Commissioner

dresden8

Barosso is prepared to do a deal on the Commissioner as per his announcement on RTE news.

Benelux apparently talking tough.

Here we go.

WooPeeA

Damn it! What the heck is the difference where the commissioner comes from!!? Their job IS NOT to represent the country but our common European interest! When commissioner starts his/her job their stop working for Ireland and starting work for EUROPE.

Let's say Ireland has commissioner responsible for health care. So what?? All tender and biddings would be won by Irish companies and it the case of epistemic all medicines will be sent to Ireland or what??

Favoring any country is FORBIDDEN. This nationalistic game has no sense at all...

lostexpectation

*till 2019

dresden8

WooPeeA wrote: »

Damn it! What the heck is the difference where the commissioner comes from!!? Their job IS NOT to represent the country but our common European interest! When commissioner starts his/her job their stop working for Ireland and starting work for EUROPE.

Let's say Ireland has commissioner responsible for health care. So what?? All tender and biddings would be won by Irish companies and it the case of epistemic all medicines will be sent to Ireland or what??

Favoring any country is FORBIDDEN. This nationalistic game has no sense at all...

Yup, it's a con job.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

Yup, it's a con job.

You're right it's a con-job - a No campaign con-job. You can't really complain if this or any other red herring comes back to bite you.

If it's not a legitimate concern (and it isn't), it would have been better if nobody on the No side had claimed it was a legitimate concern. Unfortunately they did - and so now a non-issue is an issue for some voters. Suck it up, as they say.

regards,
Scofflaw

studiorat

There seems to be a reticence on the No side to accept that a European Commissioner from a different country can fairly represent them. I think it says more about those who believe that, than it does about the Commission as a whole.

WooPeeA

By the way, did you know that under Treaty of Nice which is in use today Ireland may lose commissioner anyway? Treaty of Lisbon won't make any change in that issue.

It's just weak propaganda promoted by Declan Ganley, or as I call him, Dr. No.

Scofflaw

studiorat wrote: »

There seems to be a reticence on the No side to accept that a European Commissioner from a different country can fairly represent them. I think it says more about those who believe that, than it does about the Commission as a whole.

The original reason for having a Commissioner per country was exactly that suspicion - that Commissioners would represent national interests. As the powers of the Commission have weakened, and the member state governments have found that the Commission does a good job of being European rather than national, they have become less suspicious.

cordially,
Scofflaw

turgon

WooPeeA wrote: »

Damn it! What the heck is the difference where the commissioner comes from!!? Their job IS NOT to represent the country but our common European interest! When commissioner starts his/her job their stop working for Ireland and starting work for EUROPE.

But jimmy down the fish shop said thats not true so im going to fight for a commissioner for every member state, not that I know what a "commissioner" is, or a "member state" for that matter.

One of the problems of democracy: the electorate are retards. It is a system where, in this country, Bin Men are to make decisions on international treaties effecting the EU.

ChocolateSauce

Considering the they are there for the EU and not Ireland, I don't see the problem. Unless we don't trust the other EU states to promote the EU enough. I'd be perfectly happy never having one.

Furious-Dave

turgon wrote: »

But jimmy down the fish shop said thats not true so im going to fight for a commissioner for every member state, not that I know what a "commissioner" is, or a "member state" for that matter.

One of the problems of democracy: the electorate are retards. It is a system where, in this country, Bin Men are to make decisions on international treaties effecting the EU.

What do you have against Bin Men? It's an honest job!

studiorat

Osama Bin Man...

I'll get me coat.

tolosenc

WooPeeA wrote: »

Declan Ganley, or as I call him, Dr. No.

You willfully imply he is semi-intelligent? :P

murphaph

turgon wrote: »

But jimmy down the fish shop said thats not true so im going to fight for a commissioner for every member state, not that I know what a "commissioner" is, or a "member state" for that matter.

One of the problems of democracy: the electorate are retards. It is a system where, in this country, Bin Men are to make decisions on international treaties effecting the EU.

