Lisbon 2: prepare to bend over and recieve ur destiny!

Sam Vimes

whatisayis wrote: »

By that reasoning the commission would never propose anything.

Of course they would. Just because the council and parliament can object to something they propose and renegotiate it doesn't mean they wouldn't propose anything

whatisayis wrote: »

Well done Sam! You really have been studying the Treaty! You are the only other person that has actually spotted that in this whole discussion. That is the only way this proposal can be defeated if Lisbon is ratified.
Lets just hope that those who currently oppose CCCTB remain so.

As seanies says i think you misunderstood me. I said that even it it wasn't unanimous it wouldn't pass. I didn't say it's not unanimous, it is

I was just pointing out that qmv isn't that bad

whatisayis

Seanies32 wrote: »

Why? They can propose away, but it doesn't mean it will not be sent back again or binned!!

What Sam is describing is the procedure followed when a proposal is submitted. The original proposal is submitted, considered and the amendments on the original proposal are returned to the commission for final submission. So, therefore it is the commission doing the proposing.

Seanies32 wrote: »

Read his quote again, it says even if it was QMV.
Which it isn't!

I know he said 'even if' and it is!

Sam Vimes

whatisayis wrote: »

What Sam is describing is the procedure followed when a proposal is submitted. The original proposal is submitted, considered and the amendments on the original proposal are returned to the commission for final submission. So, therefore it is the commission doing the proposing.

The commission proposes the original legislation but the council and parliamant propose the amendments. That is the proposal the article refers to

whatisayis wrote: »

I know he said 'even if' and it is!

No, it's not. I don't know why you're fighting this so hard. The one fear you have about the treaty is being explained and it's being shown that you have nothing to fear. You should be delighted

whatisayis

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As seanies says i think you misunderstood me. I said that even it it wasn't unanimous it wouldn't pass. I didn't say it's not unanimous, it is

I was just pointing out that qmv isn't that bad

I didn't misunderstand you at all Sam. I never implied that you said it was unanimous. As far as I am concerned, it isn't. But as you have correctly stated QMV allows for 4 states to veto a proposal so really if you agree or disagree with me it doesn't matter as long as there is continued opposition by other states. Truce?

Sam Vimes

look, seriously, i'm telling you that it's a simple technicality pointing out that a few paragraphs don't apply under certain circumstances whereas you're saying that it's a hidden time bomb designed to trick us into giving up our veto and that you alone have discovered it where thousands of legal experts haven't. Which is more likely to you?

Davidius

I wouldn't trust those thousands of legal experts.

Hired them to paint the fence. They never did it.

Sam Vimes

whatisayis wrote: »

I didn't misunderstand you at all Sam. I never implied that you said it was unanimous. As far as I am concerned, it isn't. But as you have correctly stated QMV allows for 4 states to veto a proposal so really if you agree or disagree with me it doesn't matter as long as there is continued opposition by other states. Truce?

Fair enough so are we agreed that even if you are right about unanimity not applying (which i don't think you are), lisbon still can't affect our tax unless many other countries also change their current stance on tax legislation?

sink

Sam Vimes wrote: »

and even if it was voted on by QMV it wouldn't pass because under QMV if 4 member states vote no it doesn't pass

Actually you are wrong on this point. The normal legislative procedure requires 55% of the member state representing at least 65% of the population. If either one of these conditions is not met then the proposal fails. However the Irish negotiating team realised that the 3 largest states (Britain, Germany, France) could block any and all legislation as they combined have over 35% of the EU's population meaning 24 could vote for and only 3 would need to block it. So they got an added test requiring at least 4 states to oppose it in order to block. This does not mean that any 4 states can block it as they still are required to represent over 35% of the EU's population.

But you are right that it wouldn't pass as too many oppose it. Anyway everyone has a veto in this area so the point is moot.

whatisayis

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Fair enough so are we agreed that even if you are right about unanimity not applying (which i don't think you are), lisbon still can't affect our tax unless many other countries also change their current stance on tax legislation?

Yes, I absolutely agree! Shake hands on a battle well fought! (but there are other things I dislike about Lisbon, I'll leave them for another day!)

