Irish Election are pleased to announce our collection of Irish 
We keep our Commissioner and Revote
Read more about: Lisbon Treaty
The following is my translation of an article in today’s Le Monde about proposals to get another Irish referendum. It is quite interesting in the kind of manoevering it reveals and also there is an interesting little comment at the end about the way the commission is evolving into something less than desireable. The article was written by Arnaud Leparmentier
The reform of the European Commission is to be sacrificed on the altar of the Irish No to the Lisbon Treaty. It’s the likely direction for Europe, as Nicolas Sarkozy, incumbent president of the EU, meets the Irish prime minister, Brian Cowen in Dublin on Monday the 21st July.
For some weeks now, the experts have been seeking an avenue to secure and Irish revote after the No on the 12th June. The aim is to modify the text, without legal implications, to assure the Irish that their vote has been taken into account: it is out of the question to start the negotiations on a new treaty from scratch and to restart the ratification process in 27 other (sic) countries.
By careful rereading the legal experts have found a single avenue: the commission, even if it wasn’t central to the referendum campaign. As the No camp pointed out, the Irish will lose, like everyone else, their automatic right to appoint a commissioner in Brussels. The Nice Treaty, currently in effect, provides for a reduction of the number of commissioners once the total number reaches 27. That applies from 2009.
The Lisbon Treaty, however, offers an escape route: the reduction is postponed until 2014. Moreover, the treaty provides that the commission be composed of a number equal to two thirds the number of member states in the EU “unless the European Council unanimously agrees to modify this number”
The latter provides the margin for manoevre: the 27 can decide that the Commission will continue to be composed of one commissioner per country. The Irish will have the choice to make: it’s Lisbon and keep the Commissioner, or Nice will apply.
The Commission is Overcrowded
The No camp have always indicated they would oppose this kind of concession. To make the package more attractive, it is envisaged to issue a new declaration of the European Council which will restate the guarantees already given to Ireland in the entirety of the treaties: assurance that the EU will not be inolved in abortion, given in Maastricht in 1991; a guarantee of Irish neutrality, re-iterated as it happens after the first Irish No in 2001 to the treaty of Nice; a guarantee that fiscal matters will remain under unanimity.
These proposals could be debated at the Council in October and adopted in December. The Irish could therefore run another referendum, on the same day as the European elections in 2009 at the latest.
The Commission would be weakened by this compromise. It has now become overcrowded, especially since the commission president, José Manuel Barroso, has made “legislate less” his motto. The commissioners have reduced responsibility, sometimes of a derisory nature, and less than those of the directors general over whom they have authority.
These measures, combined with the centralised management of Mr. Barroso, have eroded the special nature of the commission: the collegial character of its decisions. Gradually the commission is becoming a secretariat of the European Council of ministers, beset by haggling among nations instead of seeking a European optimum.
Those concessions would not be enough for me personally, because they do not address the ue of Enhanced Cooperation to impose destination-taxes on Irish exports to countries using E.C. to impose CCCTB (Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base). Once more, the issue would not be losing the veto on tax, but the ability of other member states to get around our veto via Enhanced Cooperation, whereby 9+ countries, with the consent of the Commission, could press on with destination-taxes. It also fails to address concerns about the Charter of Fundamental Rights allowing the ECJ to strike down Irish human rights laws, especially on asylum. And then there’s the new voting system that reduces our voting weight on the Council of Ministers while doubling that of Germany and others, while also surrendering vetoes such as Energy and public health, possibly leading to nuclear power being forced on Ireland. It’s still a nofor me.
One implication is that the apparent shock-horror that has greeted Sarko’s apparent statement to a UMP meeting today that Ireland will vote again is not him doing a solo run but a confirmation of what looks an agreed policy between the Commission and the French presidency (and indeed most of the Council of Ministers). So Brian Cowen should be honest and say what exactly is on the agenda for his meeting with Sarko when he’s in Dublin, since the policy has already been decided.
“…while also surrendering vetoes such as Energy and public health, possibly leading to nuclear power being forced on Ireland.”
Here we go again with the future shock nonsense.
Well V it is a logical conclusion to draw.
FT,
Enhanced co-operation is already there. You mention asylum. Are you suggesting that Ireland’s asylum protects human rights in such a way that might violate the Charter? OR, are you looking at it the other way, that the Charter might force us to raise our human rights standards in this area?
Besides, the current asylum proposals forwarded by the French presidency are ones which our government say they are willing to sign up to? (They are probably stricter measures than our own, though we are hardly a beacon of humanity).
What is this about the veto in public health? Our public health system is at the bottom of the European league. Certainly in many respects our investment and provision is below OECD average. We are so far off the best in class that it isn’t funny any more. Do you really believe that those which have some of the best health systems in the world are signing them away in Lisbon? That is utterly incredible. In fact, the sensitivity of some of those nations with better funded services is precisely why there are protections and clauses in Lisbon to protect areas like Services of a General Interest, or public services. Not only that, health gets a specific mention where it leaves the funding and provision of the service at the pleasure of each nation.
The remark about forcing nuclear on Ireland is really scrapping the barrel. It is even better when you look at the cost of energy and realise that we are soon going to be hooking up bigger connectors to Britain to buy energy they will increasingly produce using …nuclear.
These are all well thought through arguments and need to be highlighted in the mass media.
We can debate issues of health and safety forever. Abortion is a matter of women exercising choice - not the business of any government. And the history of the Planet has been wars - and rumours of wars.
de Valera was ready to support Germany, during his purported declaration of “neutrality” in 1939-1945. So lets not hear that word.
But taxation is the life blood of all member states. Without a positive cash flow and progressive taxation, there can be no research & development; no properly funded health systems; no nuclear power stations - or water desalination plants etc…
Concentrate on doing what is necessary.
Everything else is window dressing, and a lot of comments that are being made - by the likes of Adams & his girl friend, Marylou - are “hot air” - attempts to regain ground lost in the last election.
They are a busted flush, walking backwards into the future. They know diddly squat about running a country in the 21st century.
Ditto for Begg; O’Connor; Halpenny; Doran; CORI and their Ilk.
Ahern, their best buddy, has been found out, he is gone; bad history - giving Ireland an opportunity to move forward.
Grab it, Brian Cowen, before it evaporates.
SOS,
The busted flush that you speak of is running the 6 counties in a coalition environement that would make the Greens wilt and you know what they are not doing too bad. You may not be a fan but that does not mean they cant run the country. They are already running a quarter of it.
“They are already running a quarter of it”
Wow I had no idea that we already got the 6 counties back, bleedin gift!
Eh, isn’t a half of a quarter one eighth?
V,
You lost me me with your mathematics. I hate the mathematics.
The issue is not Ulster, which is still part of the UK.
SOS, NO Ulster is not the issue. Its 6/9ths of Ulster that was at the center of my response that SF can and do work in a govt. A point which you may not like but its fact. I just disagree with the busted flush contention.