QMV, DOUBLE VOTING: explaination needed

finbar10 · 26-09-2009 7:23pm

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

No that only applies if not all member states are involved in the vote. Mostly because depeneding on the number of members taking part 4 might be extremely difficult to achieve (say 5 states are voting on something) So instead its 35% of the population of the member states taking part.

and my misunderstanding of the blocking minority was not that it was a system only applying to 3 states, but that the 3 biggest states of the EU alone have the voting weight to block any legaslative in the EU. Lisbon raises it to 4 as a requirement regardless of population.

Perhaps my understanding is incorrect.
But 90 is the blocking quota needed under Nice?
The four largest countries have 29 votes.
The sum of the three largest is 29+29+29 = 87
which is still not enough. So even the three
largest countries under Nice don't have enough votes
to block.

finbar10 · 26-09-2009 7:31pm

IRLConor wrote: »

But it could be a 5 country, 6 country, etc "rule" depending on the particular countries involved.

With Lisbon any four countries will do.

The wikipedia article which I think was referenced earlier is
actually incorrect.

Provisions from consolidated Lisbon treaty (from TEU article 16)

A blocking minority must include at least four Council members, failing which the qualified majority shall be deemed attained.

and from article 238(3) TFEU:

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;

Four blocking countries by itself is not enough.

finbar10 · 26-09-2009 7:48pm

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

No that only applies if not all member states are involved in the vote. Mostly because depeneding on the number of members taking part 4 might be extremely difficult to achieve (say 5 states are voting on something) So instead its 35% of the population of the member states taking part.

I didn't realize there would be a derogation on the four country minimum. I guess it certainly makes sense for voting amongst a small group with less than 8. But doesn't enhanced cooperation require at least nine. Any treaty articles on this exception?

BlitzKrieg · 26-09-2009 10:22pm

its the article you quoted, 238, even in the segment you have quoted there it is the first sentence.

the 35% rule only applies when not all members are voting on an issue and there is no 4 country minimum rule there.

Personnally I cannot give an example of such situations where it can be used. The best I can think of maybe is with the eurozone. But I dont know how much QMV would be used in the eurozone I'd have to give a quick look over the QMV list and see which ones would apply.

On the voting weights that was my mistake, I had the wrong document open alongside the others (I have about 6 pdfs all open at the same time with different versions of the treaties) I quoted an earlier voting weight by mistake.

Sorry about that.

finbar10 · 27-09-2009 8:49am

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

its the article you quoted, 238, even in the segment you have quoted there it is the first sentence.

the 35% rule only applies when not all members are voting on an issue and there is no 4 country minimum rule there.

Personnally I cannot give an example of such situations where it can be used. The best I can think of maybe is with the eurozone. But I dont know how much QMV would be used in the eurozone I'd have to give a quick look over the QMV list and see which ones would apply.

That 238 quote does specifically apply to case with less than full complement of countries. It still mentions a minimum blocking complement of countries. I guess it doesn't actually give there what that number is there. So perhaps it varies.

On the voting weights that was my mistake, I had the wrong document open alongside the others (I have about 6 pdfs all open at the same time with different versions of the treaties) I quoted an earlier voting weight by mistake.

Sorry about that.

No worries. Easy to trip over oneself with all the various voting rules and exceptions.

Stabshauptmann · 01-10-2009 1:48pm

IRLConor wrote: »

For the 6 voting methods above:
Appears to replace a voting method I'll call "Nice 50%".

Is new.

Appears to replace a voting method I'll call "Nice 67%".

Is the same as 1 except is used in the case of "enhanced cooperation" votes.

Is the same as 3 except is used in the case of "enhanced cooperation" votes.

Is a transitional method and is the same as the Nice methods except that the percentage of countries requirement is gone.

"Nice 50%" requires 50% of countries, 74% of the weighted votes and 62% of the population.
"Nice 67%" requires 2/3s of countries, 74% of the weighted votes and 62% of the population.

So, to compare old with new (and, where possible like with like) I have compared some of the voting methods by writing a program to brute force all 134.2 million potential voting scenarios. I have not done the enhanced cooperation ones, since the number of permutations is higher and I hadn't taken that into account when first writing the program. If people want, I can do those as well, but it may not get done before the vote happens.

The method I have used is to define a notion of a "win". A country "wins" if their vote is the same as the final outcome. If they vote yes, they only win if the proposal passes; if they vote no, they only win if the proposal fails.

