Talk:European Commissioner for Trade

European Union Start‑class Mid‑importance

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trade Start‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trade on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TradeWikipedia:WikiProject TradeTemplate:WikiProject TradeTrade articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]