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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Number of commissioners

Options
  • 12-06-2008 2:58pm
    #1
    Stabshauptmann
    Registered Users Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭


    I read on wikipedia that under Lisbon no country will have more than 2 commissioners.
    I thought we were going to have one each for 10 years out of 15


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    ixtlan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,209 ✭✭✭ixtlan


    link? I don't see this.


  • Options
    #3
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    The comissionner issue appears to be a red herring as that ship has already sailed in the great domocratic Nice treaty. I'd suggest you concentrate on other ares.


  • Options
    #4
    Stabshauptmann
    Registered Users Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭Stabshauptmann


    You'd suggest I concentrate on other areas? Nice agreed that there would be a change to the formula for the commission, Lisbon is setting out what the new system will be - and Im looking for clarity on what the proposed formula is.

    And having a thread per isssue makes a lot more sense to me than a mega thread, but hey, Im just a very organised person.

    So can anyone tell me, under Lisbon is it 1 commissioner each for 10 out of 15 years, or is it 1 for some countries and 2 for others?


  • Options
    #5
    Stabshauptmann
    Registered Users Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭Stabshauptmann


    ixtlan wrote: »
    link? I don't see this.
    that is breathtakingly lazy.
    Where do you think on wikipedia it might be?!

    And I dont know the point of a link, its just the same as saying I heard someone say xyz.
    But here you go
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eu_commission#Future_of_the_Commission


  • Options
    #6
    Hitman Actual
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,362 ✭✭✭Hitman Actual


    There are quite a few threads on this; here's one. Look for the posts by OscarBravo.

    Edit to add: As far as I know, in the negotiations for Lisbon (or Nice?), the bigger nations wanted to always have a commissioner, with the smaller nations having a commissioner on a rotating basis. Ireland fought to get the fairer system as proposed by Lisbon. So it's unlikely to get any better than Lisbon.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    ixtlan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,209 ✭✭✭ixtlan


    Kaptain Redeye wrote: »
    that is breathtakingly lazy.
    Where do you think on wikipedia it might be?!

    Excuse me?! I don't want to be one of those people who takes offense easily but it has been a long campaign. I looked on the page for Lisbon Treaty as you appeared to indicate. It's not unreasonable for me to want a specific link since it was on the Commission page?

    As to the question, possibly the answer is that a country could have 2 commissioners in one term. However they would then have no commissioners for 10 years. I don't know for sure. Can we trust Wikipedia?

    Ix


  • Options
    #8
    O'Morris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭O'Morris


    Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

    So can anyone tell me, under Lisbon is it 1 commissioner each for 10 out of 15 years, or is it 1 for some countries and 2 for others?

    I've been wondering about this myself. I thought the idea was that every country would have equal representation on the commission, regardless of it's size, and that because of this the bigger countries would be expected to make do with only one commissioner instead of their normal two. That line you've quoted above clearly implies the possibility that some countries can have more than one commissioner.

    ShooterSF wrote:
    The comissionner issue appears to be a red herring as that ship has already sailed in the great domocratic Nice treaty.

    The Nice treaty did contain a commitment to reduce the number of commissioners but there were no specific proposals or targets as to how that should be achieved. The only thing proposed was that the bigger countries would give up their second commissioner until a decision was reached. For the yes side to claim that the size or the composition of the EU commission was the decided in the Nice Treaty is not entirely accurate.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nice_Treaty


  • Options
    #9
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    O'Morris wrote: »
    The Nice treaty did contain a commitment to reduce the number of commissioners but there were no specific proposals or targets as to how that should be achieved. The only thing proposed was that the bigger countries would give up their second commissioner until a decision was reached. For the yes side to claim that the size or the composition of the EU commission was the decided in the Nice Treaty is not entirely accurate.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nice_Treaty
    That is wrong.

    Nice definitely did decide that once the EU reaches 27 countries that there would be only 18 commissioners and that these would be rotated on what it described as a fair basis yet to be decided.

    Don't rely on wikipedia as anyone can edit it.

    Look at the EU website and the summary of nice.
    It's all there on page 5.

    http://ec.europa.eu/comm/nice_treaty/summary_en.pdf


    So if we reject lisbon-we still lose a commissioner.

