No! It must be downsized under Nice! But 26 is downsized! After 130yrs on the commission, Ireland would not be eligible for the next 5. Or some sort of arrangemnt like that?!?!

I agree with you?!?! I was merely trying to point out that voting NO to Lisbon will not mean we 'lose' our commissioner. We could technically vote for 26, thereby vetoing the 2/3 clause. Ireland could propose 26 commissioners, thereby 'losing out' only once every 130yrs (if the number remains 27!). That aint a bad sell IMO.

I agree with the first paragraph! And as far as the second one, Do you have any links to that agreement of the reduction to 2/3? I can't find any after searching.

It's not as simple as that!!.. You say a lot of smart things Ibis, but that has to be one of the least. Under Nice, as i've stated (and understand it btw...), we could keep our commissioner for 130yrs. With 5 off for good behaviour!

I agree with both turdsl and cookiemonster. Give em' up! Ain't no point in flogging a dead horse. I personally see no problem with a reduced commission. The less civil servants milking the udders of Europe, the better!! How much do they make again?!?

__________________
"Ní neart go cur le chéile."

Economic Left/Right: -6.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.79

So why would all the other 26 countries agree that Ireland should be last to lose a Commissioner? What's in it for them?


No we couldn't. That vote has already happened. We voted for the 2/3rds arrangement. That can only be superseded by the Lisbon Treaty coming into effect, which means the Council Decision of every country having a Commissioner gets triggered. That can only happen under Lisbon, and can't happen under Nice.

__________________
"The elites are mostly wrong" says FutureTaoiseach. But FutureTaoiseach is also mostly wrong. Does that mean the elites are mostly right?

I'm not saying they would. Even if we decided to lose our commissioner first (shock!! horror!!), after 5 years, we'd have 'our' commissioner back for the next 130 years. But i couldn't care less, it's only a suggestion. As i said, i wouldn't try to flog a dead horse.




For a third time, Can you provide a link to the source? I've searched and cannot find any reference to the decision and i don't recall it happening!

Here's what i did find (after trying many search patterns/words, the best result was wielded by entering ;'reducing the size of the european commission').

EUobserver / Irish No raises questions over EU commission size ... Not mentioned here?!? although it is from june 2008, but no mention of a previous decision being taken?!?

New European Commission depending on vote on the Lisbon Treaty / EAHP EU Monitor / EAHP - EAHP ... This is a pharmacists website?!?! Don't ask me.. I blame Google.. but anyway.. it states, dated 6th of March 2009 that, regarding the size of the commission
That reads to me like the decision has yet to be made regarding the reduction of the commission under Nice. Unless of course that the decision has been made in the interim since March. Whereby it's sneaked past me?!?

Czechs preparing 'plan B' on size of commission - The Irish Times - Thu, Jan 08, 2009 ... In the IT, january 09, the Czech Deputy Prime Minister calls for a plan B regarding the arrangement of the commission. Ergo, no decision made.

EurActiv.com - EU leaders to ponder Commission's future | EU - European Information on EU Treaty & Institutions ... No mention here of any decision regarding the 2/3 clause.

They're all from the first 5 pages of google, and the only ones that have exact references to the search i entered. Perhaps i'm doing something wrong?

Then i tried this... 'decision on the size of the european commission'

and that search returned this...

The European Commission ... nothing here either?!?

__________________
"Ní neart go cur le chéile."

Economic Left/Right: -6.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.79

i think the most likely scenario would be that the country holding the position of EU 'High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy' would be the one not get a Commissioner. Recent speculation has been that Chris Patten (former UK commissioner for foreign affairs) is in the frame to get that post, which is currently occupied by the Spaniard Savier Solana who is stepping down. They could quite easily not appoint a Commisioner for foreign affairs and achieve that aspect of Lisbon by stealth.

EUobserver / Czechs prepare for possible second Irish No

This idea that the 2/3rds formula has already been locked in was first floated by tommy o brien last year. He never produced any evidence of that decision being made so i dont expect hiding to produce any evidence in fairness.

I would assume the logic re the 2/3rds formula that they are referring to is the one that was agreed in the Lisbon negotiations. Given that all Member States have agreed to that in the negotiations of Lisbon, the fate of Lisbon won't be decided until the start of October and the Commission would need to be reduced come 01st November it would be fair to assume that the Council will just go with that.

I certainly can't see them negotiating a new method in the space of 2-3 weeks.

And now you're trying to sell what FF sold at the time of the Nice Treaty. Except that as it turned out, what was agreed was nothing like that, and realistically wouldn't be this time either.

I'm sure Ireland can propose the 130-year rotation period if it likes. I don't see any likelihood of it being adopted, and all the other 26 nations have a veto too (something which appears to be let out of a lot of peoples' calculations).

__________________
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.

so in other words the big three LIED to get a treaty through.

if we shouldnt have believed them now on the comissioner as it was only technicaly possible to retain it why should we now on lisbon in relation to the things they say couldnt possibly happen in terms of taxation and neutrality?

on the surface, given their track record, that seems a hell of a good reason to vote no again.

[QUOTE=TommyO'Brien;1949044]
"Victory might fall into the lap of the side that tells its own lies most convincingly or which manages to scare the voters more. Or winning may come down to whichever side is able to better argue that our economic position will be improved more — or damaged less — by voting their way. On that score, the Yes side currently appears to have the advantage."

So Matt "face like a smacked babys arse" Cooper is saying that both sides are telling lies? So it's up to us to work out who is telling porkies? Well it's always good to vote no in these cases.

Voting NO to LIESbon is wise based on all the lies spoon fed to the docile masses about the previous treaties.

Hindesight my fellow citizens, use it to make your decision on LIESbon. You come to an obvious conclusion.