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
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,075 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    flogen wrote: »
    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?

    It's defined to be 2/3rds of the number of member states. So, if we go to 30 member states, we'll add 2 commissioners.


  • Options
    #33
    flogen
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,243 Mod ✭✭✭✭flogen


    IRLConor wrote: »
    It's defined to be 2/3rds of the number of member states. So, if we go to 30 member states, we'll add 2 commissioners.

    Thanks for that, although I always assumed the reduction in commissioners was because they had trouble finding 27+ jobs for people and that system would suggest otherwise.

    Although it could be argued that it would take some time for the EU to need 27 commissioners again under a 2/3rds of members system and by that time it could be argued that the size of the union would be so much bigger that existing roles would need to be split down into more manageable slices in order to be practical... so where we only need one person to look after Education, Training and Culture now, in the future that may need to be split into two offices (or something like that).


  • Options
    #34
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,075 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    flogen wrote: »
    Thanks for that, although I always assumed the reduction in commissioners was because they had trouble finding 27+ jobs for people and that system would suggest otherwise.

    Although it could be argued that it would take some time for the EU to need 27 commissioners again under a 2/3rds of members system and by that time it could be argued that the size of the union would be so much bigger that existing roles would need to be split down into more manageable slices in order to be practical... so where we only need one person to look after Education, Training and Culture now, in the future that may need to be split into two offices (or something like that).

    It could indeed lead to 27 commissioners again (if there were 40 member states) but I suspect that there would either be more jobs needing to be done (as you suggested above) or there would be another treaty/agreement which would reduce the number of commissioners further.

    Given that one of the next countries that would be joining would be Turkey, I suspect that there'll be a lot of fighting between now and >20 commissioners. That fighting could lead to quite a few changes in the EU, so it's hard to see very far beyond that.


  • Options
    #35
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    flogen wrote: »
    Thanks for that, although I always assumed the reduction in commissioners was because they had trouble finding 27+ jobs for people and that system would suggest otherwise.

    Although it could be argued that it would take some time for the EU to need 27 commissioners again under a 2/3rds of members system and by that time it could be argued that the size of the union would be so much bigger that existing roles would need to be split down into more manageable slices in order to be practical... so where we only need one person to look after Education, Training and Culture now, in the future that may need to be split into two offices (or something like that).

    The system currently does have difficulty making jobs for 27 Commissioners, and it has only been done by splitting jobs and creating sad posts like "Commissioner for Multilingualism" (currently held by the Romanian Commissioner, I think).

    To see why this is the case, consider the size of the EU civil service (which the Commissioners manage). It's 30,000 people. For comparison, the Irish civil service is 350,000 people - the HSE alone is 130,000 people, and it's under a single Minister and two junior ministers.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #36
    ircoha
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,290 ✭✭✭ircoha


    In relation to the commissioner, and accepting we gave it up in Nice, from my perspective it is like working for a multilingual multinational, not being in Head Office and not having a fellow countryman in head office can be a serious drawback.

    Having worked for some of the most global multis over a 30 yr period: There is NO substitute for being 'on location'.

    I accept 100% that they work on their respective portfolios and that national interests should be set aside, but just look at the carry-on with the Nord Stream gas pipeline which is planned for the Baltic to avoid it passing through the eastern states such as Poland.
    http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/may2008/gb20080529_100459.htm?campaign_id=rss_eu

    The current row is being driven by a Pole, due in large measure to the loss of revenue for Poland and the like nothing more than to control the gas supply into Germany.

    It is amazing what gets done outside of board meetings etc and the concern i have is that the level of increased theoretical oversight proposed by the new constitution will simply drive more deal making underground, in much the same way here by virtue of the fact that the FOI has effectively been neutered by the politicians.

    I do some public sector interview work and any notes you take are collected at the end of the meeting and shred.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    mikep
    Registered Users Posts: 922 ✭✭✭mikep


    I have read through this thread and am now wondering is Libertas telling the truth about anything....I have been trying to verify their 8 reasons to vote no by reading sections of the treaty but got bogged down...(pesky work getting in the way)..

    Has anyone checked out the validity of their 8 reasons??

    Sorry if this has been done already....


  • Options
    #38
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    mikep wrote: »
    Has anyone checked out the validity of their 8 reasons??
    It's be done already, probably by Scofflaw in this forum, if you do a search.
    Most of their "8 reasons" are distortions of the truth - basically leaving out key points in order to pretend that the treaty is out to get us.

    Edit:
    Here you go, sink effortlessly tears Libertas's agenda apart:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055309078


  • Options
    #39
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    mikep wrote: »
    I have read through this thread and am now wondering is Libertas telling the truth about anything....I have been trying to verify their 8 reasons to vote no by reading sections of the treaty but got bogged down...(pesky work getting in the way)..

    Has anyone checked out the validity of their 8 reasons??

    Sorry if this has been done already....

    I did do it already you can find it in this thread.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055309078


  • Options
    #40
    cornbb
    Registered Users Posts: 6,790 ✭✭✭cornbb


    I'd also like to point out that, as well as the fact that commissioners will be reduced under Nice anyway, the phrase "Ireland will lose its commissioner..." is misleading as it implies Ireland will have relatively less influence. The fact is that all states will lose their commissioner for 5 years out of 15. This No campaign slogan has been sneakily worded in order to imply that Ireland only will be losing a commissioner, not the whole of Europe.


Advertisement