    For anyone to suggest otherwise is telling a porky.

    Currently theres a commissioner for every state by the way.
    Thats so silly as they had to invent silly roles temporarally for the eg the commissioner for multilingualism for instance.

    That will change and a rotation will be introduced regardless of lisbon.


  • Options
    #10
    Stabshauptmann
    Registered Users Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭Stabshauptmann


    ixtlan wrote: »
    Excuse me?! I don't want to be one of those people who takes offense easily but it has been a long campaign. I looked on the page for Lisbon Treaty as you appeared to indicate. It's not unreasonable for me to want a specific link since it was on the Commission page?

    As to the question, possibly the answer is that a country could have 2 commissioners in one term. However they would then have no commissioners for 10 years. I don't know for sure. Can we trust Wikipedia?

    Ix
    Im sorry.
    Haha. Ive being stupid things all day. It hadnt occured to me that there would be an article on the Lisbon treaty. Ofcourse there would, and ofcourse that would be the more natural place to look.
    I was wondering about the number of commissioners and I went straight to the acticle on the commission.


  • Options
    #11
    O'Morris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭O'Morris


    Deleted User wrote: »
    That is wrong.

    Nice definitely did decide that once the EU reaches 27 countries that there would be only 18 commissioners

    I don't think it is wrong. Read that summary you linked to. This is what it says on page 5
    "The ICG has decided to defer imposing a ceiling on the number of members of the Commission."
    It does say there will be fewer commissioners than member states
    As from the first Commission which will be appointed once the Union reaches 27 Member States, there will be fewer Commissioners than there are Member States. The Commissioners will be selected by a system of rotation that will be fair to all countries.
    It doesn't mention anything about it being reduced to 18 members.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    O'Morris wrote: »
    It doesn't mention anything about it being reduced to 18 members.
    It doesn't say the number 18 but thats the number all the governments have agreed on and have put into lisbon.
    They have the power to state the new number without lisbon so it's fair to assume if lisbon is not passed thats the number they will use in the fair system of rotation mentioned in Nice.

    Nice definitely mentions rotation and to try to take out of that that Ireland could keep a permananent commissioner if lisbon is rejected is wrong.


  • Options
    #13
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    This is the exact wording of the Nice treaty
    Nice Treaty wrote:
    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 twenty-seventh Member State of the Union takes up its duties.

    Article 4 subsection 2

    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/12001C/pdf/12001C_EN.pdf


  • Options
    #14
    carveone
    Registered Users Posts: 1,212 ✭✭✭carveone


    sink wrote: »
    This is the exact wording of the Nice treaty

    Man, Sink, have you gone mad repeating yourself over and over yet?! For others - there's this great facility in boards. It's called search. Or else pick someone like sink and follow the threads...


  • Options
    #15
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    carveone wrote: »
    Man, Sink, have you gone mad repeating yourself over and over yet?! For others - there's this great facility in boards. It's called search. Or else pick someone like sink and follow the threads...

    On the edge but I think I can make trough till this evening when it's all over and done with.


  • Options
    #16
    O'Morris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭O'Morris


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Nice definitely mentions rotation and to try to take out of that that Ireland could keep a permananent commissioner if lisbon is rejected is wrong.

    Of course, but then that's different from saying that the Nice Treaty definitely did say that the EU commission would be reduced to 18 members. The Nice Treaty doesn't give any specific targets and so trying to claim that the details of the Lisbon treaty's proposals have already been decided upon in a previous treaty is inaccurate.

    If the changes to the EU commission proposed in the Lisbon treaty were already approved through the Nice Treaty then there wouldn't be any need to vote on them a second time. The truth is that the proposals in the Nice treaty are general while the proposals in the Lisbon treaty are specific. Even if we don't manage to permanently hold on a commissioner there is still room within the context of the Nice Treaty's proposals to renegotiate the future of the commission.


  • Options
    #17
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    O'Morris wrote: »
    Even if we don't manage to permanently hold on a commissioner there is still room within the context of the Nice Treaty's proposals to renegotiate the future of the commission.
    However what libertas say about us keeping our commissioner with no break if we reject Lisbon is a lie.
    You agree that rotation and reduction mean that at some stage we will have no commissioner regardless of a lisbon rejection?


