Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Lisbon would take power from Ireland
Options
Comments
-
You use the following on post #3 " it's a conspiracy" which is a put down and it a common phrase to smear people who question facts or leaders etc..
Grand, still I don't think Ireland was purposefully made weaker in Lisbon. We lost some power, gained a bit from other countries. Indeed, the smallest countries like Malta and Luxembourg gained. For that to happen, others lose a little.
If you look at Scofflaws first post you'll see many countries lost power.
Indeed, the biggest countries actually lose the most influence compared to Germany. The UK, France, Italy, Spain and Poland all lose from 20-40% against Germany.
Would you agree looking at those statistics that all countries lose power relative to Germany?
Also I did suggest that electing Commissioners may actually make make them political and open to lobbying in the election process? Do you agree?
Also, how do you suggest making the EU more democratic?
The National Parliaments would have had the capability to block some of the EU Laws. What's a better and more democratic alternative?Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
purposefully: No,Grand, still I don't think Ireland was purposefully made weaker in Lisbon. We lost some power, gained a bit from other countries. Indeed, the smallest countries like Malta and Luxembourg gained. For that to happen, others lose a little.
If you look at Scofflaws first post you'll see many countries lost power.
Indeed, the biggest countries actually lose the most influence compared to Germany. The UK, France, Italy, Spain and Poland all lose from 20-40% against Germany.
Would you agree looking at those statistics that all countries lose power relative to Germany?
Also I did suggest that electing Commissioners may actually make make them political and open to lobbying in the election process? Do you agree?
Also, how do you suggest making the EU more democratic?
The National Parliaments would have had the capability to block some of the EU Laws. What's a better and more democratic alternative?
but this Thread was started because OscarBravo wanted a debate which stems from another thread "European Union Expansion", in which I did not want to take from the other thread and start debating on this point there.
This Thread is not about other countries losing/gaining power from Lisbon, so please stay on topic. Side note to your last response: Fair play for Luxembourg and Malta for Gaining under Lisbon, but they do not gain us influence. They have their own concerns and agenda and will not always vote our way on matters of concerns to us, for we may have different views from them.
The Commissioner Argument. The Commissioner never gain us power or influence in the first place. If they did, then s/he is breaking their Oath of office for bring their National politics into their job. They are EU Civil Servants and are meant to serve the whole of the EU Citizens. All we did there was our government appoint a body to the role, after that the Commissioner is lost from our influence and is working for the EU. They become bureaucrats from their on for the term of office unless reappointed or move jobs elsewhere, like Britain's Peter Mandelson (who got a new Job in the British government).
Our only influence and power is through two bodies within the EU.
1/. By our Leaders (i.e Brian Cowan) and Ministers and their vote and influence is through current NICE QMV Rules via council of the EU.
2/. Our MEP's who also represents us are through Majority Voting in the European Parliament. We also lose 1 seat in the parliament under Lisbon. but to be fair so does other states, see this article
To bring the number of seats from 785 to 750.
QMV Under Lisbon from the post provided by Scofflaw which is post #4 of this thread. We lose approx 40% influence in repective to Germany under Lisbon.
There is also areas where we hand over from unanimous decision to QMV's.
My position on QMV is on post #5 in response to your post.0 -
purposefully: No,
but this Thread was started because OscarBravo wanted a debate which stems from another thread "European Union Expansion", in which I did not want to take from the other thread and start debating on this point there.
This Thread is not about other countries losing/gaining power from Lisbon, so please stay on topic. Side note to your last response: Fair play for Luxembourg and Malta for Gaining under Lisbon, but they do not gain us influence. They have their own concerns and agenda and will not always vote our way on matters of concerns to us, for we may have different views from them.
But you can't look at it in isolation.
Anyway, Sweden, Austria, Greece, Portugal, Belgium, the Czechs, Hungary and Bulgaria lose power to us, compared to the way it was. Spain, Poland, The Netherlands, Romania, Denmark, Slovakia, Finland and Lithuania remain the way they where, we lose relatively to Germany, UK, Italy and France, Latvia, Estonia, Slovenia, Cyprus, Malta and Luxembourg.
We lose to 10, gain over 8 and stay the same with 8. That is actually not a bad distribution, nearly 50/50.
As regards us putting ourselves first, of course we should, but is it realistic to expect to gain power in every single Treaty? If every country took that stance, the EU would get nowhere.limklad wrote:The Commissioner Argument. The Commissioner never gain us power or influence in the first place. If they did, then s/he is breaking their Oath of office for bring their National politics into their job. They are EU Civil Servants and are meant to serve the whole of the EU Citizens. All we did there was our government appoint a body to the role, after that the Commissioner is lost from our influence and is working for the EU. They become bureaucrats from their on for the term of office unless reappointed or move jobs elsewhere, like Britain's Peter Mandelson (who got a new Job in the British government).
Indeed, but that doesn't answer my question about you wanting them elected. Why do you want EU Civil Servants elected?
Personally I think the EU has considered electing them but thinks, while the current system isn't perfect, it's the best solution.limklad wrote:Our only influence and power is through two bodies within the EU.
