Prime Time Lisbon Special

The_Minister

Did anyone else watch the Prime Time special on the Lisbon Treaty?
I thought it was the first time that a simple intelligent explanation had been given in public.
There is another one coming up soon too.

djpbarry

Yes, I saw some of it, namely the debate at the end. Decent attempt from Brian Lenihan and Brendan Butler to cut through some of the scaremongering.

redspider

(I saw the programme and have to admit that I still have a soft spot for Leslie Dowdall! ;-) )

Back to the mundane, one aspect that is being continually discussed is whether the reduction of the Commisioners as proposed by the treaty is a good thing or a bad thing for Ireland, other countries and the working of the EU. Time and time again we hear that a body of 27 people is unworkable, and busineses couldnt be ran that way. It is true that businesses couldnt be ran that way, and indeed aren't. Best practice even has top management teams of around 8 people maximum, even less can be better as businesses tend to only have several real functions, selling their product/service, and providing the product/service.

The problem with this analogy is that it doesnt translate to the EU Commisioners situation and its effectiveness. For one, the EU is not a business. It is 500 million people. It has many more aspects to it than a business does. Interests are represented by a Commisioner of each country, who cant rely on the bona fides of another country's commisioner, no matter how well intended they may be on paper. The EU Commision is more equivalent to a seminar type of meeting. Easily 27 people can attend. Even IBEC have meetings with more than 27 people. I have been at them! And if governments can be ran wit h8 people or 5 people, why doesnt the Irish government do that and lead by example and reduce its no of ministers to 5 ?!? Ironically, FF have been increasing the no of ministers in recent decades! So much for the smaller is better theory.

Also interesting to note the quote from Charlie McCreevy in the SB Post over the weekend:

As one who has sat around a table of 27 commissioners every week for the past four years, I tend to the view that a college of commissioners two-thirds the size of this might be more effective and cohesive than a college of the current size.

For that reason, I think it may be worthwhile for each member state sacrifice one term out of every three, so that during the other two terms they may be more powerful and more effective.

So, he is admitting that when Ireland (or any other country) doesnt have a Commisioner at the table, that their position is weakened (as it is the opposite of 'more powerful'). He, as a Commisioner is readily admitting that. Perhaps we should all take note.

I think the question of whether the Commision should be more democratically appointed is perhaps what should have been addressed in the Lisbon or any EU Reform Treaty. It hasnt.

Charlie goes on to say:

I would be the first to admit that, if the writing of the treaty was within my exclusive gift, I would have liked it to contain some ambitious and radical measures to reform the European Commission, especially in respect of institutional continuity.

I believe each new commission should set its own policies and goals and not be hamstrung with what its predecessor left. Otherwise, we spend too much time dealing with the legacies of the past and not enough on setting new priorities.

This aspect is not up for a decision and is not contained in the treaty. Charlie is recognising publicly that the treaty has its faults, that it can reduce our (any country's) power, especially a small country with less votes elsewhere, and that it fails to reform where it should.

The question for voters is to decide if any of these faults are adequate to sway your vote to No. That is the biggest decision that has to be made. The Yes camp are scaremongering by saying there is no Plan B. Well, that's not true, if people vote No, the EU will be forced to look at the problems in the Treaty, to see if they can be addressed or not. There was no Plan B with Nice either by the way.

Denis Hickey also came to reasonable conclusions, that the attributes of the treaty are interpretive. And this is one of the dangers lurking. The treaty is not 'tight' nor clear in all aspects. Its wishy washy. eg: it mentions a citizens initiative, nice on paper, but like many other protests, it can be completely ignored by the politicians. It has no power.

Whats is clear is that the new QMV reduces the barrier for 'sticky' items to pass and reduces Ireland's votes and that of other small nations within that system.

Overall, I think the EU can and should be improved. But whether the Lisbon Treaty is the best way of doing that is another story. It has many warts and faults, so whether voters can pass it warts and all is another story. Given that Ireland is the only country where its people can decide, it is placing a burden on us. For me, there are too many problems with it to let it pass and we should not allow 'bad legislation' to pass.

