QMV changes in Lisbon

marco_polo

I was having a closer look at some of the areas moving to QMV and how they affect Ireland.

I have been working using the Official EU List for this.


After seven years negotiations the total of QMV changes are 50 in number.

As a result the total number of articles that have an element of QMV increases from 63 to 96 under Lisbon.
(Some of these alter just sub sections of articles).

Taking out the current opt out status on Freedom and Security or Defence, any of which the governement may opt in to on a case by case basis in the future leaves us with about 35 directly applicable to Ireland immediately by my reckoning.

11 - Opt outs Freedom and Justice
(4),(5),(6),(7),(8),(9),(10),(11),(22), (23), (34)

4- Opt outs Structured Co operation / EDA (4)
(2),(27),(28),(29)

Of the remainder
Four relate to appointments to EU positions on EU bodies (19), (24), (25), (47)
Two relate to deciding the rules for fund administration / operation (15), (26)
Nine relate in some way to ways to makings changes to the rules, workings of EU institutions and other bodies (2), (13), (16), (17),(18), (20),(30) ,(33),(46)
Five relate to the functioning of the internal market (Freedoms etc ) (3), (12) , (21) ,(31), (35)
Four are very limited supporting competencies with mostly co-ordination responsibilities (14), (40), (41), (42)
Three deal with aid / disaster relief (43), (44),(45)
Two are where QMV applies only after unaminity (1), (50)
Miscellaneous others are new shared competance of (39) Energy, also the adoption of (36) Common eurozone international postions and (32) Measures to secure diplomatic and consular protection


(Let me know if I have made any obvious misinterpretations or left broken links etc)

marco_polo

List of Existing Legal Bases moving to QMV

EU Treaty:

(1) Initiatives of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy relating to the CFSP at the request of the European Council (Article 15b EU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 31 EU]

Description: The foreign policy request put forward by the European Council still requires unanimity, however the subsequent vote on the action or position presented by the High Representative as a result of that request is then subject to a vote by qualified majority.

Irish Note: Any member state may abstain from a decision, however for any decision where we do not chose to abstain this will apply. Also if more than one third of nations abstain the decision will not be taken.


(2) Common Security and Defence Policy: statute, seat and operational rules of the Armaments Agency (article 28D§2 EU treaty)[Consolidated Article Number 45 EU]

Description: This applies to the the European Defence Agency which has existed since 2004 but is coming under the the umbrella of the EU. Membership of this is entirely optional . The agency primarily will deals with joint research, better effectiveness of military expenditure etc. The decisions relating to the statute, seat and operational rules of the agency will be subject to voting by qualified majority.

Irish Note: Currently not a member. However we may be joining this as the purpose of the EDA is the modernisation of military equipment and more effective expenditure of equiptment/research, which would be of use in our peacekeeping duties. Any such move would be without prejudice to our neutrality.


TFEU Treaty

(3) Freedom of establishment, access to activities as self-employed persons,involving amendment of the principles laid down by law in at least one Member State (article 47§2 FEU treaty) ) [Consolidated Article Number 51 TFEU]

Description: This article aims to improve the ability of self employed qualified professionals to move between member states with ease. It deals with issues with mutual recognitions between states of diplomas, training, certifications and regulations. Decisions in this area will be subject to qualified majority voting.


The following areas (Numbered 4-11) will not apply to Ireland as it stands. We have currently opted-out of Title IV of Part Three of TFEU (Area of freedom, security and justice). This is specified in a protocol annexed to the treaty. In this protocol we have reserved the right to opt in to any area of this title on a case by case basis. The constitutional amendment does give the Government the discretion to exercise any of these opt ins in the future. In the case of most of the opt-outs, to partake in these in the future would require the dissolution of the Common Travel Area between the UK and Ireland, so many are unlikely to happen in the near future.

