Lisbon and sovereignty

marco_polo

finbar10 wrote: »

I would guess that in practical terms it would mean that in a situation where formerly one of the top 6 would be needed to help form a blocking quote now 2 will be needed, or where 2 would do now 3 of the top six would be required.

But even at that a formal vote is rarely taken. Looking at the artist resale rights from a few years ago, we had a situation where Britain could not form a blocking minority on the proposal. Despite this there were over two years of negotiations between 1999 and 2001, where they gained signifigant concessions from the EU before they finally agreed to the proposal. There was no formal vote taken at any stage that forced Britain to accept the proposal as is, in the end they negotiated signifigant concessions that were acceptable to them and voted for the proposal. Incidently the art market in the UK is as strong as ever.

Because Britain did not have a blocking minority, there was no obligation on the Council to do so, but in EU negotiations alot importance is placed in finding an acceptable solution to all, because maintaining goodwill is very important in such a large collection of states.

If poor relations were allowed to develop and fester, as would happen if a country was overruled on a regular basis via QMV without any negotiations, then you would see a vast increase in countries using their vetos in other areas out of spite and the whole process would grind to a halt.

75% of the time, under qualified majority voting, no formal vote is even taken in such matters.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmcumeds/414/5030809.htm

3. AMENDMENTS TO THE DIRECTIVE SECURED BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT

A number of significant amendments to the Directive were won by the UK and its allies. These are essential in order to reduce the cost and administrative burden connected with operating the levy and to limit the loss of business to market competitors outside Europe. The principal concessions gained were:

(a) A delay in implementation until 2006 and a derogation to permit those member states not already operating the right to app1y it only to the work of living artists, until 2012 at the latest

This is a most significant concession for the British art market, since it is clear that the main impact of the resale right levy falls on the market for the works of deceased artists (the resale right extends to 70 years after the artist's death and is payable to his heirs). The Kusin survey found that if the resale right had been collected on all eligible auction sales throughout, the EU in 2003, the heirs of dead artists would have received 81% of the proceeds. In the UK in 2003, the total value of auction sales for the work of artists who had died within 70 years was

228,782,518 and for living artists it was

48,172,424 (an 83%/17% split). The extension of the right to the heirs of dead artists will include work of many of the masters of 20th Century painting, which London must continue to attract for sale if it is to maintain its position in the international art market

(b) A maximum levy per transaction of

12,500

The levy is calculated by applying reducing percentages to the sale price - the lowest slice being subject to 4% , the highest (over

500,000), 0.25%. The effect of capping the levy at

12,500 prevents the levy from increasing when sales exceed

2 million. The maximum levy is intended to limit the loss of the UK's share in the mobile and price sensitive top end of the art market

(c) A starting threshold of

3,000 below which sales would not be liable to the levy

During the negotiations the British Government argued in favour of a starting point of

10,000, on the grounds that sales below that figure were unlikely to be diverted from one member state to another. In the first Council agreement a figure of

4,000 was agreed upon, but this was reduced to

3,000 as a result of conciliation between the Parliament and Council.

Quite apart from there being no internal market justification for applying the levy to low value transactions, doing so would also create a considerable burden and cost, particularly upon the many smaller businesses that BAMF represents. The DTI's Small firms litmus test in the initial compliance cost assessment (7050/96) put the administrative cost at £30 to £40 per sale and concluded that the total administrative cost to the market would be £0.25 million or higher. Such costs cannot be deducted from the levy payable to the beneficiary. BAMF remains concerned that even a threshold of

3,000 will impose a significant administrative burden on small businesses.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

finbar10 wrote: »

I would guess that in practical terms it would mean that in a situation where formerly one of the top 6 would be needed to help form a blocking quote now 2 will be needed, or where 2 would do now 3 of the top six would be required.

A power grab by the small countries!

amused,
Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Why can't someone be a nationalist libertarian, why does it have to be one or the other? I believe in absolute personal freedom as long as you don't infringe the rights of anyone else who did not give permission. But unfortunately I value our democracy and our country's independence more.

Why also are you "accusing" people of being nationalist? Since when is it a bad thing to have loyalty to your country and to value your country's independence?

There are two sides to your argument on the charter anyway. Personally I do approve of the charter of rights, but it's one part of a massive treaty, much of which I don't approve of. What do we have to sacrifice in order to get these rights which most people in this country already have? Is it worth putting them into another text form and giving up so much in order to do so? I mean isn't Ireland already a member of most of the UN human rights organizations anyway? This I suppose is one of the huge issues with Lisbon - it's too ****ing big. You can like 60% of it, but detest the remainder so damn much that there's no way you can vote yes.

