do we really have a commissioner?

bigstar · 10-10-2008 9:31pm #1

am i being naive or stupid when i say that european commissioners are supposed to work for the benefit of the entire EU, and not for their own country, as in mccreevy shouldnt really be working in irelands interest, or should any of the commissioners for their respective countries.

Scofflaw · 10-10-2008 10:18pm

bigstar wrote: »

am i being naive or stupid when i say that european commissioners are supposed to work for the benefit of the entire EU, and not for their own country, as in mccreevy shouldnt really be working in irelands interest, or should any of the commissioners for their respective countries.

That is correct, fortunately! I would imagine it's impossible to be entirely impartial, but I don't think many people would argue that Charlie McCreevy has been working in Ireland's particular interests.*

cordially,
Scofflaw

*This will no doubt bring on a spate of claims that every other Commissioner does except ours.

limklad · 11-10-2008 2:22pm

bigstar wrote: »

am i being naive or stupid when i say that european commissioners are supposed to work for the benefit of the entire EU, and not for their own country, as in mccreevy shouldnt really be working in irelands interest, or should any of the commissioners for their respective countries.

Here the Commissioner Oath of office.

Commissioner Oath wrote:

Having been appointed as a member of the Commission of the European Communities by the Council of the European Union, after the vote of approval by the European Parliament, I do solemnly undertake: to be completely independent in the performance of my duties, in the general interest of the Communities; in the performance of these duties, neither to seek nor to take instructions from any government or from any other body; to refrain from any action incompatible with my duties. I formally note the undertaking of each Member State to respect this principle and not to seek to influence members of the Commission in the performance of their tasks.
I further undertake to respect, both during and after my term of office, the obligations arising there from and in particular, the duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance after I have ceased to hold office of certain appointments or benefits.

You can read more about the European Commissioner Job Function.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commissioner

K-9 · 12-10-2008 10:22pm

Limklad rather than starting a whole new thread, could you explain here why you want elected Commissioners by the Parliament.

bigstar · 13-10-2008 1:07pm

thats what i thought. so the anti lisbon argument about losing a commissioner really is a non starter or theyre saying that commissioners are influenced by their own nations, which questions the how the commission is run in the first place.

limklad · 14-10-2008 7:43am

Seanies32 wrote: »

Limklad rather than starting a whole new thread, could you explain here why you want elected Commissioners by the Parliament.

The biggest complaints about the EU lack of democracy is that the EU commissioners are not elected officials. They are bureaucrats.
So have them elected through the EU PARLIAMENT, just like National ministers from their respective national parliaments, while keeping the same Oath of office.
Lisbon is adding another layer of bureaucracy by having a president of the EU + High Representative (EU Council).

Scofflaw · 14-10-2008 8:51am

limklad wrote: »

The biggest complaints about the EU lack of democracy is that the EU commissioners are not elected officials. They are bureaucrats.
So have them elected through the EU PARLIAMENT, just like National ministers from their respective national parliaments, while keeping the same Oath of office.

That's not a bad idea - but given there is still a system of nationally appointed Commissioners, why not have them elected by the national parliaments?

limklad wrote: »

Lisbon is adding another layer of bureaucracy by having a president of the EU + High Representative (EU Council).

Well, no. There is no "president of the EU" in Lisbon - the President of the European Council is the post in question, and it already exists. Currently it's held in rotation for six months by each member state in turn - the present President is Sarkozy. All Lisbon does is make the post elective and for 2.5 years at a time, but it's the same position.

The High Representative also already exists - in fact the post would amalgamate two positions, not create a new one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9 · 14-10-2008 10:49am

limklad wrote: »

The biggest complaints about the EU lack of democracy is that the EU commissioners are not elected officials. They are bureaucrats.
So have them elected through the EU PARLIAMENT, just like National ministers from their respective national parliaments, while keeping the same Oath of office.
Lisbon is adding another layer of bureaucracy by having a president of the EU + High Representative (EU Council).