1/. By our Leaders (i.e Brian Cowan) and Ministers and their vote and influence is through current NICE QMV Rules via council of the EU.
2/. Our MEP's who also represents us are through Majority Voting in the European Parliament. We also lose 1 seat in the parliament under Lisbon. but to be fair so does other states, see this article
To bring the number of seats from 785 to 750.
QMV Under Lisbon from the post provided by Scofflaw which is post #4 of this thread. We lose approx 40% influence in repective to Germany under Lisbon.
There is also areas where we hand over from unanimous decision to QMV's.
My position on QMV is on post #5 in response to your post.
Even under QMV, the one country, one vote system still applies. You could technically have the 12 biggest countries representing 85/90% of the EU Population for a vote, but the 15 smallest could stop it. This would never happen, but shows you how powerful the small states can be.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
There comes a point Limklad, where you have to ask yourself, "is what I'm looking for realistic in a 27 member state political Union?"
I think that's what a lot of Yes voters find very frustrating. Not the fact that the No voters won, but some just didn't realistically question why they where voting No.
Eg. Yes we lost power to some states, but realistically we cannot expect to gain power or stay the same under every Treaty, especially with expansion. It's impossible in a political Union.
So as you say, you have no problem with expansion, do you expect them to join at a disadvantage to Ireland power wise?
Germany gained power because there was a valid argument that they where unrepresented.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
There's more info about QMV and the exact voting weights in an older thread.
The program I used to generate the results is available here: http://www.mcdermottroe.com/misc/lisbon/voting/. I welcome any comments or critiques of the code or methods.
It has been extended to include the concept of "influence". I defined influence as a scenario where a member state changing its vote would change the result of the overall vote. The previous notion of a "win" (where the overall vote is equal to the member state's vote) is still calculated.
In both the "wins" and "influences" models there is a swing in power away from the bigger countries towards the smaller ones. I don't know quite how it was calculated that we lose 40% influence versus Germany but my calculations don't seem to show that.
In almost all cases, everyone loses "wins" or "influences". The only cases where that isn't true are for Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta & Slovenia (the smallest countries) when changing from the "Nice 67%" method to the "Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union 238 (2)" method.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes I can, because That what this thread is about Ireland!! not other EU countries and the Impact of losing power & Influence with Lisbon Treaty.But you can't look at it in isolation.
Anyway, Sweden, Austria, Greece, Portugal, Belgium, the Czechs, Hungary and Bulgaria lose power to us, compared to the way it was. Spain, Poland, The Netherlands, Romania, Denmark, Slovakia, Finland and Lithuania remain the way they where, we lose relatively to Germany, UK, Italy and France, Latvia, Estonia, Slovenia, Cyprus, Malta and Luxembourg.
We lose to 10, gain over 8 and stay the same with 8. That is actually not a bad distribution, nearly 50/50.
As regards us putting ourselves first, of course we should, but is it realistic to expect to gain power in every single Treaty? If every country took that stance, the EU would get nowhere.
Indeed, but that doesn't answer my question about you wanting them elected. Why do you want EU Civil Servants elected?
Personally I think the EU has considered electing them but thinks, while the current system isn't perfect, it's the best solution.
Not applicable to this thread as you are straying from Ireland losing influence and power from Lisbon Treaty argument. EU Commissioners are neutral and cannot be influence by their own nation.
It more complicated than that, as each Country vote is under % weight, therefore each country vote are not equal. Because of this smaller nation feared the policies may be force upon them without any input, so there was an additional rules depending where the bill came from.Even under QMV, the one country, one vote system still applies. You could technically have the 12 biggest countries representing 85/90% of the EU Population for a vote, but the 15 smallest could stop it. This would never happen, but shows you how powerful the small states can be.
The 50% or 67% of countries (one equal vote per country) depends on where the bill came from and area of legislation.
The 74% mentioned below is the total Voting weight need to pass.
(It is easy to get confused by it).
Last is population majority.
Read the Following NICE Rules.
Read more about it on- To pass: Majority of countries (50% or 67%) and votes (74%) and population (62%)
- To block: Condition to pass a vote not achieved
- the proposal must be backed by a majority of member states (or two thirds in certain cases: see below);
- the proposal must be supported by 255 votes from a total of 345 — about 73.9% of the votes.
- the countries supporting the proposal must represent at least 62% of the total EU population.
Furthermore, when the European Council is not acting on a proposal of the Commission, the qualified majority requires backing by two thirds (rather than a simple majority) of the member states.
Note that mechanisms by which the Commission makes a proposal may not require weighted votes. For example, the Anti-Dumping Advisory Committee (ADAC) can approve a proposal to impose tariffs based on a simple, unweighted majority. Since this simple majority vote leads to a Commission proposal to the Council, the simple majority effectively requires a qualified majority to overturn it (because overturning the recommendation of the ADAC means voting against a Commission proposal). This greatly increases the power of small member states in such circumstances.