Then lucky for you we don't appear to live in a democratic Europe as our democratic will is being ignored right now. It's deeply sinister that when a member state of equal standing rejects a treaty that this is ignored and the decision the political circles want is railroaded through.

I believe we ordinary people of Europe have come to a crossroads now and must say to those who would seek to control our destiny that "we are in charge". The nuts and bolts of Lisbon are now irrelevant-the principle of democracy in Europe is at stake. I would hope that our fellow european citizens would rally and protest their governments if any move was made against Ireland for again rejecting Lisbon.

Scofflaw

murphaph wrote: »

Then lucky for you we don't appear to live in a democratic Europe as our democratic will is being ignored right now. It's deeply sinister that when a member state of equal standing rejects a treaty that this is ignored and the decision the political circles want is railroaded through.

Good Lord! You mean they're not holding another referendum? They're doing it some way which doesn't involve putting it to the vote? They're rigging the vote?

Or is that totally inaccurate? You won the first vote - why is a second so unwinnable as to be 'railroading'?

murphaph wrote: »

I believe we ordinary people of Europe have come to a crossroads now and must say to those who would seek to control our destiny that "we are in charge". The nuts and bolts of Lisbon are now irrelevant-the principle of democracy in Europe is at stake. I would hope that our fellow european citizens would rally and protest their governments if any move was made against Ireland for again rejecting Lisbon.

There wasn't exactly much demonstration of mass support for the No side first time round. Most of the 'demonstrations' organised around Europe were only just in double figures.

cordially,
Scofflaw

murphaph

Scofflaw wrote: »

Good Lord! You mean they're not holding another referendum? They're doing it some way which doesn't involve putting it to the vote? They're rigging the vote?

Or is that totally inaccurate? You won the first vote - why is a second so unwinnable as to be 'railroading'?

The 2nd vote will be on exactly the same treaty as the last one-correct? So what's the point exactly? What will your position be if (when, I believe) the next one is also a NO vote? Will that be the end of the Treaty of Lisbon? If the last referendum had resulted in a YES outcome, there would be no re-run. As it stands it appears that the referendum will be re-run intil such time as 50.0000001% of the electorate vote in favour and then we move on to the next step of european integration. That is plainly undemocratic.

Scofflaw wrote: »

There wasn't exactly much demonstration of mass support for the No side first time round. Most of the 'demonstrations' organised around Europe were only just in double figures.

True. But this is now about much more than the Treaty of Lisbon (which was indecipherable to most laymen across Europe so they were unlikely to protest it). If the political leaders of our european neighbours round on us in a bid to extracate us from the 'project' then that is a wholly more serious matter than a european treaty as it has widespread implications for all our european neighbours should they decide not to toe the project line. This treaty and its possible rejection has the ability to bring the whole project into question.

WooPeeA

murphaph wrote: »

The 2nd vote will be on exactly the same treaty as the last one-correct? So what's the point exactly? What will your position be if (when, I believe) the next one is also a NO vote? Will that be the end of the Treaty of Lisbon?

End of the Treaty? Why would that be? I would rather say it may be end of Irish voice in Europe.

Scofflaw

murphaph wrote: »

The 2nd vote will be on exactly the same treaty as the last one-correct? So what's the point exactly? What will your position be if (when, I believe) the next one is also a NO vote? Will that be the end of the Treaty of Lisbon? If the last referendum had resulted in a YES outcome, there would be no re-run. As it stands it appears that the referendum will be re-run intil such time as 50.0000001% of the electorate vote in favour and then we move on to the next step of european integration. That is plainly undemocratic.

Democracy = will of the people, expressed through free voting.
Non-democracy = not will of the people, expressed through suppression of voting, rigging of votes.