Sam Vimes

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This I suppose is one of the huge issues with Lisbon - it's too ****ing big. You can like 60% of it, but detest the remainder so damn much that there's no way you can vote yes.

Well I have good news for you. The Lisbon treaty allows single issues to be debated and passed instead of massive treaties. It's meant to solve exactly that problem. Vote yes!

hatrickpatrick

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well I have good news for you. The Lisbon treaty allows single issues to be debated and passed instead of massive treaties. It's meant to solve exactly that problem. Vote yes!

...But in order to get that we have to pass the entire Lisbon Treaty, much of which I disagree with, right?

View

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...But in order to get that we have to pass the entire Lisbon Treaty, much of which I disagree with, right?

Yup, Lisbon like much of life is a compromise. There is no "perfect" EU Treaty, there can't be given the divergence of opinion that is to be found in a democracy.

Essentially the choice comes down to a choice between "half a loaf" or "no loaf" . Choose wisely!

hatrickpatrick

View wrote: »

Yup, Lisbon like much of life is a compromise. There is no "perfect" EU Treaty, there can't be given the divergence of opinion that is to be found in a democracy.

Essentially the choice comes down to a choice between "half a loaf" or "no loaf" . Choose wisely!

That analogy is inherently flawed - it's more like the choice between "no loaf" or "a loaf which is half wholegrain, arsenic - and you must eat all of it."

BlitzKrieg

Under Lisbon:
More than 35% of population needed to block.
We have 0.9% of the EU population
voting weight 0.9/35 -> 2.6%

There is a flaw in your argument

its not 35% of the population of the EU, its 35% of the population taking part in the QMV if not all the states are taking part.

If all states are taking part it is 4 member states regardless of population. I have already pointed this out and I am surprised no one corrected this.

3. As from 1 November 2014 and subject to the provisions laid down in the Protocol on transitional provisions, in cases where, under the Treaties, not all the members of the Council participate in voting, a qualified majority shall be defined as follows:
(a) A qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55 % of the members of the Council representing the participating Member States, comprising at least 65 % of the population of these States. A blocking minority must include at least the minimum number of Council members representing more than 35 % of the population of the participating Member States, plus one member, failing which the qualified majority shall be deemed attained

So your numbers are incorrect, you would need to find out the numerous situations of QMV where not all members would be taking part (I assume the Eurozone would be a good example?) work out the population percentage of the member states in those cases and work out our own percentage worth of the overall.

But the reality is in every case our percentage is going to be higher then 0.8%

Sam Vimes

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That analogy is inherently flawed - it's more like the choice between "no loaf" or "a loaf which is half wholegrain, arsenic - and you must eat all of it."

Yes if you view any sharing of power whatsoever as "arsenic" your analogy porbably makes sense but I can see the huge benefits of such an arrangement so that's over in the wholegrain section for me. This idea that sharing of power is self-evidently a bad thing is baffling to me. It's a union, not an empire. We're sharing some of our power in exchange for some of the power of 26 other countries. It's a good thing

BlitzKrieg

just because no one seems to bother with links. Table from a good while back by IRLconnor that outlines the different processes

Article|Dates Applicable|When used|Method
TEU 16 (4)|1/11/2014 onwards|Default voting method (as far as I can tell)|

• To pass: 55% of members (minimum 15), 65% population
• To block: Four council members

TFEU 238 (1)|Not specified, I assume this means from the passing of the treaty|When required by the treaties|Simple majority
TFEU 238 (2)|1/11/2014 onwards|When not acting on a proposal from the Commission or from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy|72% of members, 65% population
TFEU 238 (3) (a)|1/11/2014 onwards|When not all of the members are voting on a proposal|

• To pass: 55% of members, 65% population
• To block: members representing 35% population plus one member

TFEU 238 (3) (b)|1/11/2014 onwards|When not all of the members are voting on a proposal and when that proposal was not from the Commission or from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy|72% of members, 65% population
PoTP 3 (3) and 3 (4)|Between 1/11/2014 and 31/03/2017|If a member requests it|

• Weighted votes with the same weights as Nice.
• 255 weighted votes are needed to pass.
• A member can request that the member states making up the qualified majority represent at least 62% of the population. If no-one requests it, this provision need not be met.

finbar10

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

If all states are taking part it is 4 member states regardless of population. I have already pointed this out and I am surprised no one corrected this.