(4) Administrative cooperation in the area of freedom, security and justice (article 61G FEU treaty)[Consolidated Article Number 74 TFEU]

(5) Border checks (article 62 FEU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 77 TFEU]

(6) Asylum (article 63 FEU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 78 TFEU]

(7) Immigration (article 69a FEU treaty)[Consolidated Article Number 82 TFEU]

(8) Incentive measures in the field of crime prevention (article 69C traité FUE) [Consolidated Article Number 84 TFEU]

(9) Eurojust – structure, operation, field of action and tasks (article 69D FEU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 85 TFEU]

(10) Non-operational police cooperation (article 69F FEU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 87 TFEU]

(11) Europol – structure, operation, field of action and tasks (article 69G FEU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 88 TFEU]


(12) "Derogations" in the field of transport (now absorbed by the common transport policy) (article 71§2 FEU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 91 TFEU]

Description: The common transport framework deals mainly with rules governing inter state transport services, regulations concerning the operation of carriers from one member states in another and safety issues. The unanimity clause in relation to granting certain derogations (essentially exceptions from the policy on the grounds of very specific economic effects to a region) is being removed in relation to paragraph 2 in favour of QMV.


(13) Amendment to certain provisions in the Statute of the European System of Central Banks (article 107§3 FEU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 129 TFEU]

Description: The specified articles of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank (which is laid down in a protocol attached to the treaty), can now be altered by QMV procedure.


(14) Measures in the field of culture (article151 FEU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 167]

Description: This article defines a supporting role in a limited number of cultural policy areas such as cultural conservation, artistic and literary creation, non commercial cultural exchange etc. Decisions made here are are moving to QMV.


(15) Definition of the tasks and objectives of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund (article 161 FEU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 177]

Description: This article specifies the machanism by which changes to the Structural funds and Cohesion Fund may be made. Decisions relating to the tasks, priority, objectives and the organisation of the Structural Funds are moving to QMV.


(16) Council Presidencies – decision of the European Council (article 201b FEU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 236]

Description: Changes to the Presidency arrangements of the different Council of Ministers meetings (currently an equal 6 month rotation for most configurations) moves to QMV (With the Exception of Foreign Affairs presidency configuration) .

(17) Court of Justice – establishment of specialised courts (article 225a FEU treaty) )[Consolidated Article Number 257]

Description: In certain circumstances specialised courts attached to General court may be established in specific areas. The decision to establish such a court moves from unanimity to QMV in the council.

(18 Court of Justice – amendment to the provisions of the Statute, with the exception of the statute of judges and advocates general and the language regime (article 245 FEU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 281]

Description: The articles of the Statute of the Court of Justice , with the exceptions of Title I and Article 64, (as laid down by protocol attached to the treaty), may be amended by QMV.


(19) Appointment of the members of the Executive Board of the ECB – decision of the European Council (article 245b FEU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 283]

Description: Decisions on the appointment of people to the Executive Board of the ECB moves from unaminity to QMV.


(20) Mechanisms for control of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers (article 249C FEU treaty)[Consolidated Article Number 291]

Description: This article deals with the the rules for defining the mechanisms for control in advance, by the Member States, of the implementing powers conferred upon the Commission. Decision on such matters moves to QMV.


The following three measures are subject to Qualified majority voting but are accompanied by supplementary mechanisms (Emergency brake)
The Emergency brake procedure is a means by which an out voted member state may refer a draft back to the European Council. Thereby suspending the legislative proceedure.

(21) Freedom of movement for workers, social security benefits (article 42 FEU treaty) )[Consolidated Article Number 48]

Description: This article deals mainly with rules relating to the accumulation and entitlement to benifits earned by workers while working in other member states. Decisions in this area move to QMV.

Emergency Brake: Proceedure may be applied where a member state feels that it may affect aspects of its social security system, including its scope, cost or financial structure, or would affect the financial balance of that system.



Again Ireland has opted out of Title IV of Part Three of TFEU (Area of freedom, security and justice), so the following two changes with the Emergency brake do not currently apply.

