Irish Election are pleased to announce our collection of Irish 
“Why bother with Lisbon after all?” - A Solution to the European Commission Problem
Read more about: Blogging, Features, Government, Irish Politics, Lisbon Treaty, Referenda
The Financial Times’ Brussels blog has a very interesting story about the manouvering taking place on European Commission numbers from next year. As we found out, Nice will govern the makeup of the Commission from January next year - rather than Lisbon.
This means there has to be less Commissioners than there are member states, prompting much speculation that Ireland would be the first to give up our slot since we were such a petulant electorate.
…few seemed to understand that Ireland would be worse off under Nice. Lisbon contained a provision stating that, if all member states agreed, they could abandon the commitment to reducing the Commission’s size and keep one commissioner per member state [my emphasis]. Before the Irish vote, many in Brussels had quietly assumed this was exactly what would happen after Lisbon took effect. By contrast, Nice has no such provision.
Always nice to hear new arguments once the election has taken place.
One member state has already proposed: Cut the Commission in size, as Nice stipulates, but only from 27 to 26 members. Let the country that loses its commissioner take the job of high representative for foreign policy (at present, Javier Solana of Spain). Let him or her attend Commission meetings. Hey presto! Everyone’s still in the room.
Indeed this is an interesting proposal, no punishment beatings delivered to Ireland’s place in Europe - although we are unlikely to get a plum role on a 26 member cabinet. All states are represented and oddly enough the state that loses its commissioner ends up gaining the pedigree of foreign representative. The only issue is that this post will now be as tinged with national partisanship as the other commissioners’ roles. If this can be overcome - and it surely can once that Foreign Representative is well chosen - then the whole thing seems eminently sensible.
it’s so ingenious that it almost makes you ask, “Why bother with Lisbon, after all?” Which, of course, cannot possibly have been the question at the back of the mind of the country that floated the proposal . . . the UK!
Why indeed, why indeed. While it doesn’t necessarily mean this will be the status quo after January - it has the benefit of not requiring massive legislative loopholes to get some sort of agreement together. Nor does it engage in some sort of diplomatic faux pad like dropping Ireland from the Commission entirley. If they do want to rerun Lisbon then the UK may well have saved their bacon.
Unless of course the current Cypriot ruling party carry out a ‘no’ vote on Lisbon (I am still unclear if that defeats the Treaty there - I dont think it does as they only account for 35% of seats) and the Czechs follow suit. Then we are back to Nice and back to where we started.
“The only issue is that this post will now be as tinged with national partisanship as the other commissioners’ roles.”
Cian, I would argue that all roles in the commission are inherently partisan and it is a question of limiting that partisanship rather than demanding impossibly high standards of detachment from your home country. The use of entirely independent commisioners (whom I would suggest would be only motivated by self-interest rather than any other national interests) would surely increase the disconnect between the EU elite and the hoi polloi.
Interesting that the frustrated petulance demonstrated early in the day by our German and French colleagues may be borne more from a realisation that the lisbon train has indeed jumped the tracks and maybe a bit harder to keep moving despite the claims that nothing was wrong full steam ahead. The potential of a Cypriot no is to be honest new to me and while it may not kill the treaty (i dont know that either) it adds to the mood music of rejection
While the idea is certainly interesting, to be compatible with the rest of the article in the Nice treaty the 27th seat would have to be rotated between all member states, much like the way the presidency rotated every 6 months, right?
“The Members of the Commission shall be chosen according a rotation system based on the principle of equality”
Joe I dont think Nice had any specific provision for what the term principle of equlity meant, hence Germany and france arguing for small states to rotate in negotiating the current treaty. I dont think it would be rotated - at present the Commission and Foreign policy advisor serve full terms - rotating presidency is that of the Council - the intergovernmental element of the EU.
it adds to the mood music of rejection
it certainly does and the EU doesnt seem to be hearing that mood music at all. It needs to get its act together soon
@Cian the Nice Treaty:
“the Union, shall adopt 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.”
For clarity - point b is there to ensure that large and small countries, from the EU-15 and the new member states are represented. It would be seen as quite unfair if there was a commission with no-one from the new member states for example.
At first my inclination was to vote YES for Lisbon, and I promoted it on my Blog, but that was out of the lack of knowledge on my behalf. Then I asked myself the question ‘why this lack of information.’
I came up with three possible reasons 1. the Government was just inefficient in putting there message across 2. and this is more frightening they deliberately with-held information from us and 3. We just didn’t know what we were voting for.