Sam Vimes

sink wrote: »

Actually you are wrong on this point. The normal legislative procedure requires 55% of the member state representing at least 65% of the population. If either one of these conditions is not met then the proposal fails. However the Irish negotiating team realised that the 3 largest states (Britain, Germany, France) could block any and all legislation as they combined have over 35% of the EU's population meaning 24 could vote for and only 3 would need to block it. So they got an added test requiring at least 4 states to oppose it in order to block. This does not mean that any 4 states can block it as they still are required to represent over 35% of the EU's population.

But you are right that it wouldn't pass as too many oppose it. Anyway everyone has a veto in this area so the point is moot.

Are you totally sure about that? This is the first i'm hearing of the figure of 35%. I was under the impression that any 4 member states can block. Link?

sink

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Are you totally sure about that? This is the first i'm hearing of the figure of 35%. I was under the impression that any 4 member states can block. Link?

Ref Com wrote:

a) 55% of the Member States must agree: (for example, while there are 27 Member States, 15 Member States must agree);
b) those Member States supporting the decision must represent 65% of the EU population.

In addition, at least four Member States must be opposed to a decision in order for it to be blocked. This ensures that decisions cannot be blocked by just 3 of the larger Member States acting together.

http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_changes_gov.html

Sam Vimes

sink wrote: »

http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_changes_gov.html

That doesn't say that the four member states have to represent 35% of the population, just that 4 have to be opposed.......

sink

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That doesn't say that the four member states have to represent 35% of the population, just that 4 have to be opposed.......

It infers that other wise Luxenbourg, Malta, Cyprus and Estonia representing just 0.7% of the population could block 23 state and 99.3% of the population.

In addition, at least four Member States must be opposed to a decision in order for it to be blocked. This ensures that decisions cannot be blocked by just 3 of the larger Member States acting together.

The key is where it says "in addition", meaning not overriding the 55% and 65% requirements.

Sam Vimes

sink wrote: »

It infers that other wise Luxenbourg, Malta, Cyprus and Estonia representing just 0.7% of the population could block 23 state and 99.3% of the population.

but i'm pretty sure that's how it works. I thought the whole point was that smaller states didn't get overruled if a few of the big boys decide they want something

sink wrote: »

The key is where it says "in addition", meaning not overriding the 55% and 65% requirements.

No it doesn't override it, my reading of it is that three conditions have to be met:

1. 55% of states agree
2. They represent 65% of the population
3. No 4 states disagree

No?

sink

Here is what the amended Treaty on the European Union says specifically.

Article 16, Paragraph 4 wrote:

As from 1 November 2014, a qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55 % of
the members of the Council, comprising at least fifteen of them and representing
Member States comprising at least 65 % of the population of the Union.
A blocking minority must include at least four Council members, failing which
the qualified majority shall be deemed attained.

Notice the way it says a blocking minority must include 4 members, not that 4 members necessarily constitute a blocking minority.

You can find it here on page 13.

http://www.iiea.com/images/managed/publications_attachments/TEU_2008.pdf

Sam Vimes

If the second condition of 65% population is met, surely it's physically impossible for 4 other member states to contain the entire remaining 35% of the population? So why even mention it?

K-9

Sam Vimes wrote: »

but i'm pretty sure that's how it works. I thought the whole point was that smaller states didn't get overruled if a few of the big boys decide they want something




No it doesn't override it, my reading of it is that three conditions have to be met:

1. 55% of states agree
2. They represent 65% of the population
3. No 4 states disagree

No?

No, it's to stop 3 of the larger countries blocking something. Eg. Germany, Poland and France.

sink

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If the second condition of 65% population is met, surely it's physically impossible for 4 other member states to contain the entire remaining 35% of the population? So why even mention it?

Actually no it not.

UK 60.6 million 12.3%
France 63.8 million 13%
Germany 82.2 million 16.6%

Total 202.6 million 41.9%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_EU

Sam Vimes

sink wrote: »

Here is what the amended Treaty on the European Union says specifically.



Notice the way it says a blocking minority must include 4 members, not that 4 members necessarily constitute a blocking minority.

You can find it here on page 13.

http://www.iiea.com/images/managed/publications_attachments/TEU_2008.pdf

To be honest i think you're reading something into it that isn't there. I'm open to correction on this but i'm pretty sure that any four member states can block something. Has anyone got a definitive answer?

sink

Sam Vimes wrote: »

To be honest i think you're reading something into it that isn't there. I'm open to correction on this but i'm pretty sure that any four member states can block something. Has anyone got a definitive answer?