You don't like the ability of the government to ask again, fair enough. Calling it undemocratic risks ridicule, and rightly so, unless you're suggesting that either we really can be asked every week until we say Yes, or that the vote is rigged. Leaving aside the latter, which isn't really worth discussing, what about the former? The amount of political capital that's being expended to get a second referendum tells you all you need to know about the claim that we'll go on being asked - we won't be.

murphaph wrote: »

True. But this is now about much more than the Treaty of Lisbon (which was indecipherable to most laymen across Europe so they were unlikely to protest it). If the political leaders of our european neighbours round on us in a bid to extracate us from the 'project' then that is a wholly more serious matter than a european treaty as it has widespread implications for all our european neighbours should they decide not to toe the project line. This treaty and its possible rejection has the ability to bring the whole project into question.

The other member states want to reform the EU. To suggest that they have no interest, therefore, in us saying yes, is fatuous. What methods are they using to get the desired permission from us to reform the EU? Why, they're asking us to please change our minds. Out-ra-geous. Not.

The reform of the EU is of interest to 26 other sovereign states. What's incredible is the sheer lack of real pressure, and the very little doubt that a second No would terminate this stage of the proceedings.


cordially,
Scofflaw

murphaph

WooPeeA wrote: »

End of the Treaty? Why would that be? I would rather say it may be end of Irish voice in Europe.

What voice? We voiced our opinion and it was deemed unacceptable. The French people voiced their opinion as did the dutch, that was also deemed unacceptable. Do people not see that something is afoot here?

There's probably no point in me contributing here as I'll be told to go to the conspiracy forums in short order. Suffice to say I don't take it all at face value anymore and believe there are elements out there that will benefit from the eventual federal Europe that they want. Call me crazy or even just believe it and politlely say nothing, but I believe we will all (all Europeans) live to regret not questioning the motives behind the constitution/Lisbon and the modus operandii used to 'get it through' despite refection by the citizenry of 3 nations.

WooPeeA

murphaph wrote: »

There's probably no point in me contributing here as I'll be told to go to the conspiracy forums in short order. Suffice to say I don't take it all at face value anymore and believe there are elements out there that will benefit from the eventual federal Europe that they want. Call me crazy or even just believe it and politlely say nothing, but I believe we will all (all Europeans) live to regret not questioning the motives behind the constitution/Lisbon and the modus operandii used to 'get it through' despite refection by the citizenry of 3 nations.

Motives behind the Lisbon? The motives are simple.

What we need in Europe today are not complex people who are still mentally in the past. What we need in Europe today are not selfish men for whom the Union is only money making machine "If they won't give us anything, we will reject them on every footstep they made", for whom thinking about giving something back is almost impossible to imagine.

What we need in Europe today are the people who can forgive all mistakes from the past and come together to face problems of tomorrow.

And Lisbon Treaty has been made to provide it.

sink

murphaph wrote: »

. As it stands it appears that the referendum will be re-run intil such time as 50.0000001% of the electorate vote in favour and then we move on to the next step of european integration. That is plainly undemocratic.

A come on now that figure is plainly impossible as we don't have 1,000,000,000 citizens. What we need is roughly 50.0002%. A bit of perspective please! :pac:

thebman

I think it would have been better if they refused to move on the commissioner because it has no affect and explained to the people that the no side were trying to deceive them into voting no because of it.

I know people who have said that they voted no because of the commissioner issue and when I say it to them they just say that it doesn't sound right that they don't act on our behalf etc...

People seem to want to believe we are being hard done by TBH.

Scofflaw

brim4brim wrote: »

I think it would have been better if they refused to move on the commissioner because it has no affect and explained to the people that the no side were trying to deceive them into voting no because of it.

I know people who have said that they voted no because of the commissioner issue and when I say it to them they just say that it doesn't sound right that they don't act on our behalf etc...

People seem to want to believe we are being hard done by TBH.

The Commissioner is a comprehensible issue, for a start. It's also something that the Irish government made much of as a symbol of our equality in Europe, and indeed as a symbol of our representation in Europe, so I suppose it's hardly a surprise it's such a persistent issue.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

murphaph wrote: »

As it stands it appears that the referendum will be re-run intil such time as 50.0000001% of the electorate vote in favour and then we move on to the next step of european integration. That is plainly undemocratic.