I still think that leaves them open to lobbying and behind the scenes campaigning though. There is a danger that you'll gain a little democracy and lose some of their impartiality.

limklad · 14-10-2008 4:25pm

Seanies32 wrote: »

I still think that leaves them open to lobbying and behind the scenes campaigning though. There is a danger that you'll gain a little democracy and lose some of their impartiality.

They are already open to lobbies by special interest groups from both sides of spectrum and it pretty naive to think they are not! Where do you think the commission get a lot of their ideas from? Bureaucrats and even Dictatorships too are open to Special interest groups.
Consumers groups have lobbies as well as business groups. The Green Political group have lobbies too within the EU in Brussels!!.

I am not saying The EU Commission is corrupt (There is No decent proof yet and hopefully not), but the lobbies are there in Brussels and many are under review by the Commission in their current approaches in their practice of lobbing.
Wikipedia article in US & EU
EU and US approaches to lobbying

EU lobby groups under fire
Brussels aims to lift cover on EU lobby groups

And Finally worst Lobby groups within the EU 2005 -> 2008

It does no matter where commissioners come from, everybody is open to influence, when in position of Power. Same goes where you have Governments anywhere in the World.
The commissioners would not be doing their duty if they did not listen to groups of both side of the spectrum, in case their legislation have very adverse effects rather than improvements. It is their job to go through the ins and out of the effect of legislation been put forward to the EU council and EU parliament.

The Motor lobby tried to get the EU Commission to reverse their decision about cutting Carbon emissions. Lucky for us they never caved in. But it the Ministers of each EU State who have more Power of passing legislation in the EU council.

Also currently the Commissioners are selected by EU National governments. Here a audit of the Current Commissioners, and the allegations on some commissioners in their previous jobs and positions.
.

K-9 · 14-10-2008 7:00pm

I did say on the other thread that it isn't a perfect system!

Thinking about it, making them electable doesn't remove the lobbyists and I like that they are basically civil servants, that aren't electable.

limklad · 15-10-2008 1:47pm

Seanies32 wrote: »

I did say on the other thread that it isn't a perfect system!

Thinking about it, making them electable doesn't remove the lobbyists and I like that they are basically civil servants, that aren't electable.

No matter what system there is, it will never be perfect, they will always be objections and different opinions! Civil servants are not immune to lobbyist and they are not accountable to us EU Citizens via Parliaments.

Democracy while not perfect and take time to resolve issues does gives the people the power to have a say via elections and referendums.
Dictatorships tends to make fast decisions but can effect its people either in a good or bad way with no say.

All we can do is make our leaders and politicians accountable to it citizens in elections. But positions of powers (Legislative powers not Executive Council have that) are subject to major influence by lobbyist.
Just to let you know the European Commission is held accountable by the European Parliament and is investigated by the independent "European Anti-Fraud Office" (OLAF) which reports to the European Parliament.
Parliament's have the power to sack the body by Majority vote (vote of censure from Parliament). This have not been done but was threaten in 1999 before the Santer Commission resigned over allegations of corruption.

Under Current Rules an EU State can withdraw/remove their Commissioner at any time. If found guilty of abusing his/her Position in office, it a way for EU member state responsible for selecting the Commissioner to withdraw them to prevent further embarrassment, that if the commissioner will not resign first or not thrown out by the EU Parliament.

By having the Commission electable from the Parliament members. It will legitimise the EU Commission as been more democratic. Does that means we may have the best people in the Job? Probably Not! That why we need good EU civil service people backing them up, to bring them up to speed with EU affairs.

Here are some of the Powers of the EU Commissioner.

As you know the primary job of the The European Commission is to propose legislation (bills) for the Parliament and EU Council.
The European Commission may have some executive power, if the EU Council confers it on the Commission such powers for it to exercise. However, the Council may withdraw these powers, exercise them directly, or impose conditions on their use.
The European Commission has another Job which enforces Current EU Legislation and the ECJ is it judicial arm by referring cases to it. ECJ is independent of the European Commission.