The declarations of the conference which adopted the treaty of Nice contained contradictory statements concerning qualified majority voting (QMV) after the enlargement of the European Union to 25 and 27 members: one declaration specified that the qualifying majority of votes would increase to a maximum of 73.4%, contradicting another declarationwhich specified a qualifying majority of 258 votes (74.78%) after enlargement to 27 countries. But the treaties of accession following the Treaty of Nice clarified the actual required majority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_UnionTreaty of Lisbon (proposed)- To pass: Majority of countries (55% or 72%) representing 65% of the population or condition to block not met
- To block: At least 4 countries against the proposal or in cases where, under the Treaties, not all members participate the minimum number of members representing more than 35% of the population of the participating Member States, plus one member are against the proposal
Germany and France and one of UK, Italy, Spain or Poland
Germany and UK and one of Italy, Spain or Poland
Germany and Italy and one of Spain or Poland
France and UK and Italy
are for the proposal. In practice one has to take into account the political likelihood for each minority.
Also Scofflaw added the calculation difference between NICE and Lisbon Rules about in post #4 using Germany as comparison.
Both Passing and Blocking power neutralised themselves out.Scofflaw wrote:We lose ability to pass policies we want (-6%)
We gain blocking power (+6%)
We are less decisive (-36%)
Weighting power changes which makes us less decisive by 36% by voting weight, which means less influence and power in Lisbon and do not forget that there is also areas where we hand over from unanimous decision to QMV's.0 -
Welcome and thanks for the Information.There's more info about QMV and the exact voting weights in an older thread.
The program I used to generate the results is available here: http://www.mcdermottroe.com/misc/lisbon/voting/. I welcome any comments or critiques of the code or methods.
It has been extended to include the concept of "influence". I defined influence as a scenario where a member state changing its vote would change the result of the overall vote. The previous notion of a "win" (where the overall vote is equal to the member state's vote) is still calculated.
In both the "wins" and "influences" models there is a swing in power away from the bigger countries towards the smaller ones. I don't know quite how it was calculated that we lose 40% influence versus Germany but my calculations don't seem to show that.
In almost all cases, everyone loses "wins" or "influences". The only cases where that isn't true are for Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta & Slovenia (the smallest countries) when changing from the "Nice 67%" method to the "Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union 238 (2)" method.
I am only interested about effect of the Lisbon Treaty on Ireland.0 -
Yes I can, because That what this thread is about Ireland!! not other EU countries and the Impact of losing power & Influence with Lisbon Treaty.
Any answers to my questions then?
I really don't think that attitude would work in a political Union, one of all out for themselves. Do you think it would?limklad wrote:Not applicable to this thread as you are straying from Ireland losing influence and power from Lisbon Treaty argument. EU Commissioners are neutral and cannot be influence by their own nation.
You brought up the point of electing Commissioners in your own thread. Why will you not answer?
I'll take a look at the rest later.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
These arguments are for another thread.There comes a point Limklad, where you have to ask yourself, "is what I'm looking for realistic in a 27 member state political Union?"
I think that's what a lot of Yes voters find very frustrating. Not the fact that the No voters won, but some just didn't realistically question why they where voting No.
Eg. Yes we lost power to some states, but realistically we cannot expect to gain power or stay the same under every Treaty, especially with expansion. It's impossible in a political Union.
So as you say, you have no problem with expansion, do you expect them to join at a disadvantage to Ireland power wise?
Germany gained power because there was a valid argument that they where unrepresented.0 -
So then what is it you want regarding Irelands power in the EU?
PS. I could set up a thread on electing Commissioners but it could be very easily answered here.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Welcome and thanks for the Information.
You're welcome.I am only interested about effect of the Lisbon Treaty on Ireland.
Well, in summary here's the results just for Ireland:
For situations where the Treaty on European Union, Article 16, part 4 applies, Ireland "wins" in 0.86% less of the 134,217,728 voting permutations than under Nice. The number of situations where Ireland holds a casting vote, goes down by 99.56%.
For situations where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 238, part 2 applies, Ireland "wins" in 0.14% less of the 134,217,728 voting permutations than under Nice. The number of situations where Ireland holds a casting vote, goes down by 15.28%.
So, we "get our way" almost exactly the same portion of the time but we're less able to hold the vote hostage by threatening to change our mind.
I have to say though, to examine Ireland's change in influence on its own is a flawed way of examining the situation. Influence is relative, not absolute, so you must include the other member states in any analysis. Anything else just doesn't make sense.0 -
Both Passing and Blocking power neutralised themselves out.We lose ability to pass policies we want (-6%)
We gain blocking power (+6%)
We are less decisive (-36%)
Weighting power changes which makes us less decisive by 36% by voting weight, which means less influence and power in Lisbon and do not forget that there is also areas where we hand over from unanimous decision to QMV's.
That 'decisive' is pretty technical - it would apply only to the comparison of where we currently hold the 'balance of power' under the two systems. The amount of situations in which we would do so is negligible under either system, because of our very small voting weight.
It's also very important to realise that none of these QMV calculations, fun though they are, have any real relationship with the extent of Irish influence in the EU.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
It's also very important to realise that none of these QMV calculations, fun though they are, have any real relationship with the extent of Irish influence in the EU.
+1
I don't have any stats on how many decisions are brought to a vote rather than passed by consensus, nor do I have any stats on how frequently each of the voting methods is used.0 -
limklad wrote:EU Commissioners are neutral and cannot be influence by their own nation.