(22) Judicial cooperation in criminal matters (article 69A FEU treaty))[Consolidated Article Number 82]
(23) Approximation of criminal legislation, offences and sanctions, possibly enhanced cooperation (article 69B FEU treaty)) [Consolidated Article Number 83]



List of the new legal bases requiring qualified majority voting

EU Treaty

(24) Election, by the European Council, of the President of the European Council (article 9B§5 EU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 14]

Description: President of European Council is no longer the Prime Minister of the country holding EU Presidency on a 6 monthly term. It is now a full time position for an initial 2 ½ year term, renewable once. Appointment is made by QMV in the European Council.


(25) Appointment by the European Council of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy ([URL="Article 9E http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-3-provisions-on-the-institutions/85-article-9e.html"]article 9E§1[/URL] EU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 17]

Description: High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy is being merged with that of the European Commissioner for External Relations under a new title of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The appointment will be made by QMV.


(26) Financial provisions in CSDP - procedures for setting up and financing the startup fund (article 28 EU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 41]

Description: For the CSDP the rules for the establishment, funding and administration of the startup fund, shall be decided by QMV


We are not be participating in permanent structured co-operation which is also completely voluntary so the following three areas will not apply to Ireland

(27) Establishment of permanent structured cooperation in the area of defence (article 28E EU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 46]

(28 Admission of a Member State to the permanent structured cooperation arrangement in the area of defence (article 28E EU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 46]

(29) Suspension of a Member State from the permanent structured cooperation arrangement in the area of defence (article 28E EU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 46]


(30) Agreement for the withdrawal of a Member State (article 49A EU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 50]

Description: A member state may withdraw from the Union and negotiate terms including its future relationship with the EU. Acceptance of the withdrawal agreement by the remaining member states will be subject to QMV.


TFUE Treaty

(31) Principles and conditions for the functioning of services of general economic
interest (article 16 FEU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 14]

Description: Decisions affecting the conditions and rules under which certain services of general economic interest (Excluding those of special interest to member states as specified elsewhere such as health, educations etc) moving to QMV.


(32) Measures to secure diplomatic and consular protection (article 20 FEU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 23]

Description: Every citizen is now entitled to the consular protection of embassies from any other member state, where their own country is not represented. The actions required to enable this are subject to QMV.


(33) Citizens’ initiative for the tabling of a European law (article 21 FEU treaty FUE) [Consolidated Article Number 24]

Description: The citizen initative allows for a petition for a change to legislation by citizens after gathering 1 million signatures. Currently how this will operate has not been defined. Post ratification of Lisbon the rules and conditions for this will be established by QMV.


Freedom and Justice area which does not apply to us currently

(34) Arrangements for a mutual evaluation mechanism of the implementation of the Union policies in the area of freedom, security and justice (article 61C FEU
treaty)


(35) Intellectual property rights and centralised schemes (article 97a FEU treaty ) [Consolidated Article Number 118]

Description: Measures to provide uniform protection of intellectual property rights throughout the Union shall be decided via QMV.


(36) Member States whose currency is the euro, common position and unified
representation on the international scene (article 115C FEU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 138]

Description: When acting in an international context member states whose currency is the euro shall adopt positions on international matters of common interest vias QMV.


(37) Sport (article 149 FEU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 165]

Description: This new supporting competency competency relates to limited matters such as promoting fairness and openness in sporting competitions and cooperation between bodies, and by protecting sportsmen and sportswomen. Decisions will be taken by QMV


(38) Space policy (article 172a FEU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 189]

Description: New European space policy to be initiated dealing with support research, technological development and coordination between member states. Measures will be implemented by QMV


(39) Energy (article 176A FEU treaty)2 [Consolidated Article Number 194]

Description: The new shared compatency deals with aspects of energy policy relating to energy security, inter state connectors, function of energy market and promotion of renewalables sources. Decisions will be by QMV.


(40) Tourism (article 176B FEU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 195]

Description: New supporting compatency mainly limited to promotion, cooperation and exchange of best practice between member states. Decision taken via QMV.


