Whats the story with the Commissioners

Stabshauptmann

I thought that we agreed to give up our commissioner in some sort of rotation scheme in the Nice treaty, and that Lisbon had no effect on this.

Now people are telling me that in the 2nd Lisbon treaty, we get to keep our commisssioner for ever.

Whats going on?

marco_polo

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

I thought that we agreed to give up our commissioner in some sort of rotation scheme in the Nice treaty, and that Lisbon had no effect on this.

Now people are telling me that in the 2nd Lisbon treaty, we get to keep our commisssioner for ever.

Whats going on?

The Nice Treaty requires that the number of Commissioners be reduced by November 2009. The European Council has agreed that provided the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, the rules will be changed by a decision so that the Commission shall continue to include one national of each Member State.

Hitman Actual

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

I thought that we agreed to give up our commissioner in some sort of rotation scheme in the Nice treaty, and that Lisbon had no effect on this.

Now people are telling me that in the 2nd Lisbon treaty, we get to keep our commisssioner for ever.

Whats going on?

Under the Nice Treaty, the number of Commissioners was to be reduced once there were 27 member states, which there now are. Lisbon contains the provisions for that reduction, as shown below in Article 17(5) below. But it also contains the provision that the European Council may unanimously change the make-up of the Commission. The Government guarantee obtained in the June EC summit is basically a pledge from the other member states to invoke this unanimity rule and allow every member state to keep 'their' Commissioner.

Article TEU 17(5) wrote:

As from 1 November 2014, the Commission shall consist of a number of members, including its President and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, corresponding to two thirds of the number of Member States, unless the European Council, acting unanimously, decides to alter this number.

Het-Field

Its bollocks tbh. While the importance of the Commissioner's role cannot be understated, it is clear that reform was necessary. Mary Harney once mentioned at a General Council Meeting of the PDs that the current situation was unworkable, and that reform was needed to ensure people could get a word in edgeways at Commission pleanery sessions.

The Union will continue to expand (with Iceland and Croatia likely to enter before 2013), and this may mean...more commissioners. The work will remain cumbersome, and there will be servral commissionership which will do little or nothing. Multilingualism comes to mind. Furthermore, the has been severing of Commissioner roles to ensure all and sundry have a job.

I have no doubt that Ireland could be punished for it's reticence to aid the reform by being handed the lemon commissionership, while the rest of the members share out the plums. Equally should Eoin Ryan be selected, we can be guaranteed one of the weaker commissionerships. In that case, its Cox, Bruton, Quinn, or bust.


Either way, reform is needed, and the larger the commission, the more cumbersome the independent organisation becomes.

Steviemak

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

Whats going on?

Lisbon passed - Keep Commissioner

Lisbon rejected - Lose Commissioner to a rotation with no guarantees on how often we will have one

Grissom

Stevie, I think is important to point out that a yes to Lisbon would abolish our present right to "propose" and decide who Ireland's Commissioner is, by replacing it with a right to make "suggestions" only, leaving it up to the incoming Commission President to decide (Art.17.7 TEU). The EU Prime Ministers have promised each State a permanent Commissioner, but what is the point of us continuing to have an Irish Commissioner post-Lisbon when the Irish Government can no longer decide who that Commissioner would be?

Steviemak wrote: »

Lisbon passed - Keep Commissioner

Lisbon rejected - Lose Commissioner to a rotation with no guarantees on how often we will have one

Het-Field

Grissom wrote: »

Stevie, I think is important to point out that a yes to Lisbon would abolish our present right to "propose" and decide who Ireland's Commissioner is, by replacing it with a right to make "suggestions" only, leaving it up to the incoming Commission President to decide (Art.17.7 TEU). The EU Prime Ministers have promised each State a permanent Commissioner, but what is the point of us continuing to have an Irish Commissioner post-Lisbon when the Irish Government can no longer decide who that Commissioner would be?

The Commission already needs ratification after the MS nominates the commissioner. It has always been a suggestion, and the parliment and the commission elect the commission. However, it is a rubber stamping exercise, and the national parliment will NEVER be second guessed.

Hitman Actual

Grissom wrote: »

Stevie, I think is important to point out that a yes to Lisbon would abolish our present right to "propose" and decide who Ireland's Commissioner is, by replacing it with a right to make "suggestions" only, leaving it up to the incoming Commission President to decide (Art.17.7 TEU). The EU Prime Ministers have promised each State a permanent Commissioner, but what is the point of us continuing to have an Irish Commissioner post-Lisbon when the Irish Government can no longer decide who that Commissioner would be?

You're reading far too much into that. If anything, the new wording may mean that the member states make a greater effort in ensuring that someone competent is proposed as Commissioner, and might end the "cushy retirement" reputation that the position currently has (at least, one can hope!). [Edit: Forget that, there isn't even enough in the change of wording to give that impression. This is a really innocuous change, and anyone highlighting it is only picking at straws. But if that's what the No side are reduced to, then happy days.]

Here's the relevant Nice provisions:

---

Nice

Article 213(1) TEC wrote:

1. The Members of the Commission shall be chosen on the grounds of their general competence and their independence shall be beyond doubt.

The Commission shall include one national of each of the Member States.

The number of Members of the Commission may be altered by the Council, acting unanimously.

Article 214 (2) Sub-paragraph 2 TEC wrote:

The Council, acting by a qualified majority and by common accord with the nominee for President, shall adopt the list of the other persons whom it intends to appoint as Members of the
Commission, drawn up in accordance with the proposals made by each Member State.

---

And the Lisbon provisions:

Article 17 (3) Sub-paragraph 2 TFEU wrote:

The members of the Commission shall be chosen on the ground of their general competence and European commitment from persons whose independence is beyond doubt.

Article 17(7) Sub-paragraph 2 TFEU wrote:

The Council, by common accord with the President-elect, shall adopt the list of the other persons whom it proposes for appointment as members of the Commission. They shall be selected, on the basis of the suggestions made by Member States, in accordance with the criteria set out in paragraph 3, second subparagraph, and paragraph 5, second subparagraph.

Scofflaw

Grissom wrote: »

Stevie, I think is important to point out that a yes to Lisbon would abolish our present right to "propose" and decide who Ireland's Commissioner is, by replacing it with a right to make "suggestions" only, leaving it up to the incoming Commission President to decide (Art.17.7 TEU). The EU Prime Ministers have promised each State a permanent Commissioner, but what is the point of us continuing to have an Irish Commissioner post-Lisbon when the Irish Government can no longer decide who that Commissioner would be?

The Irish Government has the only right of proposal, under both Lisbon and Nice. However, the Parliament has the right of refusal, again under both Lisbon and Nice, and the European Council has the job of adopting the proposed candidates to present them to the Parliament under both sets of rules.

The change of words clarifies the existing position, rather than changing it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

Grissom wrote: »

Stevie, I think is important to point out that a yes to Lisbon would abolish our present right to "propose" and decide who Ireland's Commissioner is, by replacing it with a right to make "suggestions" only, leaving it up to the incoming Commission President to decide (Art.17.7 TEU). The EU Prime Ministers have promised each State a permanent Commissioner, but what is the point of us continuing to have an Irish Commissioner post-Lisbon when the Irish Government can no longer decide who that Commissioner would be?

Art.17.7 TEU clearly states that the Commisson President is limited to the pool of candidates suggested by the member states. Since each state is allowed one suggestion, and the size of the commision is the same as the number of member states. I think we can safely put this one to bed as well.