We have gone way side track from OP questions! But hopefully s/he got some good understanding of what the EU commissioner does for us EU citizens.

Scofflaw · 16-10-2008 2:43am

limklad wrote: »

No matter what system there is, it will never be perfect, they will always be objections and different opinions! Civil servants are not immune to lobbyist and they are not accountable to us EU Citizens via Parliaments.

That often gets said, but isn't actually the case. The Commission is accountable both to the EU Parliament and to the national governments in the Council. Elected and accountable aren't simply interchangeable terms - our civil service is supposed to be accountable to us through the Dáil, but we don't elect civil servants. What is supposed to happen is that the government is held to account by the Dáil for the performance of the civil service. After all, nobody cares what Brian Lenihan does except that he's in charge of the civil servants of the Dept of Finance. If he weren't, he would be irrelevant.

In exactly the same way, the EU Parliament has the power to dismiss the Commission, and to scrutinise and reject the budget the Commission puts forward. That is accountability, because your MEP and mine sit in the Parliament, as elected by us. They are supposed to provide us with our democratic oversight of the Commission (and, yes, Lisbon expanded that power of oversight). If we do not feel they are doing a good job of holding the appointed Commissioners to account, we elect someone we think will do so.

limklad wrote: »

Democracy while not perfect and take time to resolve issues does gives the people the power to have a say via elections and referendums.

Yes, but people need to understand how it works.

limklad wrote:

All we can do is make our leaders and politicians accountable to it citizens in elections.

It doesn't work by simply making every position of power elective, because elections do not produce the right people for the job. It makes more sense to elect someone to oversee on your behalf those who have been appointed.

limklad wrote: »

By having the Commission electable from the Parliament members. It will legitimise the EU Commission as been more democratic. Does that means we may have the best people in the Job? Probably Not! That why we need good EU civil service people backing them up, to bring them up to speed with EU affairs.

Hmm. As I said, this isn't an unreasonable proposition on the face of it. If nothing else, it would improve the calibre of MEP candidate.

However, is the person so elected an MEP or a Commissioner? I'm not sure they can usefully be both - in which case the election of a Commissioner deprives each state of an MEP - not an issue for a state with 90 MEPs, but something of an issue for Malta.

cordially,
Scofflaw

cordially,
Scofflaw

limklad · 16-10-2008 12:05pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

That often gets said, but isn't actually the case. The Commission is accountable both to the EU Parliament and to the national governments in the Council. Elected and accountable aren't simply interchangeable terms - our civil service is supposed to be accountable to us through the Dáil, but we don't elect civil servants. What is supposed to happen is that the government is held to account by the Dáil for the performance of the civil service. After all, nobody cares what Brian Lenihan does except that he's in charge of the civil servants of the Dept of Finance. If he weren't, he would be irrelevant.

EU civil servants do not have a job for life, unlike here in Ireland, Italy and other countries, so if anyone in the civil service here screws up then it the minister or elected official get the full blame and that civil servant get moved to another Job in the public sector. Rules for firing Civil Servants here are different than other places and in the EU, so we cannot compare these Civil Service systems.

Unlike the Current EU Commissioner (EU Civil Servant) can be removed from his/her job if found unfit and the repercussion is mostly on that person. The system for removing a poor EU Civil servant is better than our own.

Scofflaw wrote: »

In exactly the same way, the EU Parliament has the power to dismiss the Commission, and to scrutinise and reject the budget the Commission puts forward. That is accountability, because your MEP and mine sit in the Parliament, as elected by us. They are supposed to provide us with our democratic oversight of the Commission (and, yes, Lisbon expanded that power of oversight). If we do not feel they are doing a good job of holding the appointed Commissioners to account, we elect someone we think will do so.

I already know this and have stated it and I am happy with the current procedure since it proved effective with the removal of the "Santer commision".

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, but people need to understand how it works.