Indeed, don't know why you keep repeating it. You want them elected by the Parliament which IMO is far worse than the current situation and leaves them open to be influenced, but sure you don't seem to want to address that on your own thread! Me wonders why you brought it up?To pass: Majority of countries (55% or 72%) representing 65% of the population or condition to block not met
In state terms, it needs 15 or 20 states.To block: At least 4 countries against the proposal or in cases where, under the Treaties, not all members participate the minimum number of members representing more than 35% of the population of the participating Member States, plus one member are against the proposal
So, 4 can block or in certain areas, or 4 countries representing 35% of the population plus one other state.The Constitution envisaged the "double majority" system for the QMV which according to some countries better reflects the true size of populations and at the same time acknowledges the smaller member states' fears of being overruled by the larger countries. The Treaty of Lisbon has adopted this method. The second condition of at least 4 countries against the proposal is to ensure that the most populous Member States cannot block decisions and is important in 10 different voting scenarios where legislation requiring QMV can be passed although the population requirement isn't fulfilled and all member states except:
Germany and France and one of UK, Italy, Spain or Poland
Germany and UK and one of Italy, Spain or Poland
Germany and Italy and one of Spain or Poland
France and UK and Italy
are for the proposal. In practice one has to take into account the political likelihood for each minority.
The likelihood is very important as it reflects the realities of EU politics. I wonder how often the above scenarios have happened.
I wonder what exactly is meant by less decisive and how important it is if the we lose power to pass by 6% and gain power to block by 6%.
The 6% would seem to be a reflection of EU realities, the 36% of hypothetical situations.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
I have to say though, to examine Ireland's change in influence on its own is a flawed way of examining the situation. Influence is relative, not absolute, so you must include the other member states in any analysis. Anything else just doesn't make sense.
I do find that baffling, especially in relation to a political Union of 27 states and with further expansion on the cards.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
+1
I don't have any stats on how many decisions are brought to a vote rather than passed by consensus, nor do I have any stats on how frequently each of the voting methods is used.
QMV is used only about a quarter of the time it could be used as opposed to consensus - and it's usually used to register opposition formally/publicly to a done deal:Abstract: In the EU Council of Ministers, decisions can be made either by unanimity or by qualified majority voting (QMV). Yet, QMV is not used very often, and most of the time, ministers decide by consensus.
The descriptions of the practice of consensus show that it is not similar to unanimity strictly speaking. Indeed, when a decision is made by consensus, the President makes a proposal and asks only if anybody has objections against it, without counting the votes. The absence of objections is sufficient in order to adopt a measure by consensus. It means that consensus can be only apparent, since member states which are opposed to the President's proposal might choose not to express their disagreement.
Besides, when QMV is used by the ministers – in about one quarter of eligible cases – participants are already aware of the distribution of preferences and know that the measure can be adopted; voting is used only for "public display", in order to show publicly that one or more member states are outvoted.
Source: Novak, S. J. , 2007-04-12 "The Mystery of Consensus in the EU Council of Ministers" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Palmer House Hotel, Chicago, IL Online
So, vetoes are virtually never actually used, and QMV is used only rarely. Unfortunately, we in Ireland are used to oppositional politics, so we assume that what is important is voting weight and vetoes - they are not. What is important is that nebulous force, goodwill - something we have lost a lot of with the No vote. Our representatives can hardly claim much credibility when they cannot claim to speak for Ireland.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Thanks, nice to get someone else with a different perceptive in discussion. I like to see all angles of issues before deciding on matters.You're welcome.
Most decisions are fairly clear cut before they come to a vote in the EU Council as it is heavily debated behinds the scenes by the civil service and by the time they come to a vote, it easy for the Ministers of each State to vote within a few hours of all the work of legislations. You got also to note that most legislations originate from the EU than from our own parliament. If our ministers have to go and horsetrade each of them and then Vote on them, they be sitting full time in Brussels or in EU country of Presidency (Currently France, next Czech republic in January 2009). We have civil Service to vet the legislations before been offered for voting in the EU council.Well, in summary here's the results just for Ireland:
For situations where the Treaty on European Union, Article 16, part 4 applies, Ireland "wins" in 0.86% less of the 134,217,728 voting permutations than under Nice. The number of situations where Ireland holds a casting vote, goes down by 99.56%.
For situations where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 238, part 2 applies, Ireland "wins" in 0.14% less of the 134,217,728 voting permutations than under Nice. The number of situations where Ireland holds a casting vote, goes down by 15.28%.
So, we "get our way" almost exactly the same portion of the time but we're less able to hold the vote hostage by threatening to change our mind.
If you, me, Seanie32 and Scofflaw had our own civil servants and had to vote on each legislations, we too would agree on most, because the legislation would not get to the vote if they are going to be big oppositions. Working Relationship needs to be taken into consideration in order to get legislation passed within the EU. Problematic legislation are set aside until a deal can be worked out.
Also most EU legislations benefits us all.
QMV was designed to prevent Larger nations over ruling smaller nations and imposing unwanted legislations on them, otherwise the EU would never have been born. It also worked an advantage between larger nations when they disagree as they can gather support from smaller nations to block the policies. France and Britain have clashed.