It's undemocratic of the EU not to proceed with further integration until the majority of the electorate is in favour of such a move? Interesting...

O'Morris

I'm sure if Robert Mugabe was doing it it would be called undemocratic.

oscarBravo

We need an updated version of Godwin's Law for Mugabe.

lostexpectation

if everyone on the yes side thinks keeping the 27 commissioners is such a bad idea why i they keeping it, why not just try to reconvince people, stand up for their convictionss there are trying to show how the power of the union doesn't take away from the power of the nation, keeping the commisioners on national basis doens't make that case.

Scofflaw

lostexpectation wrote: »

if everyone on the yes side thinks keeping the 27 commissioners is such a bad idea why i they keeping it, why not just try to reconvince people, stand up for their convictionss there are trying to show how the power of the union doesn't take away from the power of the nation, keeping the commisioners on national basis doens't make that case.

Well, not everyone on the Yes side does think it's a bad idea. If the idea of retaining 1 Commissioner per country had no supporters, it probably would not have been possible. The main reason for supporting it is in terms of legitimacy - that people will feel more connected to the EU if they know that they have a 'national' Commissioner. I'm pretty certain a couple of the existing Commissioners have said this publicly.

cordially,
Scofflaw

lostexpectation

yes but when they come in they have to agree not to act in the national interest but as eu employee

this also means 27 commisioners ...

studiorat

lostexpectation wrote: »

yes but when they come in they have to agree not to act in the national interest but as eu employee

Ah-be-jaysus we'll have one of our own in there's anyway!
sure that's what matters.:D

Eurosceptic2008

I wonder would it be possible, within the constraints of Nice, to address the problem of the post-November 2009 Commission by a Rabbitte/O'Donnell-style "Super Junior" Commissioner, who could sit but not vote, or else appointing a President of the Commission who will not officially be part of the Commission? If we could go down that root, then an Irish voice could be maintained on the Commission anyway.

oscarBravo

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

I wonder would it be possible, within the constraints of Nice, to address the problem of the post-November 2009 Commission by a Rabbitte/O'Donnell-style "Super Junior" Commissioner, who could sit but not vote, or else appointing a President of the Commission who will not officially be part of the Commission? If we could go down that root, then an Irish voice could be maintained on the Commission anyway.

First, not everyone sees the post-November Commission as a problem. Second, why do you want an Irish voice on the Commission?

sink

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

I wonder would it be possible, within the constraints of Nice, to address the problem of the post-November 2009 Commission by a Rabbitte/O'Donnell-style "Super Junior" Commissioner, who could sit but not vote, or else appointing a President of the Commission who will not officially be part of the Commission? If we could go down that root, then an Irish voice could be maintained on the Commission anyway.

The commission does not vote on ANYTHING!!! Please learn a bit about the commission before you comment.

Eurosceptic2008

oscarBravo wrote: »

First, not everyone sees the post-November Commission as a problem. Second, why do you want an Irish voice on the Commission?

Because historically national Commissioners have protected the interests of small states, such as McSharry on structural funds and McCreevy in opposing tax-harmonisation. Where the Commissioner's relevance to national interests is concern, the theory does not coincide with the practice. The primary loyalty of the peoples of Europe is to their respective nation states, each with differing perspectives on a range of issues. That is particularly true in Ireland with our tradition of neutrality and concerns about abortion (though personally I would relax the law on the latter slightly). This was a key issue in the no vote, as attested to by the results and research on the reasons for the no vote. There is a correct perception - acknowledged recently by Pat Cox on Today with Pat Kenny (or Lunchtime with Eamon Kean on Newstalk - not sure which) that there was a perception that not having a Commissioner means not having a voice.

sink wrote:

The commission does not vote on ANYTHING!!! Please learn a bit about the commission before you comment.

The Commission operates according to the model of Cabinet government, which obviously includes voting on whether to initiate legislation.