True, that does prevent 4 big states from blocking everything in QMV. It does counterbalance the redistribution of voting weights to a certain extent. I did briefly refer to this in an earlier post.

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

There is a flaw in your argument

its not 35% of the population of the EU, its 35% of the population taking part in the QMV if not all the states are taking part.

So your numbers are incorrect, you would need to find out the numerous situations of QMV where not all members would be taking part (I assume the Eurozone would be a good example?) work out the population percentage of the member states in those cases and work out our own percentage worth of the overall.

But the reality is in every case our percentage is going to be higher then 0.8%

That's a complexity I hadn't thought of! But it wouldn't really affect my argument that much. The 55% and 65% would apply to just the states that are eligible to take part in that vote, whether Euro participating countries or perhaps those in some kind of enhanced cooperation grouping. I will concede that in a smaller subgrouping of states the 4 country minimum does become of greater significance. There are an enormous number of permutations of possible country subgroupings. Removing less populous countries would make Ireland's relative weighting even worse. Removing more populous countries would improve Ireland's relative weighting. But if averaged over all possible combinations my argument would be unaltered (with the exception of the four country rule possibly becoming more significant). On average it wouldn't meaningfully change Ireland's blocking weight. There are cases where Ireland would be better off and cases where it would be worse off, but on average my argument I believe is still valid.

P.S. of course all of these arguments ignore the transitional arrangements in place until 2014.

marco_polo

Anyone have a link to the results of the computer simulation that ConorIrl ran last year comparing all possible permutations of both QMV systems?

PopeBuckfastXVI

marco_polo wrote: »

Anyone have a link to the results of the computer simulation that ConorIrl ran last year comparing all possible permutations of both QMV systems?

I'm working on one at the moment, in case his doesn't show up...

BlitzKrieg

marco_polo wrote: »

Anyone have a link to the results of the computer simulation that ConorIrl ran last year comparing all possible permutations of both QMV systems?

i provided the link earlier

but you can have it again since you asked so nicely

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055311438&highlight=IRLConor

greeno

The title of this thread is referring to Lisbon and sovereignty and that being the main reason I'm voting no. I just want to ask you yes campaigners do you honestly think that this treaty doesn't effect our sovereignty and if your answer is yes are you happy to be European over being Irish.

In 1987 the Supreme Court laid down in the Crotty case that sovereignty in this State rests with the Irish people and that only they can surrender sovereignty to the EU by referendum, or refuse to surrender it, as the case might be. The purpose of this referendum would be to change the Irish Constitution so as to make the EU Constitution and laws superior to the Irish Constitution and laws in all areas covered by the Lisbon Treaty. (I know this was the supposed case before but it was never before legally binding on us by treaty)

There is no question that yes our constitution does remain but declaration 17 on primacy lays out that EU law will be superior to Irish Constitution and laws in any case of conflict between the two.

The above combined with the nature of QMV and Article 48 makes for too much concessions in my opinion. There is only one thing certain about Lisbon and that is not jobs, improved economy or even indeed as the no voters claim 1.84 wages.

What is CERTAIN is that our Irish identity is been taken from us whether people care to realise it or not! Our power to influence decisions is diminsihed and I for one would rather not vote yes we have conceeded enough to the EU

turgon

greeno wrote: »

The title of this thread is referring to Lisbon and sovereignty and that being the main reason I'm voting no. I just want to ask you yes campaigners do you honestly think that this treaty doesn't effect our sovereignty and if your answer is yes are you happy to be European over being Irish.

Why is sovereignty so precious?

finbar10

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I'm working on one at the moment, in case his doesn't show up...

Lads, I'm actually laughing here! Not at you guys mind. But this is a totally novel experience. Having a political query answered by computer simulation!

PopeBuckfastXVI

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

i provided the link earlier

but you can have it again since you asked so nicely

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055311438&highlight=IRLConor

Thanks for that, I can bin my project now, in it's infancy.

Oh my goodness, QMV just made me have an abortion!

turgon

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

QMV just made me have an abortion!

BREAKING NEWS: Boards.ie YES Campaigner admits QMV brings in abortion!!
VOTE NO!!!

BlitzKrieg

There is no question that yes our constitution does remain but declaration 17 on primacy lays out that EU law will be superior to Irish Constitution and laws in any case of conflict between the two.

EU law has had primacy to Irish laws in case of conflict for years, since we joined in fact. This is not something new.