According to EU Leaders Lisbon is set in stone. According to the most powerful EU Leaders, there will be NO renegotiation.
I have to say though, to examine Ireland's change in influence on its own is a flawed way of examining the situation. Influence is relative, not absolute, so you must include the other member states in any analysis. Anything else just doesn't make sense.
We have to deal with the consequences of any changes and effects Lisbon Treaty have on us. We have to decide if the Changes are right for us. If we feel, that the deal leaves us in unfavourable position from previous deals then it is us who will feel the pain, not other EU countries. Feeling sympathy for other EU larger states are not our concern as they are very well able to look after themselves in negotiations. There is always winners and losers, we need to make sure we do not lose badly.
So we have to Look and understand the Current arrangements (Up to NICE) and then look at Lisbon and compare them.
The question is can we live with Lisbon new Rules. So far the People Disagree, but it is not over yet, unless Germany (Courts), Czech republic (Courts) or Finland (Aland Islands) kill it first before it comes back to us again.
I haven't got time to look at your analysis of QMV yet. Hopefully I get to read it by next weekend and comment on it. I may have some questions during the weekend about it to get a better understanding from your point of view.
QMV have changed considerable in Lisbon, so comparing Like with like is difficult. To use an anology, Just Like Red and White wine. They only thing we can agree on is that Red and White Wine are wine made from grapes and they will get us drunk! but both of them are very different, effect us both differently (One of us could get drunk quicker that the other), we both have different tastes sensitivity to Red/white wine. Also Population changes in each country effects QMV. That too have to be taken into account. Therefore using NICE QMV from 2001 is not the same as NICE 2008 QMV Voting weight. I do hope when people were calculating the QMV between NICE and Lisbon that they use 2008 or even 2014 (Estimated) Population figures for better camparsion when Lisbon rules come into effect if Lisbon is passed.0 -
As you quoted have stated, once a deal have been reach behinds the scene once they knew it will pass.So, vetoes are virtually never actually used, and QMV is used only rarely. Unfortunately, we in Ireland are used to oppositional politics, so we assume that what is important is voting weight and vetoes - they are not. What is important is that nebulous force, goodwill - something we have lost a lot of with the No vote. Our representatives can hardly claim much credibility when they cannot claim to speak for Ireland.
cordially,
Scofflaw
As of Interest, do you know of any EU Council that Failed? I am curious about this. I have not hear any, as the Vote in the Council is to show others (politicians citizens) outside the Council if questioned on the legislation afterwards.
It also goes to show that the Deals are done before going to the Council that is where we lose influence if Lisbon is not right for us. That is where QMV is effective, not on the Council as the result is known beforehand, and the business of voting can go smoothly and for the EU Leaders/Ministers can all to go for a drink/dinner, congratulate themselves for work done and go home afterwards without any marathons/embarrassments involved.0 -
I haven't got time to look at your analysis of QMV yet. Hopefully I get to read it by next weekend and comment on it. I may have some questions during the weekend about it to get a better understanding from your point of view.
If you're not a programmer the code might be a little tricky to understand, but I have provided a precomputed set of results at http://www.mcdermottroe.com/misc/lisbon/voting/ so that you don't need to compile & run the program.
I'll still leave up the source code so that you or others can validate that the algorithm is consistent.
If anyone can suggest a different metric for measuring the outcomes of voting methods then feel free to PM me and I'll try to integrate them into the program.0 -
Lose power to Germany yes, you are assuming that we are always in opposition to Germany, That why you need to Look at other countries where we had opposition in the past, which happens behind the closed doors where negotiations take place, where we do not have access to observe. Even with EU council voting been open to public scrutiny, it still do not expose what deals goes on behind close doors before voting.If you look at Scofflaws first post you'll see many countries lost power.
Indeed, the biggest countries actually lose the most influence compared to Germany. The UK, France, Italy, Spain and Poland all lose from 20-40% against Germany.
Would you agree looking at those statistics that all countries lose power relative to Germany?
I answered this in another thread as it is not applicable to this thread.Also I did suggest that electing Commissioners may actually make make them political and open to lobbying in the election process? Do you agree?
This needs it own thread as it a different topic and have been discussed in other threads. Lisbon Treaty and EU is complicated and cannot be discussed in one thread alone, we need various threads to break down the European Union in parts to understand it before applying Lisbon to it and understanding that.Also, how do you suggest making the EU more democratic?
This is border line in this argument if only referring to Irish Parliament (Only have veto if other countries veto the same legislation as well). If we are on our own we are overruled. It probably needs it own thread as it need lot of information to explain current structures of each country in how it effect the EU, If you are going to Argue on the EU government Parliament then it not relevant to This thread: Ireland losing power with LisbonThe National Parliaments would have had the capability to block some of the EU Laws. What's a better and more democratic alternative?
Before we continue to argue on this, we need to understand what the Referendum Commission states about what Lisbon Treaty will do for our Dail and Seanad.
