FF Minister rejects Bruton as Commissioner, on grounds of Party Affliation

Het-Field

In the Irish Times on Thursday, an unnamed Minister has rejected any chance of John Bruton (EU Ambassador to America) become Ireland's EU Commissioner.

This rejection is not based on any ideological grounds, nor is Mr Bruton's ability to perform the job adequately which the Minister fears. It is simply to do with Mr Bruton not coming from "Fianna Fail Stock" If one follows this to its logical conclusion, the its likely that Pat Cox (another one with potential to be a world class commissioner) is also unsuitable for the post.

By virtue of the anonomous Minister's assertions, it appears that only Fianna Failers should do the job. He seems to forget that the people of Dublin rejected Eoin Ryan, while also rejecting most of their Councellor forum also.

Are FF that petty that they would reject genuine contenders for big ortflios, to proffer their "jobs for the boyos" mentality.

Nody

Het-Field wrote: »

Are FF that petty that they would reject genuine contenders for big ortflios, to proffer their "jobs for the boyos" mentality.

Well considering NAMA and AIB fiascoes do you really need to ask?

Martin 2

Het-Field wrote: »

In the Irish Times on Thursday, an unnamed Minister has rejected any chance of John Bruton (EU Ambassador to America) become Ireland's EU Commissioner.

This rejection is not based on any ideological grounds, nor is Mr Bruton's ability to perform the job adequately which the Minister fears. It is simply to do with Mr Bruton not coming from "Fianna Fail Stock" If one follows this to its logical conclusion, the its likely that Pat Cox (another one with potential to be a world class commissioner) is also unsuitable for the post.

By virtue of the anonomous Minister's assertions, it appears that only Fianna Failers should do the job. He seems to forget that the people of Dublin rejected Eoin Ryan, while also rejecting most of their Councellor forum also.

Are FF that petty that they would reject genuine contenders for big ortflios, to proffer their "jobs for the boyos" mentality.

Absolutely, this is totally in keeping with FF's character; they have a record of putting the party before Europe.

-They put forward Charlie Mc Creevy as an EU commissioner in spite of the fact the EU commission had criticized his inflationary policies including tax incentives (on property) while he was Minister for finance.
-They made a complete hash of Lisbon 1 and used their posters to promote local candidates rather than the referendum.

[FONT=&quot]As for Bruton and Cox, based on their CV's, they would be ideal commissioner candidates.[/FONT]

K-9

Martin 2 wrote: »

Absolutely, this is totally in keeping with FF's character; they have a record of putting the party before Europe.

-They put forward Charlie Mc Creevy as an EU commissioner in spite of the fact the EU commission had criticized his inflationary policies including tax incentives (on property) while he was Minister for finance.
-They made a complete hash of Lisbon 1 and used their posters to promote local candidates rather than the referendum.

[font=&quot]As for Bruton and Cox, based on their CV's, they would be ideal commissioner candidates.[/font]

Funnily enough FF I think are the only party to go against Party lines on Commissioners, Richard Burke (for political reasons) and I think David Byrne would have been considered a PD, not 100% sure.

Either Cox or Bruton would be good choices.

MikeC101

Martin 2 wrote: »

Absolutely, this is totally in keeping with FF's character; they have a record of putting the party before Europe.

Heck, not even just that, they've a record of putting the party before Ireland too. Didn't some high profile members admit a while back that FF came first, ahead of the country as a whole?

imme

K-9 wrote: »

Funnily enough FF I think are the only party to go against Party lines on Commissioners, Richard Burke (for political reasons) and I think David Byrne would have been considered a PD, not 100% sure.

Either Cox or Bruton would be good choices.

Byrne was an FF friend of Bertie and the coalition Atorney General, so I guess he sent him instead of sending a minister/backbench TD, possibly resulting in the loss of a Dáil seat in a byelection. Byrne was a member of Berties 'kitchen cabinet' in St. Lukes and involved in the purchase of St. Lukes.
'Unnamed FF Minister', that made me laugh, I guess Willie O'Dea or similar useless Minister. Bruton was suggested by FG, Labour also suggested someone to the government, but they wouldn't say who. The guess is it's Ruairi Quinn.

gizmo555

On the front page of this weekend's Sunday Business Post there's a piece about the ESRI lambasting Calamity Coughlan's proposed new code of conduct for the grocery trade:

