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

sink

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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%

Huh? I think you are confused 35+65=100. And the treaty does not mention 35% it only mentions 65%. I got to the 35% myself by subtracting 65 from 100.

Sam Vimes

sink wrote: »

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.

i know that. i'm talking specifically about the case where 4 member states are trying to block something. i'm saying that for something to pass the first two conditions must be met:

1. 55% of states
2. 65% of population

and you agree i think?


then the blocking clause as i see it is:

3. if 4 member states oppose, it's blocked

but you say:

3. if 4 member states oppose and they represent more than 35% of the population, it's blocked.
correct?


but if clause 2 is met (ie 65% agree), how is it possible for more than 35% to disagree?

Sam Vimes

sink wrote: »

Huh? I think you are confused 35+65=100. And the treaty does not mention 35% it only mentions 65%. I got to the 35% myself by subtracting 65 from 100.

i realise that 35%+65%=100% but unless we're getting crossed wires somewhere you seem to be suggesting otherwise

sink

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i know that. i'm talking specifically about the case where 4 member states are trying to block something. i'm saying that for something to pass the first two conditions must be met:

1. 55% of states
2. 65% of population

and you agree i think?


then the blocking clause as i see it is:

3. if 4 member states oppose, it's blocked

but you say:

3. if 4 member states oppose and they represent more than 35% of the population, it's blocked.
correct?


but if clause 2 is met (ie 65% agree), how is it possible for more than 35% to disagree?

It's not but the 4 minimum blocking minority clause only come into play in circumstances when 3 members representing over 35% come into play. Under those circumstances the 65% population criteria is not met but it does not matter as only 3 states are blocking. Just take some time and think about it.

K-9

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i realise that 35%+65%=100% but unless we're getting crossed wires somewhere you seem to be suggesting otherwise

I think what it means is: The 65% is conditional on 3 Member States blocking it. Eg. The 3 countries mentioned earlier would leave 24 countries with 58.1%.

The 58.1% would pass despite the 35% having been reached!

Sam Vimes

sink wrote: »

It's not but the 4 minimum blocking minority clause only come into play in circumstances when 3 members representing over 35% come into play. Under those circumstances the 65% population criteria is not met but it does not matter as only 3 states are blocking. Just take some time and think about it.

i think you need to take some time and think about it. there is no 3 state blocking clause. i realise this. there should be no mention whatsoever of 3 states, regardless of population size. the only thing we're concerned with is the following situation:


1. 23 member states agree. they represent 75% of the population
3. 4 states oppose. they represent 25% of the population

if i'm understanding you right, under those circumstances you say it would not be blocked and i say it would. is that correct?

Sam Vimes

Seanies32 wrote: »

I think what it means is: The 65% is conditional on 3 Member States blocking it. Eg. The 3 countries mentioned earlier would leave 24 countries with 58.1%.

The 58.1% would pass despite the 35% having been reached!

now that makes sense. is that what you're saying?

K-9

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i think you need to take some time and think about it. there is no 3 state blocking clause. i realise this. there should be no mention whatsoever of 3 states, regardless of population size. the only thing we're concerned with is whether the following scenario can occur:


1. 23 member states agree. they represent 75% of the population
3. 4 states oppose. they represent 25% of the population

if i'm understanding you right, under those circumstances you say it would not be blocked and i say it would. is that correct?

It wouldn't be blocked as it fulfils the 15 member states and 65% population criteria.

sink

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i think you need to take some time and think about it. there is no 3 state blocking clause. i realise this. there should be no mention whatsoever of 3 states, regardless of population size. the only thing we're concerned with is whether the following scenario can occur:


1. 23 member states agree. they represent 65% of the population
3. 4 states oppose. they represent 35% of the population

if i'm understanding you right, under those circumstances you say it would not be blocked and i say it would. is that correct?

FYP

Correct. 4 or more states can only block it when they represent greater than 35% so at a minimum 35.00001% or they represent more than 45% of members (13 currently). 3 states can't block under any circumstances.

