Could we lose our Commissioner

Iwasfrozen

Under the Nice Treaty we agreed to cut the number of Commissioners, so far that has not been brought into effect in the hope that the Commissioner-sharing policy in the Lisbon Treaty would be a "fairer" system, now that the Lisbon Treaty has been regected the EU will be forced to lean back on the Nice Treaty and may cut the number of Commissioners, seeing as the EU is now "pissed of" at Ireland could our Commissioner be shown the door ?
We may have voted not to share our Commissiner but I think few Irish Voters where aware of this part of the Nice Treaty.

marco_polo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Under the Nice Treaty we agreed to cut the number of Commissioners, so far that has not been brought into effect in the hope that the Commissioner-sharing policy in the Lisbon Treaty would be a "fairer" system, now that the Lisbon Treaty has been regected the EU will be forced to lean back on the Nice Treaty and may cut the number of Commissioners, seeing as the EU is now "pissed of" at Ireland could our Commissioner be shown the door ?
We may have voted not to share our Commissiner but I think few Irish Voters where aware of this part of the Nice Treaty.

It is possible if another agreement on the commisionwas made independently of the Lisbon Treaty. Wouldn't need a referendum either. Would be a brave Irish government that would agree to it though.

Iwasfrozen

They would be railroaded into it.
The Irish people do not understand what they have done. :mad:

dloob

It would be nice to see libertas explain how a No vote lost our Commisioner

marco_polo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They would be railroaded into it.
The Irish people do not understand what they have done. :mad:

I am not saying it will happen but it is possible in theory. What was in the Lisbon treaty was meerly a proposal as to how this reduction would happen. There is nothing that I can see to stop other proposals as to how to go about this from being put forward in the aftermath of Lisbon.

sink

It is more than likely that the rotation system agreed to in Lisbon will come into effect next year. Unless in the next six months the European council comes up with a different consensus to the one they already have, which I don't think is very likely. I spent the last two months telling people this. I hope they demand an apology from Declan Ganley for lying to them for saying we would keep our commissioner if we voted no.

Scofflaw

marco_polo wrote: »

It is possible if another agreement on the commisionwas made independently of the Lisbon Treaty. Wouldn't need a referendum either. Would be a brave Irish government that would agree to it though.

There isn't much of an option. Nice makes it obligatory that the Commission be reduced. If it is not reduced, the Commission's legal basis would be rather shaky, to say the least. That in turn would make questionable the legal basis of legislation they propose.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

sink wrote: »

It is more than likely that the rotation system agreed to in Lisbon will come into effect next year. Unless in the next six months the European council comes up with a different consensus to the one they already have, which I don't think is very likely. I spent the last two months telling people this. I hope they demand an apology from Declan Ganley for lying to them for saying we would keep our commissioner if we voted no.

I would love to see that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Pride Fighter

Scofflaw wrote: »

I would love to see that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So would I. I voted no but did not vote no the basis of 'losing our commissioner' which was a lie invented by Libertas, a grouping I despise.

Tar.Aldarion

Scofflaw wrote: »

There isn't much of an option. Nice makes it obligatory that the Commission be reduced. If it is not reduced, the Commission's legal basis would be rather shaky, to say the least. That in turn would make questionable the legal basis of legislation they propose.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Do you have the text of the Nice treaty about this? I saw it at some stage but can't remember it.
Somebody I live with says he heard there is some loophole where it is not reduced.

Maybe it is the idea that the Eu renegotiate the treaty in our favour to let us keep a fixed commissioner to vote yes...

Scofflaw

Pride Fighter wrote: »

So would I. I voted no but did not vote no the basis of 'losing our commissioner' which was a lie invented by Libertas, a grouping I despise.

I have to say, my antipathy for Libertas isn't based on their choice of side.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ircoha

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Do you have the text of the Nice treaty about this? I saw it at some stage but can't remember it.
Somebody I live with says he heard there is some loophole where it is not reduced.

Maybe it is the idea that the Eu renegotiate the treaty in our favour to let us keep a fixed commissioner to vote yes...