Yes , I agree, It is up to everybody to discuss the current system, perhaps putting a circulative into schools (social studies if not done so already). and in elections/Referendum have easily understandable information such as leaflets available in how that system works (Dáil, local councils, European Unions, President of Ireland) that you are voting in.

Scofflaw wrote: »

It doesn't work by simply making every position of power elective, because elections do not produce the right people for the job. It makes more sense to elect someone to oversee on your behalf those who have been appointed.

I agree that the right person might not pick for the job, but everybody have a different view on what is right and what is wrong for us all. We have to take responsibility for it, rather than easily blame others for making wrongs decisions on our behalf. It is so so easy to blame others than ourselves, but the onus need to put it back on us, therefore, We are then to blame for selecting wrong candidates and it up to us to correct it. People do not like having their own (*****) splattered all over their face by accepting responsibility, therefore making a better choice in the future after realising their mistake.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. As I said, this isn't an unreasonable proposition on the face of it. If nothing else, it would improve the calibre of MEP candidate.

It would , but then again everybody have a different view on what is right and what is wrong.

Scofflaw wrote: »

However, is the person so elected an MEP or a Commissioner? I'm not sure they can usefully be both - in which case the election of a Commissioner deprives each state of an MEP - not an issue for a state with 90 MEPs, but something of an issue for Malta.

You can choose two possible options that I can think of.

1/. They retain their seat and perform their duties like our Ministers in the Dáil (But this is questionable, I agree with you there, if they cannot fully perform their duties to both EU and to their citizens- I cannot tell at the moment, perhaps best not as it could infringe on their Oath of Office).
or 2/.
When Elected to EP each newly elected MEP (If they do not have already/depends on each country rules) nominate their replacement choice (similar to our local Councillors) to "prevent by elections" to sit in their place in the Parliament, in event of resigning/death/ill health/ or promotion to the commission, etc, and will not deprive for example. Malta.

Any suggestions yourself?

limklad · 16-10-2008 12:11pm

For Most people do not relies the Job of the EU commissioner. The Separation of National politics from the EU. The commissioner Job was deliberate set-up to distance him/herself from their nation to be an EU civil servant to work on the EU behalf, not Their on behalf of their nation to lobbing the Commission. That the Job of their Nation Ministers/leaders in the EU Council and for MEP's. People do not seem to relies that the Commissioner job has less power in the EU than their own national Ministers. That there own nation Minister have more power within the EU than the Commissioner via the EU council.

Even Charlie McCreevy (our own Irish Commissioner) can sent us (Ireland) to court (the ECJ) for breach of EU rules. If we do breach the EU rules and he failed to act then he is in breach of his Job and Oath to the EU. He then should be removed from office, for one of his Job functions is to enforce EU Legislations.

Stabshauptmann · 16-10-2008 2:27pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

That is correct, fortunately! I would imagine it's impossible to be entirely impartial, but I don't think many people would argue that Charlie McCreevy has been working in Ireland's particular interests.*

cordially,
Scofflaw

*This will no doubt bring on a spate of claims that every other Commissioner does except ours.

McCreevy is Commissioner for the Internal Market and Services. I work in Finance and I am of the opinion that McCreevy is very much biased as to how his decisions effect Ireland. Its just a general thing from his stance on the new UCITS directive, his speeches and the slant he seems to give regulations.

Personally Im glad to have him doing the job he is.

K-9 · 16-10-2008 4:42pm

limklad wrote: »

For Most people do not relies the Job of the EU commissioner. The Separation of National politics from the EU. The commissioner Job was deliberate set-up to distance him/herself from their nation to be an EU civil servant to work on the EU behalf, not Their on behalf of their nation to lobbing the Commission. That the Job of their Nation Ministers/leaders in the EU Council and for MEP's. People do not seem to relies that the Commissioner job has less power in the EU than their own national Ministers. That there own nation Minister have more power within the EU than the Commissioner via the EU council.

Even Charlie McCreevy (our own Irish Commissioner) can sent us (Ireland) to court (the ECJ) for breach of EU rules. If we do breach the EU rules and he failed to act then he is in breach of his Job and Oath to the EU. He then should be removed from office, for one of his Job functions is to enforce EU Legislations.