Redspider

Moriarty

redspider wrote: »

Back to the mundane, one aspect that is being continually discussed is whether the reduction of the Commisioners as proposed by the treaty is a good thing or a bad thing for Ireland, other countries and the working of the EU. Time and time again we hear that a body of 27 people is unworkable, and busineses couldnt be ran that way. It is true that businesses couldnt be ran that way, and indeed aren't. Best practice even has top management teams of around 8 people maximum, even less can be better as businesses tend to only have several real functions, selling their product/service, and providing the product/service.

The problem with this analogy is that it doesnt translate to the EU Commisioners situation and its effectiveness. For one, the EU is not a business. It is 500 million people. It has many more aspects to it than a business does. Interests are represented by a Commisioner of each country, who cant rely on the bona fides of another country's commisioner, no matter how well intended they may be on paper. The EU Commision is more equivalent to a seminar type of meeting. Easily 27 people can attend. Even IBEC have meetings with more than 27 people. I have been at them! And if governments can be ran wit h8 people or 5 people, why doesnt the Irish government do that and lead by example and reduce its no of ministers to 5 ?!? Ironically, FF have been increasing the no of ministers in recent decades! So much for the smaller is better theory.

There are a handful of overall segments of government whether you're looking at it from a local or pan-european perspective. You'll always have justice, health, environment, defence, finance and a smattering of others. Simply because the commission is governing over more people doesn't mean that more areas of responsibility are created.

I'm pretty sure we're constitutionally bound to a specific number of ministers in Ireland, hence the increase in "junior minister" positions. No matter who's in power however, you'll always have the core areas of responsibility represented by one department.

redspider wrote: »

Also interesting to note the quote from Charlie McCreevy in the SB Post over the weekend:


So, he is admitting that when Ireland (or any other country) doesnt have a Commisioner at the table, that their position is weakened (as it is the opposite of 'more powerful'). He, as a Commisioner is readily admitting that. Perhaps we should all take note.

I strongly disagree with your interpretation. Commissoners are appointed to represent the EU in the area they're appointed for, not to represent or lobby on behalf of their home countries. He is saying that with the reduced number of commissioners, each remaining commissioner will have increased power and effectiveness over their areas of responsibility.

ateam

Saw this too, Brian Lenihan came across very well.

Is Mary Lou MacDonald the only one in Sinn Fein? She is going to lose her seat next year. Sinn Fein just say no to everything.

Who are Libertas by the way!?

redspider

Moriarty wrote: »

Commissoners are appointed to represent the EU in the area they're appointed for, not to represent or lobby on behalf of their home countries.

He is saying that with the reduced number of commissioners, each remaining commissioner will have increased power and effectiveness over their areas of responsibility.

If Commissioners were responible for specific areas only and no joint decisions were made, there would be no need for them to meet at all. They could just disseminate their own independent decisions via emails, reports, etc.

But that is not how it works. Of course they make decisions together and collective decisions. Indeed, many a commissioner has to represent the overall view of the commission even though they may be against it. And countries have different interests. There is nobody else at the Commission table looking out for Ireland's interests other than the Irish Commissioner. Wouldnt it be much better if the people of Irelqand could vote nationally for the Irish Commissioner? That's a change that I would like to see and more democratic than the current situation.

And another example of that (Commissioners not always doing what they want) perhaps is Charlie McCreevy and the reduction of the no of commissioners. Reading between the lines of what he wrote, he is against such a reduction. And he is exactly saying that when you dont have a commissioner at the table that you have less power than when a country does have one.

The counter-argument is that all countries are in the same boat. Yes, that is true, Ireland will lose a commisioner place whilst other countries such as Germany lose theirs. But this is counterbalanced by the increase in votes the larger countries will get. They will become more powerful elsewhere and so can bring influence to bear even when not at the table. Make no bonesabout it, Germany will always have its interests served, they will be the invisible gust at the dinner table.

I can see where QMV reduced to 55% may help move things along, for example, as a change that may have some merit. But the advantages of reducing the no of Commissioners from 27 to 20 is facile, and is completly outweighed by the disadvantages, which Charlie alludes to 'covertly'.

Redspider

BMH

redspider wrote: »

But that is not how it works. Of course they make decisions together and collective decisions. Indeed, many a commissioner has to represent the overall view of the commission even though they may be against it. And countries have different interests. There is nobody else at the Commission table looking out for Ireland's interests other than the Irish Commissioner. Wouldnt it be much better if the people of Irelqand could vote nationally for the Irish Commissioner? That's a change that I would like to see and more democratic than the current situation.

