Talk:European Commissioner for Trade

Mandelson

I removed the following line for being POV:
"Although his tenure was supported by business representatives in Brussels, his departure was welcomed by NGOs and fair trade campaigners who viewed his attitude towards developing countries as aggressive, supporting European big business over development goals."
Surely not all NGOs and all fair trade campaigners held this view.--Septemberfourth476 (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Since it has been restored (rightly on second thoughts),I have made minor changes to make language less subjective and all-encompassing.--Septemberfourth476 (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Title in Cathy Ashton's name

Three reason why we should not note the Baroness in her title. The first is that it will not be used in the EU, she will either be called Commissioner Catherine Ashton in the formal context or Cathy Ashton in the informal context such as press accounts. The second reason is the MOS says we don't. The last reason is we don't use for the other former trade commissioner, Leon Brittan, Baron Brittan of Spennithorne.--Patrick (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree - plus she will have to take a leave of absense from Lords to be a commissioner.--Grakirby (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't Brittan only created peer after he left EU? Please point to exact MOS, I can't see it. Please also provide as ref for not being known as Baroness. The fact she will take leave of Lords is immaterial. She will still be a peer, just because she's not sitting in neither here nor there.--UpDown (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Brittan was created a peer AFTER leaving office. Therefore that is totally different. She should be known as her legal title, just as The Queen is known as that not Elizabeth Windsor even when outside her realms.--UpDown (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue is minor and you are right that Leon Brittain was not a peer at the time of his commissionship. It all depends how you view peerage these days as it no longer an "honour" as such but an appointment (it is called the house of lord appointments committee) so ashton was a working peer therefore if she is taking a leave of absense she may not use her title. NO constitution so therefore we can go this way and that.

As it is disputed whether she will have to leave the Lords all together, it is safest to leave it as it is??

Many peers do not use their titles outside of their legistaive roles - i.e. (Lord) Roy Hattersley.--Grakirby (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

A peerage is a legal title, whether the person sits in the Lords is immaterial. They hold the title in the same way and can use regardless of whether she is regularly sitting in the House. There is no "dispute".--UpDown (talk) 06:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The "dispute" is to as to whether she is allowed to remain a member of the lords and be a peer (a member of a leglisative body). If she does have to leave in order to be a commissioner, she will have to renounce her peerage.

And my point stands that many peers do not use their titles outside their legislative roles. The British Constituition is fluid and nor written: your comparison between the queen and an appointed peer is not valid.

No need to be dogmatic.--Grakirby (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be rude but you clearly know very little about British politicis. She will not have to renounce, I don't believe its actually legally possible to renounce a life peerage; she will (presumably) take a leave of absense from the Lords. This does not effect the peerage in the slightest, the two are not as connected as you seem to think. What peers "may" do is immaterial, Wikipedia should use her legal title when discribing her. Simple. On a seperate point, I find it worrying that both you and Septemberfourth476 appeared to have followed me here. --UpDown (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Presumption is always dangerous, which is why I advised caution.

My reading of the EU new rules set out circa 1995 (I refer you to Article 1.1.1 of the EU "Code of conduct" as well as The European Parliament (House of Lords Disqualification) Regulations Act 2008)) indicate that she will either have to take a leave of absense or renounce her title. However a leave of absense would still mean she was a member of "another legislative body" therefore the technical legal issues of her being on the commission remain. That's not to say that they might not be circumvented. You are correct that there is no mechanism for a life peer to renounce their peerage. However that does not necessarily mean that there cannot be one. Since the original renunciation act was put forward for one member (the then 3rd Viscount Stansgate, Peerages Act 1963), I see no reason why a law should not be proposed for a life peer to renounce his/her legislative role. I think that my comment about fluidity made it clear. As for your very insulting and personal "jibe" (Just putting "sorry" before something does not make it not rude) about not knowing much about British politics, that made me laugh. It made me laugh so much I am showing this page to a few friends.

These are issues that are being debated by minds far greater than yours, or indeed mine, which is why I advised caution. Also my point about peers choosing or not choosing to use their titles *still* stands. And that was the central issue.

As I said this is a minor issue but you seem to take this personally. Why? I assure you that it is not. I originally came to the page to edit a detail about Ashton's appointment (i refer to Articles. 213.2, 214.2, 215 and 216 TEC) not relating to her title. I agreed with Patrick re the use of her title, although not all his examples, and so commented. What September4th does is, of course, up to him but trust me, I am not following you and rest assured I will not follow you to the Paul O'Grady page of whom I know little. That is unless David Suchet appears on his show or indeed Cathy Ashton after she has renounced her peerage.

By the way... that last comment was meant as a joke. Oh, and incidentally, I believe that Viscount Stansgate always styled himself Antony Wedgewood Benn.

--Grakirby (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Use of Cathy/Catherine. She seems to style herself Cathy not Catherine. I also note that in her biography on the then Department of Constiututional Affairs, she is refered to throughout as Cathy or Cathy Ashton, only Baroness Ashton on the title of the page.

Since she chooses to style herself Cathy Ashton, it is rude to correct this and rude to call her Catherine. (Would you call Blair Antony?)

And I am not sorry.