Yep, even our own Govt. didn't explain this properly. Then again, there would be an element who wouldn't listen or believe them anyway!

limklad · 16-10-2008 6:04pm

Seanies32 wrote: »

Yep, even our own Govt. didn't explain this properly. Then again, there would be an element who wouldn't listen or believe them anyway!

Who much is that element % wise of the population?

limklad · 16-10-2008 6:12pm

I Just read some disturbing information about the Barroso Commission

The Politicisation of current EU Commissioners have me worried, they are been compromise at the moment and not behaving independent of National Politics. If they are spending their time on National Politics then they are distracted from their Job as EU Commissioners. EU Commissioners are also required to remain above national politics while exercising their duties in the Commission in order to maintain independence. If they want to re-engage in national politics then they should be forced out of their current Job.

They should be like the Ceann Comhairle in the Dáil and is expected to observe strict impartiality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commissioner#Politicisation
It is not the EU Commissioners Job to politicisation the EU. That is the MEP's Job. EU Commissioners are meant to be Independent and Neutral and work on behalf of EU Citizens.

wikipedia Barroso Commission wrote:

During Barroso's tenure, the Commission has seen a general increase in the politicisation of its members. Although members are supposed to remain above national politics, members have been involved in national elections or backed national candidates. For example Commissioner Michel participated in the 2007 Belgian elections [48] while Commissioner Kroes backed Angela Merkel in the 2005 German elections and Vice President Wallstrom backed Ségolène Royal in the 2007 French elections.[49].
Michel claimed that politicisation of this manner is part of reconnecting the Union with its citizens and Wallström defended it claiming that the EU has to get more political and controversial as being a vital role in communicating the Commission.[50] Wallström presented plans to give greater prominence to European political parties ahead of the 2009 elections and give the parties the ability to run with candidates for Commission President. If he gains backing, Barroso may run as the People's Party candidate in 2009.[8]

Kaptain Redeye comments also show that they are not performing their duties. Look like we need to contact at our MEP's and complain to them and the about the commissioners behaviours and reminded them about their Oath of Office.

Here it is again, if there is any or all EU commissioners reading this and say after me!!

Commissioner Oath wrote:

Having been appointed as a member of the Commission of the European Communities by the Council of the European Union, after the vote of approval by the European Parliament,

I do solemnly undertake: to be completely independent in the performance of my duties, in the general interest of the Communities; in the performance of these duties, neither to seek nor to take instructions from any government or from any other body; to refrain from any action incompatible with my duties. I formally note the undertaking of each Member State to respect this principle and not to seek to influence members of the Commission in the performance of their tasks.

I further undertake to respect, both during and after my term of office, the obligations arising there from and in particular, the duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance after I have ceased to hold office of certain appointments or benefits.

limklad · 16-10-2008 8:03pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's not a bad idea - but given there is still a system of nationally appointed Commissioners, why not have them elected by the national parliaments?

I missed this post..

Elected by national parliament? You mean every parliaments elected one Commissioners under the current system that exists with Nice or Lisbon rules. Yea, why not.

Maybe Ireland and other countries put forward several people and let The Parliament & EU Council elect a president for the commission and let the president decide who from each country to serve in his commission. Each Country put forward several people for as a candidate and let the president decide who he forward to the EU parliament for approval.
Rather than told to approve the body as a hold.
Let each prospective EU commissioner be properly vetted by the OLAF first. Need to make sure they are of reputable character.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, no. There is no "president of the EU" in Lisbon - the President of the European Council is the post in question, and it already exists. Currently it's held in rotation for six months by each member state in turn - the present President is Sarkozy. All Lisbon does is make the post elective and for 2.5 years at a time, but it's the same position.