But that's the thing, Commissioners aren't supposed to represent us, so it wouldn't make sense if they had to depend on pleasing a specific demographic(ie, Ireland) to keep their job.

superhooper

I agree with you Red in relation to the use of the business analogy re the commission. They are not comparing like with like as in business one would appoint those who are most capable rather than those who are more favored(usually anyway!).

sink

The commission is not the place to fight for national interests, the council is geared towards that role quiet nicely. The reason the commission meets is so they can co-ordinate their various proposals and departments. They overlap quiet a bit, to have no communication between commissioners would be a disaster. Ever heard of aligning policy both vertically and horizontally in private business? The same principle applies here.

Moriarty

redspider, you've completely missed the point that the commissioners aren't there to represent, lobby or "look out for" their country. The commission is there to propose EU law.

The council and parliament are where national representation and lobbying takes place.

Scofflaw

redspider wrote: »

If Commissioners were responible for specific areas only and no joint decisions were made, there would be no need for them to meet at all. They could just disseminate their own independent decisions via emails, reports, etc.

By the same logic, Irish Ministers need not meet in Cabinet.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hotblack Desiato

redspider wrote: »

Back to the mundane, one aspect that is being continually discussed is whether the reduction of the Commisioners as proposed by the treaty is a good thing or a bad thing for Ireland, other countries and the working of the EU.

Interesting issue but less relevant to the Lisbon debate than you'd think.

We already agreed in the Nice treaty that once the EU reached 27 member states there would be no automatic right to a commissioner. Lisbon just sets out how this reduction is to take place.

The "Keep our commissioner - vote no" Libertas posters are complete tripe. If we vote no, we will lose our automatic right to a commissioner next year, anyway. Lisbon actually delays this.

Scofflaw

redspider wrote: »

If Commissioners were responible for specific areas only and no joint decisions were made, there would be no need for them to meet at all. They could just disseminate their own independent decisions via emails, reports, etc.

But that is not how it works. Of course they make decisions together and collective decisions. Indeed, many a commissioner has to represent the overall view of the commission even though they may be against it. And countries have different interests. There is nobody else at the Commission table looking out for Ireland's interests other than the Irish Commissioner. Wouldnt it be much better if the people of Irelqand could vote nationally for the Irish Commissioner? That's a change that I would like to see and more democratic than the current situation.

It's been pointed out before that that is actually a dreadful idea. It leads to a competitive election within Ireland (and every other country) in which the various candidates would promise to get this, that, or the other for different Irish groups once they were elected.

The Commissioners, once elected, then have to ignore the interests of other European countries and try to get their promised policies implemented. With 26 other countries' Commissioners all trying to do the same, that's a contest we can't possibly come well out of.

Your suggestion would actually take what is generally agreed to be the worst thing about Irish politics (the 'parish-pump' nature of it), and translate that up to a European scale. Congratulations.

redspider wrote: »

And another example of that (Commissioners not always doing what they want) perhaps is Charlie McCreevy and the reduction of the no of commissioners. Reading between the lines of what he wrote, he is against such a reduction. And he is exactly saying that when you dont have a commissioner at the table that you have less power than when a country does have one.

Hmm. McCreevy doesn't say anything like your claim - what he says is that a reduced Commission is likely to be more effective and cohesive. He goes on to say that if countries are willing to give up one term in three, their Commissioners will be part of a more effective Commission. The "for that reason" bit is a dead giveaway, assuming one is reading what he actually says.

redspider wrote: »

The counter-argument is that all countries are in the same boat. Yes, that is true, Ireland will lose a commisioner place whilst other countries such as Germany lose theirs. But this is counterbalanced by the increase in votes the larger countries will get. They will become more powerful elsewhere and so can bring influence to bear even when not at the table. Make no bonesabout it, Germany will always have its interests served, they will be the invisible gust at the dinner table.

I can see where QMV reduced to 55% may help move things along, for example, as a change that may have some merit. But the advantages of reducing the no of Commissioners from 27 to 20 is facile, and is completly outweighed by the disadvantages, which Charlie alludes to 'covertly'.

Sigh. Every country will still be represented on the nationally representative institutions - the Councils and the Parliament. Commissioners are heads of departments of the EU civil service, not national representatives. The EU civil service is smaller than our HSE, which has only one Minister in charge of it.

regards,
Scofflaw