In a highly critical paper, entitled "How to Do a Lot of Harm by Trying to Do a Bit of Good", the think-tank said the proposals were protectionist, backward and should be withdrawn by the government. In the 43-page submission to government, the ESRI said there was no rationale for the code, arguing that it would ultimately result in leading retailers sourcing more products abroad and reducing competitiveness in the grocery sector.

http://www.thepost.ie/news/ireland/esri-highly-critical-of-coughlans-dangerous-grocery-conduct-code-45100.html

In another article inside, Coughlan is mooted as a possible candidate for our EU Commissioner :eek:

Makes you wonder what all the fuss about keeping a commissioner was about - with candidates of her calibre, we'd be better off without one . . .

Euro_Kraut

Would love to see a big hitter like Bruton or Mary Robinson become our next commissioner. Robinson would make an excellent EU Commissioner for External Affairs.

K-9

imme wrote: »

Byrne was an FF friend of Bertie and the coalition Atorney General, so I guess he sent him instead of sending a minister/backbench TD, possibly resulting in the loss of a Dáil seat in a byelection. Byrne was a member of Berties 'kitchen cabinet' in St. Lukes and involved in the purchase of St. Lukes.
'Unnamed FF Minister', that made me laugh, I guess Willie O'Dea or similar useless Minister. Bruton was suggested by FG, Labour also suggested someone to the government, but they wouldn't say who. The guess is it's Ruairi Quinn.

Ah right, you have any sources on that? I always thought he was a PD from articles at the time.

gizmo555 wrote: »

On the front page of this weekend's Sunday Business Post there's a piece about the ESRI lambasting Calamity Coughlan's proposed new code of conduct for the grocery trade:

In a highly critical paper, entitled "How to Do a Lot of Harm by Trying to Do a Bit of Good", the think-tank said the proposals were protectionist, backward and should be withdrawn by the government. In the 43-page submission to government, the ESRI said there was no rationale for the code, arguing that it would ultimately result in leading retailers sourcing more products abroad and reducing competitiveness in the grocery sector.

http://www.thepost.ie/news/ireland/esri-highly-critical-of-coughlans-dangerous-grocery-conduct-code-45100.html

In another article inside, Coughlan is mooted as a possible candidate for our EU Commissioner :eek:

Makes you wonder what all the fuss about keeping a commissioner was about - with candidates of her calibre, we'd be better off without one . . .

Oh Good God of almighty! Give it to Pat the Cope then! :eek:

evercloserunion

I wouldn't take a quote from an unknown minister as gospel. They often disagree on things. Coughlan caused a stir when she rubbished a lot of the McCarthy report which Lenihan and Cowen want to implement, and the Programme for Government was apparently never discussed with Lenihan before it was agreed, despite thwarting his plans to make cutbacks (as well as pulling the rug from underneath Batt O'Keefe). Whoever this minister was, it is quite possible that he made his comments without having consulted an Taoiseach.

At least I hope so because I can't really think of any decent FFer they could send. Really the only FFer I can think of that I would think suitable for the commission is Michael Martin and I don't think they'd send him. For all their pro-Europe rhetoric I get the feeling that they see the commission spot as just another job for the boys which is detestable, stupid and dangerous. That said I may be wrong, maybe they will choose someone suitable for the job.

Cox would be a good candidate; though I disagree with him politically he has a lot of experience in Europe and a good name I think. We really have to think about who we send. Our commissioner may not be our representative in Europe, but we would look like awful dickheads if we threw a tantrum until we got to keep our commission spot permanently and then sent some clueless gombeen hoor.

SkepticOne

The job of commissioner is one of real power and importance, however it is up to the current government to decide who to send. Whether it is for the good of Europe, or for party political reasons or to return a favour or whatever is their business not ours. It is not like the Lisbon treaty where we had a say.

I don't think their decision is going to be based on what the electorate might favour because the government are already unpopular and likely to lose the next election unless things drastically change. Therefore their decision is most likely going to be for party political reasons or paying back a favour.

Don't like it? It is simply the democratic deficit at work. Something that the politicians (and it seems the Irish electorate) have little interest in correcting.

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

The job of commissioner is one of real power and importance, however it is up to the current government to decide who to send. Whether it is for the good of Europe, or for party political reasons or to return a favour or whatever is their business not ours. It is not like the Lisbon treaty where we had a say.