The High Representative also already exists - in fact the post would amalgamate two positions, not create a new one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sorry, I meant "Presidency of the Council of the EU" which is taking over (if Lisbon pass) from rotation EU Council Presidency which is the most powerful body in the EU, which you could effectively call it the "Presidency of the EU" in all but name (read this Link), which would not be such a bad thing.
It is still adding another layer of bureaucracy and only onto top of the "Council of the EU".

I thought the High Representative was currently in the "EU Commission" not "Council of the European Union". I did not realise that he worked for the EU Council until now. Javier Solana kept a very low key profile.

I keep mixing Council terms such as the "Head of EU States meeting" which is "EU Council" which does not have the same power (no formal executive or legislative powers) compare to the "Council of the European Union" which is attended by ministers of specific area of discussion, who have the power of decision making body as it has formal executive or legislative powers.

The "Council of the European Union" appears to be the most powerful body not "EU Council" that the Head of States attend several times a year.

Therefore my understanding now is the High Representative will work for the "President of the EU" on the "EU Council" under Lisbon, which is different from "Council of the European Union" which is the Second Tier, EU Commissioners and EU Parliament are the Third tier of decision making process within the EU.

While the "EU Council" which has no formal executive or legislative powers must be Primary Tier of the hierarchy, as they choose who sits in the "Council of the European Union" and the "EU Commission".

Isn't The Structure and names very confusing at times, especially the two different Councils within the EU.

bigstar · 17-10-2008 2:28am

yeah its very confusing, its usually written as council and Council, i think its a conspiracy, i wanna be chinese or is it Chinese.

K-9 · 17-10-2008 5:22am

limklad wrote: »

Who much is that element % wise of the population?

Can't remember. You could check the polls after the election and start with the protest vote percentage.

limklad · 17-10-2008 6:21pm

Seanies32 wrote: »

Can't remember. You could check the polls after the election and start with the protest vote percentage.

EU Commission had a poll done on the day of the Lisbon Referendum.

There was not any reference to protest vote!!

Scofflaw · 17-10-2008 8:36pm

limklad wrote: »

EU Commission had a poll done on the day of the Lisbon Referendum.

There was not any reference to protest vote!!

There's 20% or so of the electorate that always votes No.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9 · 17-10-2008 11:51pm

limklad wrote: »

EU Commission had a poll done on the day of the Lisbon Referendum.

There was not any reference to protest vote!!

There was, check a few of the threads on this board after the Referendum.

Hitman Actual · 18-10-2008 10:00am

limklad wrote: »

EU Commission had a poll done on the day of the Lisbon Referendum.

There was not any reference to protest vote!!

Page 19 of the Gallup poll. Only 4% protest vote according to that poll though.

The IMS poll doesn't cover protest votes at all, which is surprising.

K-9 · 18-10-2008 12:02pm

lenny_leonard wrote: »

Page 19 of the Gallup poll. Only 4% protest vote according to that poll though.

The IMS poll doesn't cover protest votes at all, which is surprising.

Sorry, thanks, just thought it wasn't the EU Poll. An important 4% though and I wouldn't be surprised it is underestimated.

limklad · 18-10-2008 10:19pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's 20% or so of the electorate that always votes No.

cordially,
Scofflaw

They are anti-EU vote not protest vote.

limklad · 18-10-2008 10:33pm

lenny_leonard wrote: »

Page 19 of the Gallup poll. Only 4% protest vote according to that poll though.

The IMS poll doesn't cover protest votes at all, which is surprising.

There is a big difference between NICE Treaty 2 Vote and Lisbon Treaty.

On Nice Treaty Population voted: 49.5%, Yes: 62.9%, No:37.1%
On Lisbon Treaty Population voted: 53.13%, Yes: 46.4%, No 53.2%
4% is small compare to the 16.5% swing to the No vote between both Referendums.

Scofflaw · 19-10-2008 12:53am

limklad wrote: »

They are anti-EU vote not protest vote.