Sam Vimes

Seanies32 wrote: »

It wouldn't be blocked as it fulfils the 15 member states and 65% population criteria.

.......
.......
.......
.......
i think i may have misunderstood it
.......
.......
.......

Sam Vimes

sink wrote: »

FYP

Correct. 4 or more states can only block it when they represent greater than 35% so at a minimum 35.00001% or they represent more than 45% of members (13 currently). 3 states can't block under any circumstances.

i think it's cleared up now but not by your post. i asked you if the above scenario could occur but instead of saying whether it could or not you changed the scenario to one that had already been mentioned several times, and then gave the answer "correct", where if you had not editted the question the answer would have been "incorrect", thereby not clarifying anything. and as i've already said several times, i know that 3 member states cannot block something and telling me that again also did not clarify anything. seanies clarified it by answering my question instead of editting it to a different question and then answering that one

the problem here was that we were both arguing different points over and over again and neither one of us was listening to the other

sink

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i think it's cleared up now but not by your post. i asked you if the above scenario could occur but instead of saying whether it could or not you changed the scenario to one that had already been mentioned several times, thereby not clarifying anything. and as i've already said several times, i know that 3 member states cannot block something and telling me that again also did not clarify anything

the problem here was that we were both arguing different points over and over again and neither one of us was listening to the other

Sorry it was probably my initial explanation but I'm glad we've sorted it now.

edit: i thought you had ust made a typo

Sam Vimes

i thought the point of the 4 members clause was to give the little guys a voice, ie if 4 members disagree it can't go ahead but it seems that the point was to stop the big guys from blocking everything.

i didn't realise that the 65% clause could be cancelled out by the 4 members clause, ie you don't have to have 65% as long as less than 4 states disagree

Sam Vimes

sink wrote: »

Sorry it was probably my initial explanation but I'm glad we've sorted it now.

edit: i thought you had ust made a typo

nope, no typos i've started to watch out for things like that because on boards and in real life you can get into massive heated arguments that end in pulled hair and multiple homicide and it turns out you were both saying the same thing in different ways

sink

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i thought the point of the 4 members clause was to give the little guys a voice, ie if 4 members disagree it can't go ahead but it seems that the point was to stop the big guys from blocking everything.

i didn't realise that the 65% clause could be cancelled out by the 4 members clause, ie you don't have to have 65% as long as less than 4 states disagree

That would be to our benefit as a small country aright but it would be unreasonable to allow 4 countries represent 0.7% of the population block a directive when 3 countries representing 41.9% could not. I think the new QMV system worked out is about the fairest it can possibly be.

democrates

sink wrote: »

That would be to our benefit as a small country aright but it would be unreasonable to allow 4 countries represent 0.7% of the population block a directive when 3 countries representing 41.9% could not. I think the new QMV system worked out is about the fairest it can possibly be.

It's a fair system if you assume the EU should have some role as central government.

I think the EU has already gone too far down that road and Lisbon seeks to have more decisions taken by QMV that were previously based on concensus, it is a transfer of power from the nation state to the EU central government. I think a fairer system would be where the EU operates on concensus alone and does not have the power to force anything on nation states.

I'm happy enough with us being in the eurozone with the ECB setting interest rates to tackle inflation. Despite the fact that Ireland had high interest rates when we needed low and visa versa, overall it has been worth it especially with the credit crunch. Crucially it was introduced on a voluntary basis, without Lisbon, and without anyone having to be forced into any measure through QMV.

There are plenty of areas in which we can co-operate in mutual intrerest, and while some horse trading is inevitable we should always retain the capacity to opt out of a particular redline measure.

More EU central government allows national politicians to deflect more accountability since they can come back to their people and claim the latest directive was what the EU voted for. If our EU neighbours force more things upon us via QMV it can sow the seeds of division and run counter to a major reason given for the European experiment - to preserve peace.

The other reason given is that no economic alliance has ever lasted without political union, but what kind of economic union does the increased political union of Lisbon offer? A few years ago I would have asserted that laudable values of social cohesion were primary motives, and cited equality directives and such as evidence.