  • Options
    #18
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    O'Morris wrote: »
    Of course, but then that's different from saying that the Nice Treaty definitely did say that the EU commission would be reduced to 18 members. The Nice Treaty doesn't give any specific targets and so trying to claim that the details of the Lisbon treaty's proposals have already been decided upon in a previous treaty is inaccurate.

    If the changes to the EU commission proposed in the Lisbon treaty were already approved through the Nice Treaty then there wouldn't be any need to vote on them a second time. The truth is that the proposals in the Nice treaty are general while the proposals in the Lisbon treaty are specific. Even if we don't manage to permanently hold on a commissioner there is still room within the context of the Nice Treaty's proposals to renegotiate the future of the commission.

    While what you are saying is in one sense correct, in another it is wrong. If we can't have 27 commissioners and there are 27 states, how is it possible that Ireland could get a better deal than absolute equality in rotation of commissioners? I don't see how it is possible unless I am missing something.


  • Options
    #19
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    To be honest,all this mallarkey about negotiating a better deal is just that.... total mallarkey!

    How on earth could one negotiate a better deal when now there are 27 member states where as there were only 18 during the bulk of the negotiations?

    Look at the population of Poland versus Ireland for instance.
    They have more right to be demanding more from the new EU than we do.

    The only way of avoiding that is to withdraw from the EU and thats no answer.

    Thats why this deal shouldn't be rejected.


  • Options
    #20
    O'Morris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭O'Morris


    sink wrote: »
    If we can't have 27 commissioners and there are 27 states, how is it possible that Ireland could get a better deal than absolute equality in rotation of commissioners? I don't see how it is possible unless I am missing something.

    One option I can think of off the top of my head would be have deputy commissioners. I can understand that there aren't enough different areas for 27 different commissioners but I can't see why certain departments can't benefit from having two commissioners. They can still go ahead ahead and reduce the main commissioners to 18 but instead of excluding the other countries, they could instead have them acting as deputy commissioners in the more important departments. That way every country would always have at least some representation in the main law-making authority in the EU.

    Deleted User wrote:
    The only way of avoiding that is to withdraw from the EU and thats no answer.

    Why is it not an answer? Why can do what the Norwegians are doing? They have as much access to EU markets as we do and yet they don't have to sacrifice any of their independence.


  • Options
    #21
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    O'Morris wrote: »
    One option I can think of off the top of my head would be have deputy commissioners. I can understand that there aren't enough different areas for 27 different commissioners but I can't see why certain departments can't benefit from having two commissioners. They can still go ahead ahead and reduce the main commissioners to 18 but instead of excluding the other countries, they could instead have them acting as deputy commissioners in the more important departments. That way every country would always have at least some representation in the main law-making authority in the EU.

    It's not a bad idea but I do see a flaw in it. There is usually a top level civil servant who understands the organisation and the role of the department within it very well, they are what you could call a deputy. If you where to replace them with a rotating system where by each country would periodically get to select a different deputy, the commissioner wouldn't have the experience of a long serving civil servant to guide them.
    O'Morris wrote: »
    Why is it not an answer? Why can do what the Norwegians are doing? They have as much access to EU markets as we do and yet they don't have to sacrifice any of their independence.

    Not entirely true they have to implement all laws regarding the common market, yet they have no say in formulating them. The also are subservient to the ECJ without being able to have a say in appointing judges.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    carveone
    Registered Users Posts: 1,212 ✭✭✭carveone


    O'Morris wrote: »
    One option I can think of off the top of my head would be have deputy commissioners. I can understand that there aren't enough different areas for 27 different commissioners but I can't see why

    Libertas would then phrase it as "Our commissioner forced to be a servant of France" or some such.

    But I see what you mean. On the other hand, it would odd to have 26 TDs, one for each county, with multiple deputy Finance ministers for example. Someone has to dictate policy and that's the minister, below him/her is the highest level civil servant in that department. Not sure what the deputy would be doing other than arguing or making tea.