Sean Whelan was very clear on this point on the radio today on the PK show just before 1100.
The reason being that the big countries, and he specifically named germany were unhappy that they would not have a Comm for 5 years so the backdoor option was left there.
In SW's opinion the Comm issue is immediately solved if need be.

marco_polo

Scofflaw wrote: »

There isn't much of an option. Nice makes it obligatory that the Commission be reduced. If it is not reduced, the Commission's legal basis would be rather shaky, to say the least. That in turn would make questionable the legal basis of legislation they propose.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Really? This makes things very interesting indeed in that case.

Scofflaw

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Do you have the text of the Nice treaty about this? I saw it at some stage but can't remember it.
Somebody I live with says he heard there is some loophole where it is not reduced.

Maybe it is the idea that the Eu renegotiate the treaty in our favour to let us keep a fixed commissioner to vote yes...

Protocol on the Enlargement of the Union:

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.

I don't see much of a loophole in that, myself.

cordially,
Scofflaw

genericgoon

I just hope this doesn't mean we get further shafted and we end up with a UN security counsil style commission. Unlikely thankfully. Wonder what kind of goodies the bigger countires would offer to get that arrangement however?

Tar.Aldarion

Thanks scofflaw.

Sean Whelan was very clear on this point on the radio today on the PK show just before 1100.
The reason being that the big countries, and he specifically named germany were unhappy that they would not have a Comm for 5 years so the backdoor option was left there.
In SW's opinion the Comm issue is immediately solved if need be.

Where exactly is this left open? What is the basis?

marco_polo

Scofflaw wrote: »

Protocol on the Enlargement of the Union:



I don't see much of a loophole in that, myself.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So everything was in Nice already bar the exact number of commisioners to be retained. I was under the impression it had been more of a vague statement of intent.

leninbenjamin

wow, i have to say I'm very surprised at the amount still not familiar with all this, at least on boards. it's been an ongoing subject of discussion for the past few weeks.

@Marco: Nice was a bit vaguer than that if i'm not mistaken. i don't think it went on to specify how exactly the positions will be rotated at least...

marco_polo

leninbenjamin wrote: »

wow, i have to say I'm very surprised at the amount still not familiar with all this, at least on boards. it's been an ongoing subject of discussion for the past few weeks.

@Marco: Nice was a bit vaguer than that if i'm not mistaken. i don't think it went on to specify how exactly the positions will be rotated at least...

I was avoiding the politics forum recently so I probably missed a few topics.

I thought the Scoflaws post was the text of the Nice treaty I think I got confused.

leninbenjamin

marco_polo wrote: »

I thought the Scoflaws post was the text of the Nice treaty I think I got confused.

no that is. it just mentions rotation system, but i don't think goes into any further details as to how it would be implemented. Scofflaw can clear it up anyway i'm sure...

tolosenc

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the phrase "Irish Comissioner" a bit misleading in the first place? I thought he was an EU comissioner who just happened to be from Ireland, but was in charge of, say, fisheries?

marco_polo

leninbenjamin wrote: »

no that is. it just mentions rotation system, but i don't think goes into any further details as to how it would be implemented. Scofflaw can clear it up anyway i'm sure...

Damn right the first time. I'm the exact same when I play roulette.

axer

So am I right in thinking that 26 commissioner is still less than the number of countries? Who determines how many commissioners there will be then?

Duffman

Scofflaw wrote: »

Protocol on the Enlargement of the Union:



I don't see much of a loophole in that, myself.

cordially,
Scofflaw

We are required to agree to a reduction. The exact manner in which this is to happen is to be agreed unanimously but we need to agree to something that leads to a reduction by the deadline.

Failure to do so would probably constitute a failure to meet our obligations under Community law.

Like it or not we're losing a Commissioner, only now our bargaining strength has been all but destroyed.

axer

Duffman wrote: »

Failure to do so would probably constitute a failure to meet our obligations under Community law.

and if an agreement is not reached?

Duffman

axer wrote: »

and if an agreement is not reached?

There's a whole load of stuff that can happen, the most serious possibility being suspension of our voting rights in the Council.

Duffman

obl wrote: »

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the phrase "Irish Comissioner" a bit misleading in the first place? I thought he was an EU comissioner who just happened to be from Ireland, but was in charge of, say, fisheries?