I don't think their decision is going to be based on what the electorate might favour because the government are already unpopular and likely to lose the next election unless things drastically change. Therefore their decision is most likely going to be for party political reasons or paying back a favour.

Don't like it? It is simply the democratic deficit at work. Something that the politicians (and it seems the Irish electorate) have little interest in correcting.

Perhaps because it's along exactly the same lines as the appointment of other positions of real power and influence. The electorate don't directly determine who gets to be Minister for Health, or Finance, or the head of Fás, or be the financial regulator, or the head of Comreg, or Supreme Court judges, or the Ceann Comhairle, or even much of the Seanad.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SkepticOne

Scofflaw wrote: »

Perhaps because it's along exactly the same lines as the appointment of other positions of real power and influence. The electorate don't directly determine who gets to be Minister for Health, or Finance, or the head of Fás, or be the financial regulator, or the head of Comreg, or Supreme Court judges, or the Ceann Comhairle, or even much of the Seanad.

I disagree that these positions are comparable to that of commissioners. None of them can make laws that the state must then adhere to with the exception, in the case of the positions you mention, of ministers as members of the oireachtas, and they report directly to the taoiseach. The other positions you mention (with the exception of the seanad) are subject to the laws made by the Oireachtas. Primary power still lies with elected representatives not political appointees.

To a certain extent I would regard the seanad - stuffed as it is with appointees and with a legislative role albeit limited - as deficient in the same way as the commission but that is for another thread.

imme

K-9 wrote: »

Ah right, you have any sources on that? I always thought he was a PD from articles at the time.

yes:cool:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/st-lukes-office-was-bought-for-ff-not-ahern-tribunal-told-1390747.html

evercloserunion

SkepticOne wrote: »

I disagree that these positions are comparable to that of commissioners. None of them can make laws that the state must then adhere to with the exception, in the case of the positions you mention, of ministers as members of the oireachtas, and they report directly to the taoiseach. The other positions you mention (with the exception of the seanad) are subject to the laws made by the Oireachtas. Primary power still lies with elected representatives not political appointees.

To a certain extent I would regard the seanad - stuffed as it is with appointees and with a legislative role albeit limited - as deficient in the same way as the commission but that is for another thread.

You are misrepresenting the role of the Commission. it does not make laws to which states must adhere. The Commission can only propose laws; it cannot enact laws by itself. After Lisbon, pretty much every law proposed by the Commission must be accepted by the Parliament - which, guess what, is democratically elected by the people.

SkepticOne

evercloserunion wrote: »

You are misrepresenting the role of the Commission. it does not make laws to which states must adhere. The Commission can only propose laws; it cannot enact laws by itself. After Lisbon, pretty much every law proposed by the Commission must be accepted by the Parliament - which, guess what, is democratically elected by the people.

It initiates legislation. The elected parliament cannot do this - hence the democratic deficit.

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

It initiates legislation. The elected parliament cannot do this - hence the democratic deficit.

Simplistic in the extreme. That the Commission is the sole initiator of legislation (for the internal market, that is) is meaningless in itself, because it initiates legislation largely at the request of the Parliament and Council, and cannot pass any legislation without the agreement of the Parliament and Council. The Commission is almost completely irrelevant to the democratic deficit - it's a convenient focus for those who don't understand the EU, but those people's proposed solutions for what they erroneously conceive of as "the democratic deficit" are, as a result, usually worse than useless.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SkepticOne

Scofflaw wrote: »

Simplistic in the extreme. That the Commission is the sole initiator of legislation (for the internal market, that is) is meaningless in itself, because it initiates legislation largely at the request of the Parliament and Council, and cannot pass any legislation without the agreement of the Parliament and Council.

I think request is the key word here. The parliament may request legislation from the commission and the commission may grant, if it wishes, that request. They are also free to initiate legislation not requested or ignore requests. Why?

The Commission is almost completely irrelevant to the democratic deficit - it's a convenient focus for those who don't understand the EU, but those people's proposed solutions for what they erroneously conceive of as "the democratic deficit" are, as a result, usually worse than useless.

If you say so.

View

SkepticOne wrote: »

I think request is the key word here. The parliament may request legislation from the commission and the commission may grant, if it wishes, that request.

The Parliament is free to sack the Commission anytime it choose. It can also repeatedly reject the Commission's proposals in almost all areas.

You'd want to be a really dumb Commission to spend your time ignoring the Parliament's requests.