That is still there to an extent but it seems a right-wing agenda has entered the fray. I was shocked to read about the Bolkenstein directive as originally attempted, clearly designed to serve business interests at the expense of employees.

My fear of centralising more power would easily be assuaged with evidence that those driving the EU were fully loyal to the people and ready to listen. In fact the evidence shows the opposite, less appetite for listening to the people. It seems that like the Washington concensus we now have a Brussels concensus, an elite determined to have their way, and the only thing standing in their way is the people of Ireland.

Dob74

Sam Vimes wrote: »

so these workers would be working for one euro an hour in their homeland but instead will be working for one euro an hour in ireland. what's the difference?

is your problem with the exploitation of these people or them taking your job?

also, you can't blame the lisbon treaty if existing labour laws are not enforced.

and finally, if what you're describing is already happening, what exactly will lisbon change?

The difference is they can under cut irish contractors like myself how pay the going rate. And flood this country with cheap foreign labour who live in slave like conditions. The Lisbon Treaty will re-enforce the freedom of movement of labour and thus make the situation ten times worse. All the Euro courts are full of people like you who don't care about hard working men and women. And will rule on the side of the bosses. Lisbon will destory ireland.

Sam Vimes

Dob74 wrote: »

The difference is they can under cut irish contractors like myself how pay the going rate. And flood this country with cheap foreign labour who live in slave like conditions. The Lisbon Treaty will re-enforce the freedom of movement of labour and thus make the situation ten times worse. All the Euro courts are full of people like you who don't care about hard working men and women. And will rule on the side of the bosses. Lisbon will destory ireland.

so again, it's nothing about slavery because they'd be living in the same conditions regardless of where they were, you just don't want to be undercut by them. and since it's already happening, i fail to see what the treaty is "re-enforcing".

Sam Vimes

democrates wrote: »

It's a fair system if you assume the EU should have some role as central government.

I think the EU has already gone too far down that road and Lisbon seeks to have more decisions taken by QMV that were previously based on concensus, it is a transfer of power from the nation state to the EU central government. I think a fairer system would be where the EU operates on concensus alone and does not have the power to force anything on nation states.

I'm happy enough with us being in the eurozone with the ECB setting interest rates to tackle inflation. Despite the fact that Ireland had high interest rates when we needed low and visa versa, overall it has been worth it especially with the credit crunch. Crucially it was introduced on a voluntary basis, without Lisbon, and without anyone having to be forced into any measure through QMV.

There are plenty of areas in which we can co-operate in mutual intrerest, and while some horse trading is inevitable we should always retain the capacity to opt out of a particular redline measure.

More EU central government allows national politicians to deflect more accountability since they can come back to their people and claim the latest directive was what the EU voted for. If our EU neighbours force more things upon us via QMV it can sow the seeds of division and run counter to a major reason given for the European experiment - to preserve peace.

The other reason given is that no economic alliance has ever lasted without political union, but what kind of economic union does the increased political union of Lisbon offer? A few years ago I would have asserted that laudable values of social cohesion were primary motives, and cited equality directives and such as evidence.

That is still there to an extent but it seems a right-wing agenda has entered the fray. I was shocked to read about the Bolkenstein directive as originally attempted, clearly designed to serve business interests at the expense of employees.

My fear of centralising more power would easily be assuaged with evidence that those driving the EU were fully loyal to the people and ready to listen. In fact the evidence shows the opposite, less appetite for listening to the people. It seems that like the Washington concensus we now have a Brussels concensus, an elite determined to have their way, and the only thing standing in their way is the people of Ireland.

good post. but when you say the "force things on us by QMV", that's what democracy is. no other form of democracy requires 100% of people to want something before it happens because that results in the minority getting what they want. with QMV, sometimes we get what we want and sometimes france gets what it wants. it still gives us a voice but doesn't stall progress every time the current leader of one particular country has a silly objection to something. and doesn't allow the uninformed masses of a particular country to stall progress even though they're not quite sure why they're doing it (remind you of anything? :P)

so the important thing is what specific areas are moving to QMV. iirc 62 areas are moving to QMV. i can't remember what they are but i remember that none were controversial enough to be latched onto by anyone. are there any specific areas that are moving to QMV that you would rather stay as consensus?