Here is what the DFA Reform Treaty White Paper says page 37.

Chapter 5, Paragraph 36 wrote:

An additional element, introduced to
reassure smaller and medium-sized
Member States, was the requirement
that a blocking minority should comprise
at least four Member States (this would
prevent three of the biggest four from
blocking on their own, which they could
otherwise do).

So it only matters for the big four states.

sink

Just to note, I am a firm yes voter and even though this may make the treaty less appealing in the eyes of some I just want to make sure everyone knows exactly what they are voting for or against.

Sam Vimes

sink wrote: »

Actually no it not.

UK 60.6 million 12.3%
France 63.8 million 13%
Germany 82.2 million 16.6%

Total 202.6 million 41.9%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_EU

You're misunderstanding me. Yes it is possible that 4 disagreeing member states can have more than 35% of the population but it's not possible to simultaneously have more than 65% agreeing. The two scenarios are mutually exclusive. It seems pointless to legislate something that cannot possibly occur

K-9

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If the second condition of 65% population is met, surely it's physically impossible for 4 other member states to contain the entire remaining 35% of the population? So why even mention it?

Indeed, if the 4 countries get 35%, the 65% wouldn't be reached anyway!

sink wrote: »

Here is what the DFA Reform Treaty White Paper says page 37.



So it only matters for the big four states.

No, Germany, France and Poland would make up about 182/183 Million alone.

There could be a few combinations but they would probably need Spain, UK or Italy as well.

sink

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You're misunderstanding me. Yes it is possible that 4 disagreeing member states can have more than 35% of the population but it's not possible to simultaneously have more than 65% agreeing. The two scenarios are mutually exclusive. It seems pointless to legislate something that cannot possibly occur

No I think you misunderstand. Say Britain, Germany and France voted against and everyone else voted for that would mean that only 3 members states are blocking when in requires 4 regardless of population. The population quota does not matter when the 4 state criteria is not met so 24 members representing 58.1% could pass directives through the normal legislative procedures. Otherwise what's the point in putting that 4 state blocking requirement.

K-9

sink wrote: »

No I think you misunderstand. Say Britain, Germany and France voted against and everyone else voted for that would mean that only 3 members states are blocking when in requires 4 regardless of population. The population quota does not matter when the 4 state criteria is not met so 24 members representing 58.1% could pass directives through the normal legislative procedures. Otherwise what's the point in putting that 4 state blocking requirement.

Does it not state 15 members AND 65% of the population.

sink

Seanies32 wrote: »

Does it not state 15 members AND 65% of the population.

Yes but then it states "A blocking minority must include at least four Council members, failing which the qualified majority shall be deemed attained". So failing a blocking minority of 4 the qualified majority is attained regardless.

Sam Vimes

sink wrote: »

Yes but then it states "A blocking minority must include at least four Council members, failing which the qualified majority shall be deemed attained". So failing a blocking minority of 4 the qualified majority is attained regardless.

but if the condition of 65% of the population agreeing is met, how is it possible that 35% can disagree? unless exactly 65% agree and exactly 35% disagree

K-9

sink wrote: »

Yes but then it states "A blocking minority must include at least four Council members, failing which the qualified majority shall be deemed attained". So failing a blocking minority of 4 the qualified majority is attained regardless.

Get you now.

24 countries agree, Germany, France & UK can't stop them.

sink

Sam Vimes wrote: »

but if the condition of 65% of the population agreeing is met, how is it possible that 35% can disagree? unless exactly 65% agree and exactly 35% disagree

No, in the case where only 3 states are blocking it does not matter what percentage of the population they represent. In theory the 3 states could represent 99% of the population but as they do not meet the minimum blocking requirement of 4 they could not block. Of this I am 100% certain not a doubt in my mind.

Sam Vimes

sink wrote: »

No I think you misunderstand. Say Britain, Germany and France voted against and everyone else voted for that would mean that only 3 members states are blocking when in requires 4 regardless of population. The population quota does not matter when the 4 state criteria is not met so 24 members representing 58.1% could pass directives through the normal legislative procedures. Otherwise what's the point in putting that 4 state blocking requirement.

i'm saying there is no population quota for the 4 member blocking clause. it's not physically possible to have more than 65% agreeing and simultaneously have more than 35% disagreeing, unless the population of the eu is 110%