View

SkepticOne wrote: »

Don't like it? It is simply the democratic deficit at work. Something that the politicians (and it seems the Irish electorate) have little interest in correcting.

Speaking personally, one of the reasons I voted Yes was precisely because the Lisbon Treaty made a good effort in increasing the democratic accountability of the EU.

Like its predecessor Treaties, Lisbon increased the co-decision powers (with the Council of Ministers) of the European Parliament raising this to approx. 95% of EU legislation. Ideally, in my opinion, this should have been 100% of all legislation, but I'd be optimistic we will reach that in the next Treaty.

Sadly, the other major step in Lisbon in this direction had to be abandoned due to Ireland's No vote last year.

By this I mean, of course, the the abandonment of the One Commissioner per member state rule. This, to my mind, was the necessary first step in the process which would ultimately lead - as was proposed in the Convention on the EU constitution way back around 2001 - to the European Parliament proposing candidates based on their merit (rather than the nationality) and then either solely or jointly with the Council electing the Commission from these candidates.

Nevertheless, despite this set-back, those of us who voted Yes in either, or both, Lisbon referenda can be happy that we voted for a more democratic EU.

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

I think request is the key word here. The parliament may request legislation from the commission and the commission may grant, if it wishes, that request. They are also free to initiate legislation not requested or ignore requests. Why?

Yet 95% of what the Commission does is on foot of such requests - it very rarely exercises its own initiative. Mostly, the point of the Commission is (a) to ensure that legislation put forward is European in character (ie fair to all the states), and (b) to prevent domination of EU legislative output by the big states.

This is part of a Commission clarification issued by their Irish Representation:

It is important to remember that the Commission cannot make law. Only the elected ministers in Council and the elected MEPs in the Parliament can make law. The Commission proposes laws and puts them to the elected politicans in the Council and the EP for them to accept, reject or change. It cannot itself make laws.


The Commission's role
It is however true that the Treaties lay down that only the Commission may initiate proposals for laws. This was done to ensure that a 'neutral' referee keeps the right of initiative so that no one big country can start to dominate the smaller states.

After the laws are made, the Commission then also has the role of ensuring the law is respected, bringing Member States to Court if necessary without fear or favour (again because it is deemed to be neutral).

But the reality is that the Commission proposes things that have been asked for by the political world. (Otherwise they would never get through - what would be the point?!)

Around 95% of Commission proposals each year are as the result of requests from Member state governments through the Council, or from EU civil society organisations and social partner. Only a tiny proportion are from the Commission services using their 'right of initiative' without a specific request.

Again, this is because there would be no point proposing things for which there is no political will from the elected politicians in Council and the European Parliament because it would naturally be a waste of time.

The Commission is a gatekeeper and neutral referee, not a European government. That doesn't make the Commission's role unimportant - clearly each Commissioner has the ability to make their mark to some extent on the legislation that is put forward - but it does argue strongly against any claim that the Commission's unelected status plays a major role in the 'democratic deficit'. An elected Commission would be far worse, since it would simply drag national power-play and electoral grandstanding into what is intended to be (and is, on current form) a body that is neutral, technical and disinterestedly European.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ConsiderThis

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yet 95% of what the Commission does is on foot of such requests - it very rarely exercises its own initiative.

My Guess is that we should wait until Tony Blair is elected, and we'll see the ambit of the office of president, and hence tha ambit of the commission, increase exponentially, before you can say "Lisbon treaty".

passive

ConsiderThis wrote: »

My Guess is...

You lost me here.

evercloserunion

ConsiderThis wrote: »

My Guess is that we should wait until Tony Blair is elected, and we'll see the ambit of the office of president, and hence tha ambit of the commission, increase exponentially, before you can say "Lisbon treaty".

Well I suppose as long as you call it your guess you're not technically lying.

sceptre

Sniping aside, anything that follows "my guess..." is nothing more than opinion and opinion backed essentially by a metaphorical feeling in one's gut or at the back of one's neck is worth precisely nothing.

Sorry ConsiderThis, if I were you I'd consider something else.

sceptre

I've moved the posts discussing Tony Blair as potential president of the EU council that have been added in the past day to the relevant thread (which has "Tony Blair" and "presidency" in the thread title, even if it's a bit of a misleading thread title) as they're infinitely more at home there, being on-topic there and off-topic here:)