Questions and Answers on Now

ateam

sink wrote: »

Do you realise that we were the only ones to vote on the Nice treaty as well. I don't remember many people factoring that in to their decision back then.

So what? Who are we to say what way the Austrians, the Estonians or the Spanish brought in the Treaty is wrong or undemocratic? They elected the people governments after all, they have a democratic mandate.

sink

ateam wrote: »

So what? Who are we to say what way the Austrians, the Estonians or the Spanish brought in the Treaty is wrong or undemocratic? They elected the people governments after all, they have a democratic mandate.

That's the point i'm getting at, well done.

humanji

billy the squid wrote: »

There are 496 million eu citizens who have been denied that freedom to vote on this treaty.

There are 496 million eu citizens who democratically elected governments to take care of their countries for them, and those governments decided that it wasn't necessary for a referendum.

billy the squid

ateam wrote: »

Not relevant at all to the Treaty.

Yes it is relavent. A no vote would give the EU an opportunity to present this treaty to all the people. A yes vote would put it through without their concent.

Agent Smith

AngryHippie wrote: »

What do the bookies reckon ?

Yes 2/7

No 9/4

(paddypower.com)

redspider

redspider wrote: »

(1) How is it wrong for the No side to suggest that? Any 'observed' deficiency or advantage in the treaty is surely a basis for voting one way or the other. Or are you proposing that even if it is a recognised 'wart' by some, that they can should still vote Yes? I agree that someone could decide that on balance (considering all the warts and all the advantages) they can vote Yes or indeed No, depending on how they assess the balance. But any voter can use just one deficiency or just one advantage to sway them one way or the other,

Because it's wrong to suggest that no to Lisbon means we keep a commissioner-very simple

and if someone wants to vote No due to the lack of a Commissioner (even if its already in Nice-II), they can do so.

Of course they can and I'll still be right in saying they are mistaken in their logic.

(2) I dont know the ins and outs of how or what the ECJ can do in terms of over-riding protocols, laws and treaties when there are 'conflicts'. The various cases in Ireland over the years and our own referenda show how abortion is a very difficult topic. The right-to-travel of course practically 'solves it', but the debate rages on more from an academic point of view and on a point of principle rather than anything else. In practical purposes, what the EU and ECJ decides, doesnt matter.

Redspider

The debate rages on only from the likes of youth defence and the remains of spuc etc.
It's an irrelevancy in a freedom of movement scenario anyway.

ateam

billy the squid wrote: »

Yes it is relavent. A no vote would give the EU an opportunity to present this treaty to all the people. A yes vote would put it through without their concent.

Their consent was given in each of the countries' general elections. The parliament in each country represents the people, the voters, so the people have given their consent to the Treaty. That's why we elect people all the time, so they make decisions like this and if we don't like them, we can vote them out at the next election.

Call Me Jimmy

billy the squid wrote: »

There are 496 million eu citizens who have been denied that freedom to vote on this treaty.

So any time a government makes a decision it is denying the people the freedom to vote on it?
Have you even considered the fact that it might not be the big bad 1984 treaty that comes to your house and slaughters your children and that all the representatives have spent years trying to get it right and each government in the union sees it as a positive step?

billy the squid

sink wrote: »

Do you realise that we were the only ones to vote on the Nice treaty as well. I don't remember many people factoring that in to their decision back then.

Yes I do, and do you realise that when we rejected nice the first time the government went all Robert Mugabe and held another referrendum in order to get the result they wanted?

Call Me Jimmy

I do recall the headlines of the government's proxy groups going out to rural ireland and burning houses down to make people vote yes the second time come to think of it...

TelePaul

call Me Jimmy wrote: »

i Do Recall The Headlines Of The Government's Proxy Groups Going Out To Rural Ireland And Burning Houses Down To Make People Vote Yes The Second Time Come To Think Of It...

:d :d :d

billy the squid

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I do recall the headlines of the government's proxy groups going out to rural ireland and burning houses down to make people vote yes the second time come to think of it...

I was referring to the way election after election is being held in Zimbabwe so that he can get the result he wants. but then I suspect you already knew that and are trying to be funny.

The_Minister

billy the squid wrote: »

Yes I do, and do you realise that when we rejected nice the first time the government went all Robert Mugabe and held another referrendum in order to get the result they wanted?

Er....no.
They looked at why we said no.
They addressed the reason.
They asked us what we thought of it now.
We said yes.

Call Me Jimmy

billy the squid wrote: »

I was referring to the way election after election is being held in Zimbabwe so that he can get the result he wants. but then I suspect you already knew that and are trying to be funny.

