No change to the commission until 2014.

    2. In 2014 the commission is reduced to 18 commissioners out of 27 and every 5 years a different 18 commissioners make up the commission in such a way as every member state spends 5 out of 15 years without a commissioner.


    "No Vote"
    1. In 2009 the commission is reduced to 18 commissioners as per Nice and the future of the commission and selection method are unclear, but likely to resemble whats suggested in Lisbon.



    Ta Oscar! Anyone else feel that someone should have just said it that way before.... :)

    DeV.


  • Options
    #19
    Call Me Jimmy
    Registered Users Posts: 8,449 ✭✭✭Call Me Jimmy


    Notice ye still haven't had an argument that lays out the horrors of losing a commissioner for five years yet... we'll wait and see I suppose.


  • Options
    #20
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    Actually I am looking for an argument that says that what I have posted above is wrong and Lisbon really DOES affect our commissioner. Cos right now I would have to say its seems like we have already lost the commissioner with Nice and now Lisbon simply sets the rules.

    In fact, voting Yes maintains the commission for 5 years longer then voting No.... ironically.

    DeV


  • Options
    #21
    carveone
    Registered Users Posts: 1,215 ✭✭✭carveone


    DeVore wrote: »
    Actually I am looking for an argument that says that what I have posted above is wrong and Lisbon really DOES affect our commissioner.

    The way I understand it, he/she isn't our commissioner at all. They work for Europe not for Ireland. McCreevy is Irish but he isn't working for or on behalf of Ireland.

    Added in: From a page from business2000.ie. I'm not sure the public completely realise this:

    "The European Commission represents and upholds the interests of the EU as a whole. It acts with complete political independence and does not take instruction or influence from any one Member State. It sits in Brussels."

    That's possibly beside the point you are trying to make of course :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,075 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    DeVore wrote: »
    In fact, voting Yes maintains the commission for 5 years longer then voting No.... ironically.

    Well, technically we could have a commissioner in both the 2009 and 2014 commissions if the rotation works out that way. But yeah, the guarantee of the commissioner goes away whether you vote yes or no.

    There is one theoretical scenario where we could keep a permanent commissioner:

    If we vote no and a new deal is negotiated which rolls back the agreement made in the Nice Treaty and guarantees Ireland a permanent commissioner (probably by reverting to 1 commissioner per country).

    This is so unlikely that you may as well consider it impossible. Even if it was possible, it can't happen before 2009, there simply isn't enough time to get everyone to agree to it.


  • Options
    #23
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    The answer to the original question is yes, Libertas are simply not telling the whole truth in regards to the commissioner (or many other things) the facts are irrefutable. The best post on the commissioner's and what they do was by Scofflaw in this thread.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055310755
    I recommend everyone who is confused to read that thread.


  • Options
    #24
    Call Me Jimmy
    Registered Users Posts: 8,449 ✭✭✭Call Me Jimmy


    DeVore wrote: »
    Actually I am looking for an argument that says that what I have posted above is wrong and Lisbon really DOES affect our commissioner. Cos right now I would have to say its seems like we have already lost the commissioner with Nice and now Lisbon simply sets the rules.

    DeV

    Ah yes, you won't get any argument - coherant or otherwise - about that imo. You will see a lot of tumbleweed tho :)


  • Options
    #25
    carveone
    Registered Users Posts: 1,215 ✭✭✭carveone


    Ta Oscar! Anyone else feel that someone should have just said it that way before....

    Yes, good job. It puts the whole argument about commissioners in context doesn't it!
    ixtlan wrote: »
    Who can you believe? Everyone and no one.

    Most of the points raised have grains of truth in them. This is why there is such confusion.

    I'm not sure that people purporting to be representing either side know what they are talking about half the time. Here's an example:

    Someone brought up "the actual possibility of enforcing death penalties upon citizens of EU in the case of war, riots, upheaval."

    This was the text of concern:

    Article 2 of the Protocol No 6 to the ECHR: ‘A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such a penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…’. "

    Um. Ok. So what. The key word here is "may". I've read a number of EU documents, the last one about banning raw milk, and that word was in there too. "May", meaning "don't have to". In this case it basically mean that states need not scrap the state of emergency provisions contained in their various constitutions.

    Lots of this stuff going on...


  • Options
    #26
    ixtlan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,209 ✭✭✭ixtlan


    [QUOTE=carveone;
    56202814]
    Article 2 of the Protocol No 6 to the ECHR: ‘A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such a penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…’. "

    Um. Ok. So what. The key word here is "may". I've read a number of EU documents, the last one about banning raw milk, and that word was in there too. "May", meaning "don't have to". In this case it basically mean that states need not scrap the state of emergency provisions contained in their various constitutions.