You're dead right. Fisheries is a pretty appropriate example too because we'll be lucky to get that portfolio next time round.

axer

Duffman wrote: »

There's a whole load of stuff that can happen, the most serious possibility being suspension of our voting rights in the Council.

Would Ireland be the only ones to lose those voting rights?

Duffman

axer wrote: »

Would Ireland be the only ones to lose those voting rights?

Ireland would if it was the only country holding up the process. It would never come to that in reality though, the government already has the power to agree to the necessary changes. I wouldn't want to be the one navigating that political minefield.

BMH

obl wrote: »

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the phrase "Irish Comissioner" a bit misleading in the first place? I thought he was an EU comissioner who just happened to be from Ireland, but was in charge of, say, fisheries?

The whole concept is an oxymoron that the Yes side should have stamped out from the beginning.

Scofflaw

leninbenjamin wrote: »

no that is. it just mentions rotation system, but i don't think goes into any further details as to how it would be implemented. Scofflaw can clear it up anyway i'm sure...

I'm afraid that is the text from the Nice Treaty - the Protocol on the Enlargement of the Union. It is quite specific.

Dropping a single Commissioner from each rotation would not fit the strictures of the Protocol - particularly, the requirement that there be no more than a term's difference between any two member states.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tar.Aldarion

What's the deadline? 2009?

IRLConor

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

What's the deadline? 2009?

The next commission term starts 1st November 2009 as far as I know.

I see the following options:

1. The rotation that was agreed for the Lisbon Treaty.
2. A different rotation system for < 27 commissioners that is considered fair.
3. Some new mini-Treaty which overrides Nice to have 1 commissioner per member state.

I reckon it'll be either 1 or 2 since I don't think there's either the time or the political will to get 3 done before November 2009. On time issues alone I don't think it can be done. Realistically, to make it happen it would have to be ratified by all member states by June 2009 when the European Parliament elections happen (or at least signed and well into the ratification process). For that to happen, there would need to be agreement before the end of this year. Getting agreement on such a contentious issue in roughly 6 months is highly unlikely in my opinion.

Between option 1 and 2, the most attractive for everyone is option 1 since it requires no work. Option 2 is probably the worst option, since it involves wasting time negotiating a situation which will not materially be massively different to option 1 yet we'll probably have to concede something in the negotiations to get a minor advantage to please the domestic lobby.

aliqueenb

i don't get it, we only would have lost our commissioner for 5 out of 15 years, so would every country have including germany, france, etc.
our meps would have been given a lot more power than they have no. we elect our meps directly.
ugggh fools

Tar.Aldarion

IRLConor wrote: »

The next commission term starts 1st November 2009 as far as I know.

I see the following options:

1. The rotation that was agreed for the Lisbon Treaty.
2. A different rotation system for < 27 commissioners that is considered fair.
3. Some new mini-Treaty which overrides Nice to have 1 commissioner per member state.

I reckon it'll be either 1 or 2 since I don't think there's either the time or the political will to get 3 done before November 2009. On time issues alone I don't think it can be done. Realistically, to make it happen it would have to be ratified by all member states by June 2009 when the European Parliament elections happen (or at least signed and well into the ratification process). For that to happen, there would need to be agreement before the end of this year. Getting agreement on such a contentious issue in roughly 6 months is highly unlikely in my opinion.

Between option 1 and 2, the most attractive for everyone is option 1 since it requires no work. Option 2 is probably the worst option, since it involves wasting time negotiating a situation which will not materially be massively different to option 1 yet we'll probably have to concede something in the negotiations to get a minor advantage to please the domestic lobby.

would they ever consider three? I mean we voted against the treaty, why change this to what people here wanted?
I wonder...

marco_polo

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

would they ever consider three? I mean we voted against the treaty, why change this to what people here wanted?
I wonder...

We were not the only country not completely happy with the new commission arrangements. So they might well have an agenda to get a better deal on commisioners for themeselves in any new arrangement. One thking is certain, it is far from sure that any new deal will be a better one for us.