Yes, I seems to have been on a different channel to everyone else there. I was thinking of them as being the people who were referred to here:

Yep, even our own Govt. didn't explain this properly. Then again, there would be an element who wouldn't listen or believe them anyway!

cordially,
Scofflaw

PHB · 21-10-2008 11:01pm

The commissioners don't make decisions. They can propose solutions, but they do not make decisions. Depending on the area, the Council or the Parliament make the decision, sometimes both. The most powerful thing that the commission can do is sue if people don't follow the laws that the parliament or the council enact.

---

Ultimately, the EU Council summit style meeting with the national leaders have all the power. The council of ministers when they meet always follow what their party leader tells them to do, so really its all an EU Council summit. But it is confusing institutionally, but then again, so is every single form of government in the world.

---

Sorry, I meant "Presidency of the Council of the EU" which is taking over (if Lisbon pass) from rotation EU Council Presidency which is the most powerful body in the EU, which you could effectively call it the "Presidency of the EU" in all but name (read this Link), which would not be such a bad thing.
It is still adding another layer of bureaucracy and only onto top of the "Council of the EU".

Actually its not adding just one layer of bureaucracy. It's actually codifying the Council in a way that it has not been before. In reality, its clarifying one layer of bureaucracy [always good], then adding the president. Let me explain.
Currently, the EU Council [the summit type] (while mentioned in the treaties briefly) have no official status. They meet informally. To hammer this point home, there is no EU Council building.

The Lisbon treaty makes them an official institution. Why does it do this? Two main reasons.
1. To give it proper rules. i.e. it would now have to meet 4 times a year, and would have a building to meet in.
2. To make it under EU rules that the parliament and the commission are under. These are rules such as the meetings being open to the public, minutes being availible, and just overall transparency.

I've never actually met anyone who disagrees with this part of the Lisbon treaty.

Then there is the issue of the EU president. That is the president of the Council. Now its important to note that it is not actually replacing the rotating president, its taking some of its powers, but not all of them.

Why is this? Because people thought it was stupid that people rotate every 6 months. It's very difficult to get anything done. It's very difficult to have an approach, a goal, and try and achieve it, in 6 months. The thing to note here is that the EU president, either the current rotating one, or the new one by the Council, has no special power. It simply dictates where it would like the Council to go [as Sarkozy is doing now]

It is adding another layer of bureaucracy, but its on purpose. That's not necessarily a bad thing in of itself! It's for a pretty decent reason. Imagine a football club, a business or any government being directed by new people every 6 months. It's kinda silly.

Oddly enough the reason it wasn't made directly elected was to protect the small states. It was an anti-supranational pro-intergovernmental decision. Why? Because it was felt that if the President of the Council was directly elected and had a mandate from all of the European peoples, if one small state had a problem with his legislation, he would be in a pretty strong negotiating position. He after all is elected by 500 million people, while the one state doesn't necessarily have that. People didn't want this situation [while some EU federalists did, but none of the member states did] so it didnt happen. It was anti-democratic in one sense. But it was pro-democratic in another sense. Democracy isn't black and white, and I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't want a directly elected president of the council.

One last thing, this new President of the Council is not, is not, effectively a president of the EU. The EU is made up of two major bodies, the Parliament and the Council. The third body, the Commission, is effectively a giant think tank, pretty much a civil service.

It is a balance between those 3 bodies, primarily the parliament and the Council. Despite the new president of the Council, the Lisbon treaty would add more power to the parliament. However, it would really be based on who is in charge. The Council currently gets lots of press cause Sarkozy is in charge, but when the Czechs take over, it won't be as interesting. The Parliament is currently pretty dull, but could get very interesting if Lisbon goes through, and may get very interesting either way, especially with their role in climate change.
The Commission of course could play a major role in agenda setting. Ultimately however, they can't do anything themselves without parliament.
This new president would not be the president of the EU. There's no real way to conceptualise Europe to make that statement through. It's possible they could be the main player in the EU at some various point, but that would be just based on personalities, and even then, its unlikely.

limklad · 27-11-2008 7:23pm

PHB wrote: »

The commissioners don't make decisions. They can propose solutions, but they do not make decisions. Depending on the area, the Council or the Parliament make the decision, sometimes both. The most powerful thing that the commission can do is sue if people don't follow the laws that the parliament or the council enact.