    Lots of this stuff going on...[/QUOTE]

    Exactly, and I'll point out again that the reason the treaty is full of clauses like this is because every country wants to have the power do things as it does. This is a crucial point about the EU that the no voters seem to miss when they talk of how the EU will force policies on us.

    If anything the EU would remove the death penalty in all cases, and that is what it aspires to. However it is not going to force every country to remove the provisions they have for exceptional circumstances. If they did you can be sure that there would be campaigners in some countries talking about how the EU was interfering with them!

    This is a theme often recurring in the treaty. We aspire to this... but you can do things as you want.

    Ix.


  • Options
    #27
    flogen
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,243 Mod ✭✭✭✭flogen


    DeVore wrote: »
    Actually I am looking for an argument that says that what I have posted above is wrong and Lisbon really DOES affect our commissioner. Cos right now I would have to say its seems like we have already lost the commissioner with Nice and now Lisbon simply sets the rules.

    In fact, voting Yes maintains the commission for 5 years longer then voting No.... ironically.

    DeV

    Yeah, It seems that Lisbon just copper-fastens the way in which an 18-member commission will be implemented, Nice was the treaty that brought the reduction in in the first place.

    Without wanting to scare-monger (I'm not a campaigner for either side and am undecided at present), it was pointed out on Prime Time that the original suggestion was for permanent commissioners for the big states and rotation for the small states.... at least this way we're all on the same footing (although it's arguable that a French-less commission will try to avoid pissing off the French more than an Irish-less commission will try to avoid pissing off the Irish due to the respective influence of both nations).


  • Options
    #28
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    flogen wrote: »
    it's arguable that a French-less commission will try to avoid pissing off the French more than an Irish-less commission will try to avoid pissing off the Irish due to the respective influence of both nations.

    It's possible but the evidence so far does not reflect that. Take for instance the current British commissioner for trade Peter Madelson. His proposal on the WTO is looking like a very bad deal for farmers, France has the largest agricultural sector in Europe and followed by Poland (I think). France is the second largest country in Europe and Poland is the sixth so far that hasn't affected Mandelson's position.


  • Options
    #29
    kowloon
    Registered Users Posts: 13,316 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    lenny_leonard wrote: »
    That's hardly on topic to what Dev is asking, now, is it? And the key word in your comment is "claims", i.e. nothing more than idle speculation. Libertas aren't speculating or making idle "claims" about the Commissioner, they are clearly distorting the truth. I seriously doubt that any no supporter will be able to come up with a logical argument to the OP.

    My apologies, I think I actually posted in the wrong thread :o.


  • Options
    #30
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    DeVore wrote: »
    Actually I am looking for an argument that says that what I have posted above is wrong and Lisbon really DOES affect our commissioner. Cos right now I would have to say its seems like we have already lost the commissioner with Nice and now Lisbon simply sets the rules.

    In fact, voting Yes maintains the commission for 5 years longer then voting No.... ironically.

    DeV

    Just to kick this one finally over the bar - this is the relevant bit from the existing (post-Nice) treaty:
    Protocol on the Enlargement of the European Union wrote:

    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.

    So, we now have 27 states, and the Commission gets reduced next year. I don't think it can be clearer.

    I do think the reliance of No campaign groups like Libertas on this illustrates their appeal to emotion rather than reason, and, for all the bluster about the incomprehensibility of the Treaty, their absolute reliance on people's ignorance of the Treaty and the EU - which in turn makes me think that the reason they keep claiming there's no information is because they don't want people to look.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    flogen
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,243 Mod ✭✭✭✭flogen


    sink wrote: »
    It's possible but the evidence so far does not reflect that. Take for instance the current British commissioner for trade Peter Madelson. His proposal on the WTO is looking like a very bad deal for farmers, France has the largest agricultural sector in Europe and followed by Poland (I think). France is the second largest country in Europe and Poland is the sixth so far that hasn't affected Mandelson's position.

    That's true, although that's a debate that still has to be finalised and I doubt Mandelson will get his way.

    Either way I don't see what difference Lisbon will make to what Mandelson is doing at the WTO - that'll go whatever way it goes regardless of what happens on Thursday/Friday.

    One question I do have, and this may be somewhat cleared up by the above posting, is in relation to future member states. At the moment (under Lisbon) all 27 member stages will have a commissioner for 2/3 of the time, giving us 18 commissioners at any one time. But what happens when new states join the EU? Will they also be entitled to a commissioner for 2/3 of the time, which will increase the commission's size again as a result. Or will they be entitled to no new commissioners full-stop (which doesn't seem to be very attractive or equal to me) or will we all just end up having a commissioner for slightly less time to accommodate the need to have new states in the rotation with a maximum of 18 commissioners at a time?


Advertisement