See my highlights in the quote above, This is why this argument is flawed, and it means that they can continue even if our government objects in the EU council. So the "Yes" side comments were misleading about the impact of our Parliaments do for us. I have no difficulty with national Parliaments discussing and debating EU legislation before hand, allowing the opposition to argue and highlight about any issues. Which in this Country will be very little since Fianna Fail/Fine Gael/Labour usually agree when it comes to Europe. The Greens will stay quite while in government. We won't mention the remainder as they have very little influence except Jackie Healy Rae, probably getting EU money for Roads in South Kerry. I wish he could spread that money to include bypasses for Limerick Towns and Villages on Major Roads to Kerry (N21/N69) and Cork (N20) so we in Limerick can have our social centres back. :eeklisbontreaty2008.ie wrote:http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_role_of_national_parl.html
The national parliaments must be provided with all relevant policy and legislative documents (for example, green papers, white papers, proposals for directives and regulations).
The parliaments have 8 weeks to consider the proposals.
The parliaments may send a "reasoned opinion" to the EU institutions on whether draft legislation complies with the principle of subsidiarity. There is also a Protocol on subsidiarity which requires that draft legislative proposals are justified on the basis of subsidiarity and proportionality.
If enough national parliaments vote to send a reasoned opinion the draft legislation must be reviewed.
Each national parliament has two votes. The Dail and Seanad have one vote each. In general, one third of the available votes (18 at present) are required to ensure a review; one quarter of the votes (14 at present) is enough in the case of draft legislation in the areas of judicial co-operation in criminal matters and police co-operation.
The review does not mean that the proposal must be withdrawn. If the proposer (usually, the Commission) wished to continue with the proposal, it must set out a reasoned opinion on why it considers that the principle of subsidiarity has not been breached.
But back to Parliament bit in Lisbon Treaty. While it would be great to have national Parliament discussing, and it would make us and our Politicians feel closer to the EU and we hear about more legislation from the EU in our news media (without euro-sceptics filtering) but It's Veto impact or ability to gain us influence in Europe is very very limited (talking shop influence) and that influence stated by the "Yes" campaign during the referendum was very misleading, which infuriate me as an undecided voter as it was a blatant lie.
To quickly make a short point if you want to discuss further for your new thread on Parliament vetos would actually would have make an major impact:
All Parliaments elect their governments who is representative on the EU Council. They are not going to reject against their governments or else their governments will fall. Look at Belgium, they still cannot find a solution to their issues. There are suffering from government failing since their last election and the Marathons are ongoing to form a stable government, it is becoming a running joke in that country. If more countries are like this then the EU is in big crises and the EU will definitely grind to a halt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Belgian_government_formation
Italians have been known to go from government to government like changing fashion with the seasons (well to be honest slightly longer than the seasons but just). I do not have enough history on eastern Europe and other EU Countries as they are not majority reported here in the media. Euronews is the best I can get to and that rare!!
By European Standard, Our Governments are very Stable, despite two coalition failing in my living recent memory.0 -
Advertisement
-
I can programme, I just need more time and information about Population stats for the future (ideally 2014 estimate figures hopefully any world wars will be finished long before then) and fit it all in. It is best to get all the facts before Lisbon 2 comes around again. Thanks again for your information and links.If you're not a programmer the code might be a little tricky to understand, but I have provided a precomputed set of results at http://www.mcdermottroe.com/misc/lisbon/voting/ so that you don't need to compile & run the program.
I'll still leave up the source code so that you or others can validate that the algorithm is consistent.
If anyone can suggest a different metric for measuring the outcomes of voting methods then feel free to PM me and I'll try to integrate them into the program.0 -
As you quoted have stated, once a deal have been reach behinds the scene once they knew it will pass.
As of Interest, do you know of any EU Council that Failed? I am curious about this. I have not hear any, as the Vote in the Council is to show others (politicians citizens) outside the Council if questioned on the legislation afterwards.
It also goes to show that the Deals are done before going to the Council that is where we lose influence if Lisbon is not right for us. That is where QMV is effective, not on the Council as the result is known beforehand, and the business of voting can go smoothly and for the EU Leaders/Ministers can all to go for a drink/dinner, congratulate themselves for work done and go home afterwards without any marathons/embarrassments involved.
I hate to say it, but you seem to grasped the wrong end of the stick there. The deals are not done before Council / behind the scenes - the method of consensus is what is used in the Council. QMV is not used except where someone wants to formally register their objection on a piece of business that they can see will be passed.
In other words, stuff comes up, and is passed by consensus. Where someone does have an objection they need only voice it to break the consensus - they could then force it to a vote, but usually what happens is that changes are made until everyone is happy (or at least not unhappy). Effectively, the system operates as if everyone has a veto, even though formally they don't.
You have to bear in mind that the EU is voluntary, and relies on the willingness of the member states to comply with, and implement, legislation passed in common by all the states. It is therefore better where it is at all possible to have everyone agree with the legislation. If member states were regularly outvoted in Council and forced to implement legislation they objected to, the EU would fall apart.
