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

DeVore

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..

Call Me Jimmy

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

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.

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?

DeVore

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


DeV.

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.

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.

h2s

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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...

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.

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).

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.

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 .

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

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?

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

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....

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

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

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.