democrates

Sam Vimes wrote: »

good post. but when you say the "force things on us by QMV", that's what democracy is. no other form of democracy requires 100% of people to want something before it happens because that results in the minority getting what they want. with QMV, sometimes we get what we want and sometimes france gets what it wants. it still gives us a voice but doesn't stall progress every time the current leader of one particular country has a silly objection to something. and doesn't allow the uninformed masses of a particular country to stall progress even though they're not quite sure why they're doing it (remind you of anything? :P)

so the important thing is what specific areas are moving to QMV. iirc 62 areas are moving to QMV. i can't remember what they are but i remember that none were controversial enough to be latched onto by anyone. are there any specific areas that are moving to QMV that you would rather stay as consensus?

Thanks. I would prefer nothing be decided by qmv at the EU, Lisbon offers the opposite direction on that issue.

I agree on a weakness of democracy being the tyranny of the majority, but by moving decision making from our ~4.4m country to the EU of ~500m that doesn't solve the problem, it makes it bigger, and with less accountability at EU than at the national level it makes it worse.

I'm not at all happy that the EU has any power to ignore "silly objections" or "uninformed masses". We've seen government fall here over outrageous measures before, but if such a measure came from Brussels by qmv we don't have that safeguard, our own government may fall but the EU decision would still stand.

When you talk about progress, just who makes progress remains a question. The more EU decision-makers can ignore the people the less assurance we have that our best interests will be served.

K-9

democrates wrote: »

Thanks. I would prefer nothing be decided by qmv at the EU, Lisbon offers the opposite direction on that issue.

I agree on a weakness of democracy being the tyranny of the majority, but by moving decision making from our ~4.4m country to the EU of ~500m that doesn't solve the problem, it makes it bigger, and with less accountability at EU than at the national level it makes it worse.

I'm not at all happy that the EU has any power to ignore "silly objections" or "uninformed masses". We've seen government fall here over outrageous measures before, but if such a measure came from Brussels by qmv we don't have that safeguard, our own government may fall but the EU decision would still stand.

When you talk about progress, just who makes progress remains a question. The more EU decision-makers can ignore the people the less assurance we have that our best interests will be served.

Good post. I think this has been the main reason for No voters in Referenda in the past and as more and more powers are moved to QMV, their numbers increase. This is the problem the EU faces. Even if it was working perfectly well, these objections would remain.

This is always going to be where Yes and No voters differ.

There was always a small minority of voters who had this view, but now, with the benefits of the EU not being seeing in the way of large funding and future benefits harder to explain, the numbers are substantial.

Sam Vimes

democrates wrote: »

Thanks. I would prefer nothing be decided by qmv at the EU, Lisbon offers the opposite direction on that issue.

I agree on a weakness of democracy being the tyranny of the majority, but by moving decision making from our ~4.4m country to the EU of ~500m that doesn't solve the problem, it makes it bigger, and with less accountability at EU than at the national level it makes it worse.

I'm not at all happy that the EU has any power to ignore "silly objections" or "uninformed masses". We've seen government fall here over outrageous measures before, but if such a measure came from Brussels by qmv we don't have that safeguard, our own government may fall but the EU decision would still stand.

When you talk about progress, just who makes progress remains a question. The more EU decision-makers can ignore the people the less assurance we have that our best interests will be served.

i'd look at it a different way. you see it as europe forcing decisions on ireland with europeans out-voting us but i see ireland as a part of europe with our votes going into a collective european pool. to me, your thinking sounds like giving offaly a veto

tbh i'm not sure what changes could be made to the treaty to make you vote yes, you're just generally against more EU integration and i can't forsee any changes or any future treaty that will remove power from europe and give it back to the member states. that's not the way the EU is going but i'm ok with it

Dob74

Sam Vimes wrote: »

so again, it's nothing about slavery because they'd be living in the same conditions regardless of where they were, you just don't want to be undercut by them. and since it's already happening, i fail to see what the treaty is "re-enforcing".