I suspect that most people have no experience of running entirely voluntary groups, but consensus is what you always wind up aiming for, whatever the 'constitution' says about voting.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
As stated before, If The legislation were going to be a problem which would have been discuses well before the Council meeting perhaps many weeks when the proposed legislation (We should give it it true name "Bill" as legislation is when the Bill becomes Law). It (the Bill) would never have gotten to the EU Council Meetings for voting. Otherwise France would tried to get Corporation Tax Rate across the EU harmonised and voted down by us and possibly a few other EU nations.I hate to say it, but you seem to grasped the wrong end of the stick there. The deals are not done before Council / behind the scenes - the method of consensus is what is used in the Council. QMV is not used except where someone wants to formally register their objection on a piece of business that they can see will be passed.
In other words, stuff comes up, and is passed by consensus. Where someone does have an objection they need only voice it to break the consensus - they could then force it to a vote, but usually what happens is that changes are made until everyone is happy (or at least not unhappy). Effectively, the system operates as if everyone has a veto, even though formally they don't.
You have to bear in mind that the EU is voluntary, and relies on the willingness of the member states to comply with, and implement, legislation passed in common by all the states. It is therefore better where it is at all possible to have everyone agree with the legislation. If member states were regularly outvoted in Council and forced to implement legislation they objected to, the EU would fall apart.
I suspect that most people have no experience of running entirely voluntary groups, but consensus is what you always wind up aiming for, whatever the 'constitution' says about voting.
cordially,
Scofflaw
In Other Areas where QMV is applied, QMV saves us provided we have support from other EU nations in order to qualify to block the bills.
The EU council members proposing the bill would be embarrassed/infuriate turning bills down in the Council as the members would have known the result before hand, as objections would have been known. These issues are discussed away from the public view in meeting between Civil service between countries. While Lisbon Treaty give the public a view on what is going on in the EU Council during meetings and propose bills in our national parliaments, but it does not gives us a view when individuals or group of EU countries civil service come together and negotiate deals away from public View, the outcomes of those deals must be become public and published by Law to be transparent for it's citizens to see and judge for themselves. This will remove any doubt of anything be hidden from EU Citizens and there will be no ammunitions for Euro-sceptics.
EU Council meetings only looks at bills that are going to pass, bills that are needed which are common to all EU nations, that will effect all nations that do not have opt-outs (and hopefully the legislation to improve our lives which mostly it does). There is many issues that effect each EU State that would cause conflict within the EU council. They are prevent from reaching the EU Council to avoid the embarrassment and prevent any conflict at that level which will go on into the future. That why we see the EU working at the moment, and this will not change with or without Lisbon.0 -
As stated before, If The legislation were going to be a problem which would have been discuses well before the Council meeting perhaps many weeks when the proposed legislation (We should give it it true name "Bill" as legislation is when the Bill becomes Law). It (the Bill) would never have gotten to the EU Council Meetings for voting. Otherwise France would tried to get Corporation Tax Rate across the EU harmonised and voted down by us and possibly a few other EU nations.
In Other Areas where QMV is applied, QMV saves us provided we have support from other EU nations in order to qualify to block the bills.
No, QMV simply isn't used that way. It's effectively not a voting mechanism. That's the point of the paper I referenced:...when QMV is used by the ministers – in about one quarter of eligible cases – participants are already aware of the distribution of preferences and know that the measure can be adopted; voting is used only for "public display", in order to show publicly that one or more member states are outvoted.
So QMV is used when states are already aware they will be outvoted, not to stop legislation, which is what you seem to me to be saying. It's used as a mechanism for passing legislation while registering protest.
QMV doesn't "save us provided we have support from other EU nations in order to qualify to block the bills". What saves us is the Council culture of consensus - because all we have to do to break the consensus is to object to the proposal:When a decision is made by consensus, it seems that the process is not less regulated and formal than when a decision is made by unanimity or by majority voting. According to the descriptions of this practice in the Council, the ministers use the following method recurrently: after a phase during which the representatives of member states in the Coreper have negotiated a proposal made by the Commission, the presidency submits a proposal to the national ministers. The President asks them whether they have any objection, by using one of the expressions which seem to be accepted in these circumstances – these expressions are not numerous, we heard for example: "everybody can live with this text?", "can we consider that this text is adopted?", "has anybody any objection to make?". If he can see that nobody expresses disagreement, the President notes that the legislative act is adopted.
Again, this is not the same as what you appear to be saying happens. The consensus is not a 'done deal' that overrides objections, but something that happens only when there are no real objections.The EU council members proposing the bill would be embarrassed/infuriate turning bills down in the Council as the members would have known the result before hand, as objections would have been known. These issues are discussed away from the public view in meeting between Civil service between countries. While Lisbon Treaty give the public a view on what is going on in the EU Council during meetings and propose bills in our national parliaments, but it does not gives us a view when individuals or group of EU countries civil service come together and negotiate deals away from public View, the outcomes of those deals must be become public and published by Law to be transparent for it's citizens to see and judge for themselves. This will remove any doubt of anything be hidden from EU Citizens and there will be no ammunitions for Euro-sceptics.
Nothing removes the objections of eurosceptics, because eurosceptics object to the existence of the EU. Indeed, with suitable 'straight banana' goggles on, such transparency will provide eurosceptics with almost unlimited ammunition.