  • Options
    #23
    O'Morris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭O'Morris


    sink wrote:
    There is usually a top level civil servant who understands the organisation and the role of the department within it very well

    The deputy commissioner would not be a replacement for any senior civil servant. The role of the deputy commissioner would be to take on some of the minor responsibilities of the main commissioner. The person occupying the current role of deputy could still continue to function as normal.


    carveone wrote: »
    Not sure what the deputy would be doing other than arguing or making tea.

    They wouldn't really need to do much. In fact, they should be encouraged to do as little as possible. Their role in the commission would be mainly representative, to ensure that their country is represented in the executive branch of the EU.


  • Options
    #24
    O'Morris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭O'Morris


    Can anyone address the point about whether some countries are able to have two commissioners?

    Is is possible that some countries can have more than one commissioner?


  • Options
    #25
    BMH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 804 ✭✭✭BMH


    O'Morris wrote: »
    They wouldn't really need to do much. In fact, they should be encouraged to do as little as possible. Their role in the commission would be mainly representative, to ensure that their country is represented in the executive branch of the EU.

    But this is the main problem-commissioners aren't supposed to be representative of national interests. If you bring in something like that you'll start spats of who's put in charge of Competition and who's left with Culture and Sport.


  • Options
    #26
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    O'Morris wrote: »
    Can anyone address the point about whether some countries are able to have two commissioners?

    Is is possible that some countries can have more than one commissioner?

    All countries only have one commissioner for 10 out of every 15 years and they are rotated amongst the members states equally.


  • Options
    #27
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    O'Morris wrote: »
    Can anyone address the point about whether some countries are able to have two commissioners?

    Is is possible that some countries can have more than one commissioner?

    Not really. The full Nice Protocol on enlargement includes the stipulation that the difference in number of terms between any two member states shall never be more than one.

    That means that no country can be "missing" for two terms in a row.
    Why is it not an answer? Why can do what the Norwegians are doing? They have as much access to EU markets as we do and yet they don't have to sacrifice any of their independence.

    That is in fact not at all the case. Norway passes all EU legislation into law except legislation affecting agriculture and fisheries - but they have no vote on EU legislation whatsoever. They are a good deal less independent than Ireland.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #28
    O'Morris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭O'Morris


    sink wrote: »
    All countries only have one commissioner for 10 out of every 15 years and they are rotated amongst the members states equally.

    But how do you explain that reference to countries not being allowed to having more than two commissioners? Why does it say two commissioners instead of just one?


  • Options
    #29
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    O'Morris wrote: »
    But how do you explain that reference to countries not being allowed to having more than two commissioners? Why does it say two commissioners instead of just one?

    Frankly, I think people get confused about it. A lot of people still think the larger states have 2 Commissioners.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #30
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    O'Morris wrote: »
    But how do you explain that reference to countries not being allowed to having more than two commissioners? Why does it say two commissioners instead of just one?

    Before Nice was ratified large countries (Germany, France, UK, Italy and Spain) had 2 commissioners everyone else had 1. At this stage there were 15 states. When nice was ratified in 2002 all countries had just 1 commissioner, this was a temporary situation to deal with the 10 accession states in 2004, the political leaders at the time fully expected the constitution to come into force round about 2005/2006. There was a clause put in the nice treaty encase the constitution failed that when the number of states reached 27 there would be less commissioners than states. This was to cope with such a large number commissions as 27 is not practical as there is just not enough responsibilities to go round.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    O'Morris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭O'Morris


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Frankly, I think people get confused about it. A lot of people still think the larger states have 2 Commissioners.

    And if the quote from that wikipedia article is correct, they could still possibly have two commissioners.

    Just take a look at what it says on wikipedia
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eu_commission#Future_of_the_Commission
    "The representation would be rotated equally between all states and no state would have more than two in any single Commission."
    That clearly refers to states not being allowed to have more than two commissioners in a single commission, not just in in subsequent terms.

    It's possible wikipedia have got it wrong but I don't think so. I remember seeing mention of this before. Can someone confirm if the wording in the wikipedia article is accurate or if differs much from what's in the treaty?


Advertisement