The above combined with the nature of QMV

You mean the one you were wrong on?

and Article 48 makes for too much concessions in my opinion.

You were wrong here aswell.

the only part that you were somewhere near being right was with section 7 of article 48, but according to the office of De Rossa (and I am still chasing up these provisions if someone can help me) this section became active anyway as part of amsterdam in 2004 and Lisbon makes no change to it aside from tidying it up into the same section as the other revision process.

Sam Vimes

greeno wrote: »

The purpose of this referendum would be to change the Irish Constitution so as to make the EU Constitution and laws superior to the Irish Constitution and laws in all areas covered by the Lisbon Treaty. (I know this was the supposed case before but it was never before legally binding on us by treaty)

Since that is the case for every EU treaty because EU law has superceded Irish law since 1973, can I assume that you will never vote yes to an EU treaty regardless of its contents?

greeno

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

EU law has had primacy to Irish laws in case of conflict for years, since we joined in fact. This is not something new.



You mean the one you were wrong on?




You were wrong here aswell.

the only part that you were somewhere near being right was with section 7 of article 48, but according to the office of De Rossa (and I am still chasing up these provisions if someone can help me) this section became active anyway as part of amsterdam in 2004 and Lisbon makes no change to it aside from tidying it up into the same section as the other revision process.

I don't see how I wae wrong on Article 48(7) read the thing and tell me where it says national parliaments are consulted if you can you are a better man than me because it isn't there!

As for QMV I was not wrong as Finbar pointed out not having all states can make our population weighting weaker or stronger depending on the situation so the argument still stands! In to the bargain we need 3 other states to agree with us in all sutuations in order to form a blocking majority. Does this not effect our sovereignty? NO? that we can't veto decisions unless we get 3 other entities along with us?!

In relation to the primacy issue, you are indeed correct in theory that theory being laid down in case law. This document for the first time amends our constitution to accept that EU takes precedence.

And to Turgon's question on sovereignty. To me sovereignty is precious this country fought hard for its constitution and to be able to govern itself, that is important to me as an Irish citizen and I am proud of it. If it doesn't really matter to you then obviously you should have no reason not to vote yes

marco_polo

finbar10 wrote: »

Lads, I'm actually laughing here! Not at you guys mind. But this is a totally novel experience. Having a political query answered by computer simulation!

The nerd inside me is disappointed that he didn't get to do it

greeno

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Since that is the case for every EU treaty because EU law has superceded Irish law since 1973, can I assume that you will never vote yes to an EU treaty regardless of its contents?

In theory yes but looking at it in terms of Britain and Ireland for example this supremacy is conditional for the first time we will be making it a legal binding supremacy by means of our constitution

BlitzKrieg

I don't see how I wae wrong on Article 48(7) read the thing and tell me where it says national parliaments are consulted if you can you are a better man than me because it isn't there!

7. Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or Title V of this Treaty provides
for the Council to act by unanimity in a given area or case, the European Council may adopt a decision
authorising the Council to act by a qualified majority in that area or in that case. This subparagraph
shall not apply to decisions with military implications or those in the area of defence.
Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides for legislative acts to be adopted
by the Council in accordance with a special legislative procedure, the European Council may adopt a
decision allowing for the adoption of such acts in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure.
Any initiative taken by the European Council on the basis of the first or the second subparagraph shall
be notified to the national Parliaments. If a national Parliament makes known its opposition within six
months of the date of such notification, the decision referred to in the first or the
second subparagraph shall not be adopted. In the absence of opposition, the European Council may
adopt the decision.
For the adoption of the decisions referred to in the first and second subparagraphs, the European
Council shall act by unanimity after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, which shall be
given by a majority of its component members.

guess i'm the better man

greeno

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

guess i'm the better man

You would be if that big bit in bold didnt refer to the
the first or the second subparagraph

Sam Vimes

greeno wrote: »

In relation to the primacy issue, you are indeed correct in theory that theory being laid down in case law. This document for the first time amends our constitution to accept that EU takes precedence.

No it doesn't! Where did you get this idea?

greeno

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No it doesn't! Where did you get this idea?

Declaration 17. Its the first time that primacy has been mentioned in a binding treaty. Thereby giving the new European Union its own legal personality and independent corporate existence for the first time, essentially making it separate from and superior to its Member States

greeno

greeno wrote: »

You would be if that big bit in bold didnt refer to the
the first or the second subparagraph

Which of course refer to the ordinary revision process not the simplified one which I have the problem with. It is a grey area giving the EU too much power.