Having said that, I'd personally be very happy to see all deals done available to public scrutiny. It's amazingly unlikely, though - there isn't a government anywhere that releases such information, and never has been. We have no idea of the inter-departmental manoeuvring that takes place before Irish legislation.
What we do have, of course, are records of the Committee work and Parliamentary scrutiny - but nobody reads these, and nobody reports on them in the media. EU legislation (and Irish legislation, come to that) is much less opaque than it's portrayed as being.EU Council meetings only looks at bills that are going to pass, bills that are needed which are common to all EU nations, that will effect all nations that do not have opt-outs (and hopefully the legislation to improve our lives which mostly it does). There is many issues that effect each EU State that would cause conflict within the EU council. They are prevent from reaching the EU Council to avoid the embarrassment and prevent any conflict at that level which will go on into the future. That why we see the EU working at the moment, and this will not change with or without Lisbon.
Well, again, the oft-cited study that is supposed to show the EU is in the pink doesn't show what is claimed. The full conclusions are rather different from the claim that everything is fine - because the legislation that's being produced, while numerically 'healthy', is mainly boilerplate legislation for the accession countries (to bring them fully into the common market), or uncontentious and minor issues. What is not happening is the passing of anything difficult or contentious - and unfortunately the serious issues du jour are of that kind. The EU is not addressing them, because the Nice mechanisms are felt to be inadequate to facilitate it.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
I read a few papers on both side of the argument on QMV. It really depends on the person point of view. I am only aware on 1 problem with QMV NICE rules. That alone would not block legislation unless there is objections. As you said and I said most Bills pass through without any issues.No, QMV simply isn't used that way. It's effectively not a voting mechanism. That's the point of the paper I referenced:
I said that before, it is useless to bring legislation before the Council, unless it is going to pass. Governments who object needs to be seem objecting if their people asked them why it got passed.So QMV is used when states are already aware they will be outvoted, not to stop legislation, which is what you seem to me to be saying. It's used as a mechanism for passing legislation while registering protest.
QMV doesn't "save us provided we have support from other EU nations in order to qualify to block the bills". What saves us is the Council culture of consensus - because all we have to do to break the consensus is to object to the proposal:
By allow valid excuses within the system can easily sway people opinions against the EU especially when they have good facts. Up to Now Eurosceptics are better persuading the people that the government because Eurosceptics actually have valid data to back their cases up. Like the ECJ Judgements on the Laval case and in Luxembourg after Lisbon referendum.Nothing removes the objections of eurosceptics, because eurosceptics object to the existence of the EU. Indeed, with suitable 'straight banana' goggles on, such transparency will provide eurosceptics with almost unlimited ammunition.
Governments do not like people looking over their shoulder, they like to think there are boss as they have power and like to think they are right all of the time and think they know what best for us! It a bit of an ego trip that most of us unfortunately have. It nice to reminded them every now and again, that we the people can change that in elections and show that we are truly the boss on mass.Having said that, I'd personally be very happy to see all deals done available to public scrutiny. It's amazingly unlikely, though - there isn't a government anywhere that releases such information, and never has been. We have no idea of the inter-departmental manoeuvring that takes place before Irish legislation.
Also Oppositions parties always get leaks from the civil service when things arise and it is exposed in the Dáil. For All of us to hear.
Most committee work and Parliamentary scrutiny have no problems. Opposition politicians will raise any issues anything for a news bite to be publicly seen. News media do reports these issues such as the FAS finance scrutiny that is going on the the committee recently.What we do have, of course, are records of the Committee work and Parliamentary scrutiny - but nobody reads these, and nobody reports on them in the media. EU legislation (and Irish legislation, come to that) is much less opaque than it's portrayed as being.
EU governments have all different political backgrounds from liberals to conservatives & socialist. If you have these many types of people in our government and you need unanimous decisions, they too would not bring up major issues for voting, as they know it would be useless to do so.Well, again, the oft-cited study that is supposed to show the EU is in the pink doesn't show what is claimed. The full conclusions are rather different from the claim that everything is fine - because the legislation that's being produced, while numerically 'healthy', is mainly boilerplate legislation for the accession countries (to bring them fully into the common market), or uncontentious and minor issues. What is not happening is the passing of anything difficult or contentious - and unfortunately the serious issues du jour are of that kind. The EU is not addressing them, because the Nice mechanisms are felt to be inadequate to facilitate it.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Can you explain your point on why Nice mechanism are felt inadequate?0 -
Lose power to Germany yes, you are assuming that we are always in opposition to Germany,
No, not at all Limklad. I'm simply referring to Scofflaws post showing everybodies position in relation to Germany.Limklad wrote:That why you need to Look at other countries where we had opposition in the past, which happens behind the closed doors where negotiations take place, where we do not have access to observe. Even with EU council voting been open to public scrutiny, it still do not expose what deals goes on behind close doors before voting.
Indeed, we would often agree with France on Agriculture but not on Tax. Britain often disagrees with France or Germany, which is why it's important to look at the various voting scenarios. That's why the 6% part of the calculation done is more important than the decisiveness part.
On the access to negotiations part, I can't see that being a runner really. If I remember though, I think there was provisions to make some of the Councils meetings public.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0
Advertisement