Again you seem to be missing the point. The EU courts are full of people who think like you. Who could not care less about irish workers being undercut. The treaty will help people who want to exploit irish workers. Since most of the top dogs share these opinions nothing is going to be done to help the productive irish worker. So why in gods name would we vote for this treaty.

Sam Vimes

Dob74 wrote: »

Again you seem to be missing the point. The EU courts are full of people who think like you. Who could not care less about irish workers being undercut. The treaty will help people who want to exploit irish workers. Since most of the top dogs share these opinions nothing is going to be done to help the productive irish worker. So why in gods name would we vote for this treaty.

1. the original point was that it encourages slavery. it doesn't and the poster doesn't care about slavery

2. it's already happening. workers from other EU countries can already come to ireland with no problem whatsoever. how will it help them? will it buy them the plane ticket too?

i'm not saying whether it's a bad thing or not, i'm just saying that the lisbon treaty doesn't actually have any effect on it either way. it's no more relevant than "Save the whales. Vote no"

whatisayis

Sam Vimes wrote: »

so the important thing is what specific areas are moving to QMV.

Quite a few it seems:
This site seems to be the easiest to read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extension_to_qualified_majority_voting_under_the_Treaty_of_Lisbon

This site from the EU commission explains in more detail:
http://ec.europa.eu/ireland/lisbon_treaty/questions_and_answers/new_cases_of_qmv.pdf

As far as I know Ireland have an opt out clause on matters of defence so I presume any references to it in the above list are not applicable, but I am open to correction on that.

Sam Vimes

whatisayis wrote: »

Quite a few it seems:
This site seems to be the easiest to read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extension_to_qualified_majority_voting_under_the_Treaty_of_Lisbon

This site from the EU commission explains in more detail:
http://ec.europa.eu/ireland/lisbon_treaty/questions_and_answers/new_cases_of_qmv.pdf

As far as I know Ireland have an opt out clause on matters of defence so I presume any references to it in the above list are not applicable, but I am open to correction on that.

afaik we do have an opt out on defence what with neturality and all. nothing there jumps out at me as something i'd have a problem with. but then i don't see a problem with qmv in general. it only becomes a problem if you don't trust the rest of europe to vote in our best interests.

we don't lose all control with qmv, it just means we can't block something all on our own but i'd say it'd be very rare for something to be proposed that would be good for every other country in europe but so bad for us that we'd want to reject it*



*there is the lisbon treaty but with that every seems to object to it but very few people can give an actual reason why. personally i wish it could have been decided by qmv because we wouldn't now be in what i think is the embarrassing situation of holding up everyone else without being able to explain why

K-9

whatisayis wrote: »

Quite a few it seems:
This site seems to be the easiest to read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extension_to_qualified_majority_voting_under_the_Treaty_of_Lisbon

This site from the EU commission explains in more detail:
http://ec.europa.eu/ireland/lisbon_treaty/questions_and_answers/new_cases_of_qmv.pdf

As far as I know Ireland have an opt out clause on matters of defence so I presume any references to it in the above list are not applicable, but I am open to correction on that.

IIRC, when you take out defence, border controls, policing etc. which we've opted out of, either because of Neutrality or our borders with the UK and also omit areas where it covers groups, not the whole EU, it comes down to about 34.

whatisayis

Seanies32 wrote: »

IIRC, when you take out defence, border controls, policing etc. which we've opted out of, either because of Neutrality or our borders with the UK and also omit areas where it covers groups, not the whole EU, it comes down to about 34.

Have to admit I just posted what I found regarding changes to QMV and haven't really studied it! Forgive my ignorance but what does it mean when you say 'where it covers groups, not the whole EU'?

K-9

An example would be anything applying to the Western European Union wouldn't apply to us as we are an observer state, not a member.

whatisayis

Seanies32 wrote: »

An example would be anything applying to the Western European Union wouldn't apply to us as we are an observer state, not a member.

I'm really showing myself up here but I have no idea what you're talking about!