---

Ultimately, the EU Council summit style meeting with the national leaders have all the power. The council of ministers when they meet always follow what their party leader tells them to do, so really its all an EU Council summit. But it is confusing institutionally, but then again, so is every single form of government in the world.

---

Actually its not adding just one layer of bureaucracy. It's actually codifying the Council in a way that it has not been before. In reality, its clarifying one layer of bureaucracy [always good], then adding the president. Let me explain.
Currently, the EU Council [the summit type] (while mentioned in the treaties briefly) have no official status. They meet informally. To hammer this point home, there is no EU Council building.

The Lisbon treaty makes them an official institution. Why does it do this? Two main reasons.
1. To give it proper rules. i.e. it would now have to meet 4 times a year, and would have a building to meet in.
2. To make it under EU rules that the parliament and the commission are under. These are rules such as the meetings being open to the public, minutes being availible, and just overall transparency.

I've never actually met anyone who disagrees with this part of the Lisbon treaty.

Then there is the issue of the EU president. That is the president of the Council. Now its important to note that it is not actually replacing the rotating president, its taking some of its powers, but not all of them.

Why is this? Because people thought it was stupid that people rotate every 6 months. It's very difficult to get anything done. It's very difficult to have an approach, a goal, and try and achieve it, in 6 months. The thing to note here is that the EU president, either the current rotating one, or the new one by the Council, has no special power. It simply dictates where it would like the Council to go [as Sarkozy is doing now]

It is adding another layer of bureaucracy, but its on purpose. That's not necessarily a bad thing in of itself! It's for a pretty decent reason. Imagine a football club, a business or any government being directed by new people every 6 months. It's kinda silly.

Oddly enough the reason it wasn't made directly elected was to protect the small states. It was an anti-supranational pro-intergovernmental decision. Why? Because it was felt that if the President of the Council was directly elected and had a mandate from all of the European peoples, if one small state had a problem with his legislation, he would be in a pretty strong negotiating position. He after all is elected by 500 million people, while the one state doesn't necessarily have that. People didn't want this situation [while some EU federalists did, but none of the member states did] so it didnt happen. It was anti-democratic in one sense. But it was pro-democratic in another sense. Democracy isn't black and white, and I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't want a directly elected president of the council.

One last thing, this new President of the Council is not, is not, effectively a president of the EU. The EU is made up of two major bodies, the Parliament and the Council. The third body, the Commission, is effectively a giant think tank, pretty much a civil service.

It is a balance between those 3 bodies, primarily the parliament and the Council. Despite the new president of the Council, the Lisbon treaty would add more power to the parliament. However, it would really be based on who is in charge. The Council currently gets lots of press cause Sarkozy is in charge, but when the Czechs take over, it won't be as interesting. The Parliament is currently pretty dull, but could get very interesting if Lisbon goes through, and may get very interesting either way, especially with their role in climate change.
The Commission of course could play a major role in agenda setting. Ultimately however, they can't do anything themselves without parliament.
This new president would not be the president of the EU. There's no real way to conceptualise Europe to make that statement through. It's possible they could be the main player in the EU at some various point, but that would be just based on personalities, and even then, its unlikely.

Nothing will every change the EU Parliament from Dull to Interesting, not even if they strip their clothes off and did a jig across the Parliaments. I will doubt anyone will even noticed if they did. The extra powers they gain under Lisbon is minor compare to the powers of current national parliaments under NICE treaty. A National Parliaments elects their Ministers and Leaders to who sit in the Council of Ministers (powerful EU body). If we do not like our minister performance, we can force our politicians to force the the minister out of office.

Our Ministers (QMV min- unanimous - depending on the area of legisations tax, environment) have much more power to block unwanted legislation than the EU parliament (Simple Majority). This will not change under Lisbon. Rules on QMV will change however.

do we really have a commissioner?

Comments