I was assuming you were trying to be funny with the Bobby Mugabe comment. Comparing the nice treaty on any level to the dealings of that chap is a plain dumb thing to do if ye weren't joking.

oscarBravo

billy the squid wrote: »

I was referring to the way election after election is being held in Zimbabwe so that he can get the result he wants. but then I suspect you already knew that and are trying to be funny.

Alternatively, maybe he knew what you meant but wanted to highlight the fact that there's a subtle difference between holding two referenda and being a murdering tinpot dictator.

Anyone who thinks there's any comparison between the Nice referenda and what's going on in Zimbabwe needs to check themselves in for a perspective adjustment.

jmayo

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

The the one billionth time, WE DO NOT OWN COMMISSIONERS! They are representatives of the EU not of their countries, it doesnt matter where they come from, what matters is what they represent when they elected into the position. A commissioner from ireland wont and cant do anything *for* ireland. Thats what the Council of Ministers is for, they represent the individual member states. So we cant lose what is not ours to begin with. This change needs to come because the the structure of the commission has become outdated with the expansion.

He may be representing the EU but I find it hard to believe that any commissioner is likely to go totally against his own nations government's interests.
Actually I believe it does matter where a commissioner comes from since it has a bearing on attitudes and believes.
Would a trade commissioner from France, Denmark or Ireland negotiate a deal that would sell out European agriculture ?
I find it hard to believe.
It would be like asking a trade commissioner from Germany to sell out the European automotive industry :rolleyes:
Having a commissioner means we have a voice of sorts at the EU commission.

One question I do have is how come the EU commission seems to be a dumping ground for failed or unwanted politicans ?

Dandelion6

jmayo wrote: »

He may be representing the EU but I find it hard to believe that any commissioner is likely to go totally against his own nations government's interests.
Actually I believe it does matter where a commissioner comes from since it has a bearing on attitudes and believes.
Would a trade commissioner from France, Denmark or Ireland negotiate a deal that would sell out European agriculture ?
I find it hard to believe.

Exactly. Just like Cabinet Ministers are supposed to work for the good of the Irish state and not their constituency, but sure didn't McCreevy look after Punchestown well when he was in Finance ... :rolleyes:

oscarBravo

Dandelion6 wrote: »

Exactly. Just like Cabinet Ministers are supposed to work for the good of the Irish state and not their constituency, but sure didn't McCreevy look after Punchestown well when he was in Finance ... :rolleyes:

The key difference is, Irish cabinet ministers are also TDs, and have to keep an eye on re-election. This is a compelling reason not to have elected Commissioners.

jmayo

oscarBravo wrote: »

The key difference is, Irish cabinet ministers are also TDs, and have to keep an eye on re-election. This is a compelling reason not to have elected Commissioners.

You could stretch that to prove that a moarchy could be better than a democratically elected government.
Commissioners seem to be picked as a way of rewarding or pensioning off personalities close to the government of the day.
That is where I have a problem. You can get some good ones and some stinkers (ala current trade commissioner).

oscarBravo

jmayo wrote: »

You can get some good ones and some stinkers...

Would this be any different if they were directly elected? Can't you think of a single member of our own elected cabinet that you'd rather not see there?

jmayo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Would this be any different if they were directly elected? Can't you think of a single member of our own elected cabinet that you'd rather not see there?

Jeeze where do you want me to start. Have you got an hour ?

oscarBravo

The prosecution rests, m'lud.

sink

oscarBravo wrote: »

The key difference is, Irish cabinet ministers are also TDs, and have to keep an eye on re-election. This is a compelling reason not to have elected Commissioners.

I do believe that commissioner should represent the EU and not were they were born. In the future once the European parliament is more mature and proper party politics has taken hold, I would like to see the commission replaced by a cabinet of MEP's. This is decades away from becoming practical mind you so the system in place atm will do for now.

gordon_gekko

im an ardent yes voter but i thought the no side of the panel won hands down last night , i cant stand mary lou ( not because shes from sinn fein ) but i thought she was very good last night
there is something of the night about that ganley fellow but hes a very good spokesman too , michael martin doesnt have a particulary clear speaking voice , they should have had most non fianna fail voters favourite fianna failer ( dermot aherne ) there
as for enda , i agree that him mentioning the ira was so lame , hes so borring , you cant actually hear what hes saying

finally that woman from choir or what ever its called who heckled from the audience all night , that woman represents everything that men see as the worst aspects of the fairer sex

murphaph

gordon_gekko wrote: »

im an ardent yes voter but i thought the no side of the panel won hands down last night , i cant stand mary lou ( not because shes from sinn fein ) but i thought she was very good last night
there is something of the night about that ganley fellow but hes a very good spokesman too , michael martin doesnt have a particulary clear speaking voice , they should have had most non fianna fail voters favourite fianna failer ( dermot aherne ) there
as for enda , i agree that him mentioning the ira was so lame , hes so borring , you cant actually hear what hes saying

finally that woman from choir or what ever its called who heckled from the audience all night , that woman represents everything that men see as the worst aspects of the fairer sex

Lol, I agree with every word except I'm an ardent NO voter.