Here are 1 vs "Nice 50%" and 3 vs "Nice 67%" (the two most likely voting scenarios as I see them):

Country|Wins with Nice 50%|Wins with TEU 16(4)|% Change
Austria|67935350|67111454|-1.21
Belgium|68091934|67111454|-1.44
Bulgaria|67935350|67111454|-1.21
Cyprus|67444384|67111454|-0.49
Czech Republic|68091934|67111454|-1.44
Denmark|67692480|67111454|-0.86
Estonia|67444384|67111454|-0.49
Finland|67692480|67111454|-0.86
France|69177624|67111464|-2.99
Germany|69177624|67111472|-2.99
Greece|68091934|67111454|-1.44
Hungary|68091934|67111454|-1.44
Ireland|67692480|67111454|-0.86
Italy|69177624|67111464|-2.99
Latvia|67444384|67111454|-0.49
Lithuania|67692480|67111454|-0.86
Luxembourg|67444384|67111454|-0.49
Malta |67360308|67111454|-0.37
Netherlands|68170648|67111454|-1.55
Poland|69083206|67111460|-2.85
Portugal|68091934|67111454|-1.44
Romania|68247372|67111454|-1.66
Slovakia|67692480|67111454|-0.86
Slovenia|67444384|67111454|-0.49
Spain|69083206|67111460 |-2.85
Sweden|67935350|67111454|-1.21
UK|69177624|67111464|-2.99

Country|Wins with Nice 67%|Wins with TFEU 238 (2)|% Change
Austria|67867657|67634816|-0.34
Belgium|67965305|67640436|-0.48
Bulgaria|67867657|67633544|-0.34
Cyprus|67565761|67620020|0.08
Czech Republic|67965305|67638332|-0.48
Denmark|67719853|67628780|-0.13
Estonia|67565761|67620976|0.08
Finland|67719853|67628658|-0.13
France|68669973|67768654|-1.31
Germany|68669973|67839364|-1.21
Greece|67965305|67640436|-0.48
Hungary|67965305|67638332|-0.48
Ireland|67719853|67626524|-0.14
Italy|68669973|67755348|-1.33
Latvia|67565761|67622890|0.08
Lithuania|67719853|67624900|-0.14
Luxembourg|67565761|67619358|0.08
Malta |67509981|67619216|0.16
Netherlands|68013311|67656000|-0.53
Poland|68592905|67703908|-1.3
Portugal|67965305|67640436|-0.48
Romania|68065305|67664486|-0.59
Slovakia|67719853|67628780|-0.13
Slovenia|67565761|67622350|0.08
Spain|68592905|67712100 |-1.28
Sweden|67867657|67636194|-0.34
UK|68669973|67758640|-1.33

I welcome comments on the method of assessing the voting methods. I know it's not a particularly sophisticated analysis, but I think it's a fair way of measuring the old vs new voting results.

Your math seems to be being called into doubt by yes campaigners!

From the following source: http://www.irisheconomy.ie/Humphreys.pdf

Does Ireland’s voting weight fall under Lisbon? The example above is quite easy to work through because there are very few countries involved. Voting weights become more difficult to calculate however as the number of countries rises. With 27 countries there are 227, or 134,217,728, coalitions to examine. Even in this case, however, the logic is just the same and it’s an easy matter to ask a computer to run the numbers and report which
coalitions are winning and in how many each country is pivotal.

When one does this one finds that, under Lisbon, Ireland would be pivotal in over two million possible winning coalitions; Germany meanwhile would be pivotal in over thirteen million. The corresponding Banzhaf power weights are just over 2% for Ireland and just under 12% for Germany.

Does this represent a halving of Ireland’s weight and a doubling of Germany’s? To answer the question, we need to do the same calculation for the Nice treaty rules. Doing this we find that under Nice Ireland is pivotal in over half a million coalitions while Germany is pivotal in just under four million. Ireland’s voting weight is just below 2.2% while Germany’s is just below 7.8%. The effect of the treaty in terms of relative power is not nearly as strong
as Libertas and others suggest. Germany’s rises, but by 50%, not 100%. Ireland’s declines, but by less than 7% not 50%. Countries smaller than Ireland actually gain, with the biggest gain of all made by the smallest country in the EU, Malta. So it is true that Germany gains, but not at the expense of Ireland or of the small countries. In fact, the biggest losers are the
medium sized countries, with Hungary and the Czech Republic hardest hit, although even these only lose 25%; Poland is also a big loser; but no country comes close to having its weight halved.

IRLConor · 02-10-2009 3:22pm

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

Your math seems to be being called into doubt by yes campaigners!

I've only skimmed the article, but I can't see where their analysis differs from mine. They say we're pivotal in ~2 million vote combinations under the Lisbon rules, but I'm pretty sure that we're not. If we are, then there's a bug in my code somewhere. I'm more than happy for people to look at it and point out flaws.

BTW, the figures I quote in post #22 are closer to theirs in terms of the analysis done rather than the ones you quoted.

QMV, DOUBLE VOTING: explaination needed

Comments