Now call me innocent if you like but I believe in democracy and the rules of the clubs state that if one disagrees on a major rule change, that rule change doesn’t take place - and we said no thanks.
To be honest even if I were in favour of Lisbon if another Referendum was called I’d vote ‘No.’ Why? Well I’m dammed if I’ll let the Government hold referendums until they get the ‘right’ answer. Bertie got away with it, I’m sorry but Brian won’t
Kevin put yourself in the government’s position. They think Lisbon is good for Ireland. A large portion of the “no” vote was made up of people who voted “no” because they felt they didn’t know enough about the treaty. So why wouldn’t you educate those people, and then re-run the vote?
The government failed in its duty to educate the electorate. So why shouldn’t it attempt to rectify that error. It’s not as though they’re forcing us to vote “Yes”. It’s merely an opportunity for people to make an informed decision.
Some people were pissed when we voted for a second time on Nice, but that doesn’t make sense. Is there some sort of magical law whereby only the first result of a referendum on an issue represents the will of the people? If you think the government is wasting our time and money by making us vote twice, then how about making your voice heard come the general election.
Hi Nial
Should the Government not put itself in our position - it is we who are sovereign not them.
One of my fears would be that if we have a re-run then you open the gates till ‘let’s have another vote until we get the right answer.’
Kevin
Ireland voting “NO” is just what the french needed. Now they
will keep their massive EU agriculture monies.
Niall the collerery to that is that if it was a yes vote 22% with that many people saying that they didn’t understand it . Then Declan Ganley could say that there should be a second referndum. Although in that case it would be already passed and in law.
True Simon, but why on earth would someone vote “Yes” because they didn’t understand it? They’d be more likely to say that they voted “Yes” in spite of the fact, which is a different matter entirely.
It’s not the ignorance that’s important. It’s the basis on which they voted. So many “No” voters voted the way they did because they felt they hadn’t been provided with enough information and they felt they needed that information in order to consent to a change to the constitution. Once more information has been provided, circumstances will have changed sufficiently so that holding a second poll is desirable so that the will of the people can be properly expressed.
If somebody voted “Yes” to the constitution in spite of confessing ignorance, then it’s reasonable to believe that they were voting that way because they were happy to trust the government on the matter. They did not believe that they needed the details of the treaty in order to provide consent in regards altering our constitution.
Niall
AS I said in my earlier post my first inclination would have been to vote YES for Lisbon. Part of this reasoning would have simply been that to date the EU has been good for Ireland.
However, I ended celebrating the fact that Ireland had said NO on my BLOG
I agree with you when you say
“many “No” voters voted the way they did because they felt they hadn’t been provided with enough information and they felt they needed that information in order to consent to a change to the constitution.”
My worry now would be that the Government, deliberately or otherwise, with held information from its citizens in order to get a YES vote and I would be very suspect of them turning round and effectively saying ’sorry boys we didn’t give you all the information you needed last time around, we’ll do better next time. Lets have another vote.’
Call me a sceptic if you like but I wonder what would have happened if there had been a YES vote and it was pointed out to the Government that all the information that their citizens required to make a considered judgement had not been laid before them.
What do you think they’d have done - held another vote?
Kevin
“Call me a sceptic if you like but I wonder what would have happened if there had been a YES vote and it was pointed out to the Government that all the information that their citizens required to make a considered judgment had not been laid before them.
What do you think they’d have done - held another vote?”
I doubt there’d have been a second vote, though if the indications were that most people had changed their minds and would prefer not to ratify the treaty, then would a referendum even be required to un-ratify the treaty? When it comes down to it, the referendum commission provides objective information. So it’d be hard, if not impossible for the government to withhold information. Strictly speaking, such a situation should never arise. People should not be able to claim that the information was not available, perhaps only that it wasn’t publicised enough by campaigners.
The scenario raises an interesting questions. What should the government do when the public changes their mind on an issue where they have already made a commitment in international law? Do we go down the road of George Bush and ignore our commitments and obligations thus damaging our image or do we ignore the will of the people?
Anyway, as I said the government probably would not have held a second vote, but that just reflects the nature of our government. If you’re unhappy with Fianna Fail and their partners, the appropriate thing to do is to vote for somebody better come the next election. If they ratified the treaty against the will of the people, lied in an election campaign and failed to give us a necessary second referendum, then they would probably lose the next election. Anybody running on a platform whereby a new referendum would be held would probably gain considerable seats in the Dail under those circumstances.