Dandelion6

oscarBravo wrote: »

The key difference is, Irish cabinet ministers are also TDs, and have to keep an eye on re-election. This is a compelling reason not to have elected Commissioners.

It sounds like a compelling reason not to have elected cabinet ministers, too. Are you suggesting we go down that route?

And if commissioners really aren't expected to represent their country in any way, why does each country get one (albeit, post-Lisbon if it passes, for only 10 out of every 15 years) - why not just have them picked by some other formula that ignores their nationality entirely?

oscarBravo

Dandelion6 wrote: »

It sounds like a compelling reason not to have elected cabinet ministers, too. Are you suggesting we go down that route?

I have often thought about whether or not it's a good idea.

There is a key difference: people don't vote in an Irish general election for cabinet members; they vote for members of parliament who might end up appointed to cabinet, but (statistically speaking) are unlikely to.

And if commissioners really aren't expected to represent their country in any way, why does each country get one (albeit, post-Lisbon if it passes, for only 10 out of every 15 years) - why not just have them picked by some other formula that ignores their nationality entirely?

Largely for historical reasons. Originally the Commission was made up of a representative from each member state in order to make sure everyone kept everyone else in check. As the Union has evolved, it has become clear that consensus is the principle modus operandi, so it's less necessary.

As to why not change it: there's no compelling reason to. It works.

Dandelion6

oscarBravo wrote: »

There is a key difference: people don't vote in an Irish general election for cabinet members; they vote for members of parliament who might end up appointed to cabinet, but (statistically speaking) are unlikely to.

That's only true up until the time they become cabinet members. In a general election a sitting cabinet member is (effectively) running not only for TD but to be returned to his or her post.

As to why not change it: there's no compelling reason to. It works.

Ha, that's not something we've been hearing much from the Yes side for the past couple months

Anyway if such a change were proposed, do you honestly believe that the main objection to it would be that "there's no compelling reason" to change it? After all one of the reasons we're being told not to object to the loss of a commissioner for five years out of every 15 is that the same change will affect every other country - implicit in this is acceptance of the idea that member states need equal representation in the Commission.

sink

Dandelion6 wrote: »

That's only true up until the time they become cabinet members. In a general election a sitting cabinet member is (effectively) running not only for TD but to be returned to his or her post.

But only their constituency get to vote them in/out. Also most general elections result in a cabinet reshuffle, plenty of ministers have lost their posts after a general election.

Dandelion6 wrote: »

Ha, that's not something we've been hearing much from the Yes side for the past couple months

I don't think it's the best system possible, but alot of countries still harbour nationalistic concerns and don't trust other countries enough.

Dandelion6 wrote: »

Anyway if such a change were proposed, do you honestly believe that the main objection to it would be that "there's no compelling reason" to change it? After all one of the reasons we're being told not to object to the loss of a commissioner for five years out of every 15 is that the same change will affect every other country - implicit in this is acceptance of the idea that member states need equal representation in the Commission.

The reason were loosing a commissioner has nothing to do with equal representation. You have to separate the two issues.

1. The current commission is too big. Some policy areas are split over two or more commissioners, which results in inconsistent and mix messages coming from the commission. It also wastes money as the surplus commissioners even though they have no added benefit need to be provide with staff, office space and not to mention their own salaries. In other words a commission of 27 is an ineffective waste of money.

2. Citizens of member states still harbour nationalistic concerns and don't trust that an impartial commission will treat them fairly. (I believe the history of the commission has largely discredited this belief, but none the less it persists)

Now taking account of these two separate but connected issues the rotation system is the best compromise possible. And I don't see how Sinn Fein/Libertas believe a better deal is possible.

murphaph

sink wrote: »

1. The current commission is too big. Some policy areas are split over two or more commissioners, which results in inconsistent and mix messages coming from the commission. It also wastes money as the surplus commissioners even though they have no added benefit need to be provide with staff, office space and not to mention their own salaries. In other words a commission of 27 is an ineffective waste of money.

I believe this cost issue is a red herring. Seriously, 15 commissioners and their staff or 27 will make damn all difference to the EU budget in the grand scheme of things.