Tar.Aldarion

Yes I agree, what I am saying is that why would we get a more 'favorable' deal in this ala the option 3.

the_syco

dloob wrote: »

It would be nice to see libertas explain how a No vote lost our Commisioner

Aye, esp as the f**ker was jumping out of his seat saying it would happen if we voted yes...:mad:

marco_polo

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Yes I agree, what I am saying is that why would we get a more 'favorable' deal in this ala the option 3.

A nation of our size can realistically do no better than getting equal treatment. Logically any new deal can only be the same or worst. Given the damage to our standing in Europe I am starting to fear the latter.

sink

We've basically passed the decision over to the other 26 countries, as we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. We have no negotiating power as we're the ones facing suspension, so we have to agree to whatever is put in front of us.

Zaph

obl wrote: »

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the phrase "Irish Comissioner" a bit misleading in the first place? I thought he was an EU comissioner who just happened to be from Ireland, but was in charge of, say, fisheries?

Yep, the whole argument that we'd lose a commissioner was a red herring. Charlie McCreevy is the current Irish commissioner, and is responsible for Internal Market & Services. However it doesn't mean that any of his rulings are going to be more favourable towards Irish companies.

IRLConor

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

would they ever consider three? I mean we voted against the treaty, why change this to what people here wanted?
I wonder...

I doubt very many states really want option 3. It's something of a "nuclear option" since renegotiation would probably result in:

• The same or equivalent to Lisbon (and hence waste a lot of time and money on pointless renegotiation)
• 1 commissioner per state, the pre-Nice option (and hence would waste a lot of time and money for years to come)
• An unfair system where the big countries get more commissioner time than the small ones.
• A system of senior and junior commissioners which would appear to be different from the Lisbon option but would only create lame duck junior commissioner posts costing everyone money but gaining no real benefit.

I'm sure there will be some member states who'll want a crack at renegotiation of the commissioner position but I reckon it would all end in tears.

Tar.Aldarion

Could it be argued that bigger countries get more commissioner time on some set of rules such as population size and so on and it still be 'fair'?

IRLConor

Zaph wrote: »

Yep, the whole argument that we'd lose a commissioner was a red herring. Charlie McCreevy is the current Irish commissioner, and is responsible for Internal Market & Services. However it doesn't mean that any of his rulings are going to be more favourable towards Irish companies.

I'd argue that in his push for software patents he actually favoured big non-EU multinationals over both Irish and EU companies. Only someone like him could fail at both what he's supposed to do and what he's perceived to supposed to do!

IRLConor

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Could it be argued that bigger countries get more commissioner time on some set of rules such as population size and so on and it still be 'fair'?

Not under the Nice rules as far as I can tell, but renegotiation could bring that option back.

sink

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Could it be argued that bigger countries get more commissioner time on some set of rules such as population size and so on and it still be 'fair'?

Yes that is the danger. The Nice treaty says it must be based on equality but it does not say what it must be equal to. Larger countries could argue that they are not getting equal treatment and insist on having a fairer share. We of course would have to accept as we have no bargaining power any more, anything bad that might happen will to happen to us first.

sink

IRLConor wrote: »

Not under the Nice rules as far as I can tell, but renegotiation could bring that option back.

The Nice treaty does not discount equality being based on population size. It does not set the parameters for what equal means.

IRLConor

sink wrote: »

The Nice treaty does not discount equality being based on population size. It does not set the parameters for what equal means.

Scofflaw posted this earlier in the thread:

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

The bit in bold would probably preclude population-based systems of rotation.

EDIT: Of course, if we go for renegotiation all bets are off.

Tar.Aldarion

I don't see where it is set in stone there that this can not be done? Excuse me if I err.

IRLConor

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I don't see where it is set in stone there that this can not be done? Excuse me if I err.

The rule I quoted in bold would mean that at any time the following must hold true at all times:

(Number of commissioner terms Germany has had so far) - (Number of commissioner terms Malta has had so far) <= 1

Where of course you can replace Germany and Malta with any other pair of countries.

Tar.Aldarion

The bit I was referring to was maybe it could be seen as fairer for a larger country to have a longer time as a commissioner, the difference between amount of terms would still be one. Ie it is 'fairer' to have a longer time as a commissioner if you have a larger population etcetera. Maybe that can't happen.