--Grakirby (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I use Catherine because that is what her article is called. Feel free to move the article to Cathy Ashton, Baroness Ashton of Upholland if you think it should be and links can then be changed. I'm not going to debate with you - you whole manner above is frankly disgraceful (as it was on Poirot) - and I have no appetite to discuss anything with you. The suggestion that she will renounce the peerage is ludicrous. But, at the end of the day, she currently holds the peerage so it should be on the page. If she were to renounce it, the article would be changed. But she hasn't. Your & Septembether4th's following of me still worries me - you both appear to edit very similar articles and get involved in the same discussions.--UpDown (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it was you who started this debate and also you who disputed my knowledge on a subject and implied I was acting in a personal nature which I am not. I will not state my opinions on your behaviour (especially on the Poirot subject) as your actions are, I am pleased to say, of little consequence to me. That she hold a peerage is not disputed how she styles herself is.

If the suggestion that she will renounce her peerage is ludicrous (a favourite word of yours, I note), why is it being discussed? The whole affair has yet to be played out and I am not betting she will, but it is a foolish to dismiss it. The Code of Conduct states that that a commissioner may not hold "any other public office" - her appointment is therefore illegal and I am not alone in the speculation.

You quite clearly can't take a joke.

--Grakirby (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not a forum, you constantly making "jokes" (apparently), is not needed. It's just unhelpful. If you want a light hearted debate with someone, go to a forum, not here. Wikipedia is not a CrystalBall, so what may happen is immaterial. She is currently a baroness and thus her legal title should be on the article, unless there is clear evidence she will use her title while a Commissioner. If so that should be reference and noted on the page.--UpDown (talk) 11:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to reference on a page as it is not controversial. We should settle the matter here. Over-referencing is pointless for the reader. I refer you to this page http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/ashton/index_en.htm (Patrick put up this reference for another part of the page, I believe) where is not not refered AT ALL by her title. I admit that she is refered to as Catherine not Cathy, but she was refered on another bio as Cathy. Thats of little consequence. You say Catherine, I say Cathy...

As for your other points: a) Are you trying to pretend you have never made a joke on wikipedia. Have you ever made a "joke"? (I am saddened to note, once again, the personal slight you make) b) I am not joking around here. I am trying to make serious point in a light-hearted way. I was aware of our previous discussion so therefore tried to maintain a civil and friendly tone. A re-reading of this page, shows to me that you broke this. If I wanted to joke around, trust me, I would not do it here and not do it with you. c) You decided to take this personally not I. d) I will not reveal my opinion on how I see your behaviour. It is irrelevent and as you say this page is not about jokes, nor indeed is it about our opinion of each other. --Grakirby (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet here her title is referred to. Regardless, these things do need referencing. If we say that while a Commissioner she doesn't use her title, that needs a reference. It's not only contraversial things that need referencing, many things do. It's certainly would not be "over-referencing" to reference she doesn't use her title EU wise.

And I repeat before, WP not the place for jokes (the advertered commas (") before were because I fail to see where the joke was meant to be). No reason to be light-hearted either. We are discussing an issue, lets stick to that. Making light-hearted comments, which frankly always come across as insults and rudeness, is not necessary.--UpDown (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I will continue my own style and see no reason to be lectured by you. I do not believe I am breaking any rules and if I am, they are rules that you yourself have broken. Your interpretation is erroneous, I am afraid, although I fail to see how anything i have said could be taken as a slight. I could equally give you a lecture on making personal accusations. You once accused me of something similar and you were quite right. You have chosen to ignore your own message.

Once again, I have tried to extend the hand of maybe not friendship but of conradeship and you have chosen not to accept. I have tried to show my good intent, I hope you will not ignore it.

With regards to the link. It is quite clear from that that she intends to style herself Catherine Ashton not Baroness Ashton. There is no need to reference. As I said, it should be settled here. I believe it is settled. A reference is not needed as this is a dispute between two or three editors and not something that is of intereest to the reader unless part of a broader discussion. For instance, the press release you use refers to her as Catherine Ashton. That is already reference (it is an extension of the one I posted). Would we have to reference the fact that Blair styles himself Tony not Antony? No because it is implicit in the other references.

--Grakirby (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

References are needed. Otherwise articles very soon start to good down hill...--UpDown (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to reference the name. We can just work it out here on the talk page. The EU is continuing to use her name without the title so I still see no reason to have her title in the name. --Patrick (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, UpDown, I didn't see the changes that you made to the article. Striking my last comment. --Patrick (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that.

--Grakirby (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Nomination, appointment, confirmation

3rd nominated by Bown 6th approaved by Council of Ministers but not yet confirmed by EU parliament hence by use of the term designate. --Grakirby (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe she needs to be confirmed by the EU parliament as it appears from the EU press release [1] --Patrick (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is different. Can reference if needs be - if controversial. Most of the Uk press has just said appointment but they arer wrong. She has taken office but not with full powers. This is important for Doha trade talks - 15th October?

--Grakirby (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry mind was half elsewhere. My interpretation of same press release is different! That was my ref. --Grakirby (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

See link for appointment and also articles in post under discussion on titles etc! http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2008/10/ashton-will-hold-trade-portfolio/62569.aspx --Grakirby (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

List page

Of interest: Talk:List of European Commission portfolios.- _J.Logan`^t: 10:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:List of European Commission portfolios, about to put into action.- _J.Logan`^t: 20:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on European Commissioner for Trade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060923001700/http://www.bmbrussels.be/box_bmnewcomm.php to http://www.bmbrussels.be/box_bmnewcomm.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)