(41) Civil protection (article 176C FEU treaty)3 [Consolidated Article Number 196]

Description: This deals mainly with supporting member states in relation to preparing and responding to natural disasters , inter state co-operation etc. Decisions taken by QMV.


(42) Administrative cooperation (article 176D FEU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 197]

Description: Promotion of Administrative cooperation, information exchange training etc.


(43) Urgent financial assistance to third countries (article 188I FEU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 213]

Description: Where third party countries require urgent finiancial assistance the council shall make a decision via QMV on foot of a proposal put forward by the commission.


(44) Humanitarian aid (article 188J FEU treaty)4 [Consolidated Article Number 214]

Description: Defines a new supporting competency of Humanitarian aid which outlines a framework between member states for co-operation in ad hoc assistance, relief and protection for people in third countries. Decisions will be taken via QMV


(45) Arrangements for the implementation by the Union of the solidarity clause in case of terrorist attack or natural disaster, where this decision has no defence implications (article 188R§3 FEU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 222]

Description: Upon invokation of the solidarity clause operations elements in cases where no military element is involved (Disaster relief etc) shall decided via QMV. In military cases, states may opt not to participate, and the remaining states shall act unamiously.


(46) List of Council configurations (article 201b FEU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 236]

Description: Decisions relating to the List of configurations of Council of Ministers (changes to the types of ministerial meetings that are held), taken by QMV. With the exception of the General Affairs and Foreign Affairs councils.


(47) Operating rules and appointment of the members of the panel set up in order to give an opinion on candidates' suitability to perform the duties of Judge and Advocate-General of the Court of Justice before their appointment (article 224a FEU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 254]

Description: Operating rules of a panel created for evaluation of potential ECJ judges, and the appointment of panel members appointed to be decided upon by QMV.


(48 Administration of the European Union (article 254a FEU treaty)5
[Consolidated Article Number 298]

Description: Decisions relating to the establishment of an open, efficient and independent European administration, in support of all of the the current Institutions, shall be made via QMV


(49) Revision of the rules governing the nature and composition of the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee (article 256a FEU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 300]

Description: Decisions on the Rules of operation of the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee shall be taken via QMV.


(50) Implementing measures for the system of own resources (article 269 FEU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 311]

Description: Introduction of such a system of own resources still requires unaminity, decision taken on the subsequent implementation requires QMV.



In the three cases mentioned below, the current treaties provide for a super qualified majority. The Treaty of Lisbon provides for the “ordinary” qualified majority

(1) Infringement of the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines (BEPGs) or jeopardising of the functioning of economic and monetary union (EMU) (article 99 FEU treaty)

(2) Establishment of the existence of an economic deficit (article 104§6 FEU treaty)

(3) Measures to tackle an excessive deficit (article 104§13 FEU treaty)

Stabshauptmann

What about the changes to voting weights at QMV decisions.

At present to pass a Qualified Majority Vote one needs to meet three criteria:
Majority of countries (50% or 67%) and votes (74%) and population (62%)

Under this system we have 3.7%, 2% and 0.9% of the votes respectively.

Under the new system one needs
Majority of countries (55% or 72%) representing 65% of the population or condition to block not met.
So we will have 3.7% and 0.9%. The removal of the "votes" criteria benefits large countries as these were weighted in favour of small countries.

The condition to block is also bogus; it allows 4 countries with 35% of population to block votes. ie it allows 4 big countries to band together and control QMV decisions.

This is very worrying, is it not? There are a number of combinations of the big 6 countries that can effectivly exercise all controll in the EU!

Sam Vimes

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

What about the changes to voting weights at QMV decisions.

At present to pass a Qualified Majority Vote one needs to meet three criteria:
Majority of countries (50% or 67%) and votes (74%) and population (62%)

Under this system we have 3.7%, 2% and 0.9% of the votes respectively.

Under the new system one needs
Majority of countries (55% or 72%) representing 65% of the population or condition to block not met.
So we will have 3.7% and 0.9%. The removal of the "votes" criteria benefits large countries as these were weighted in favour of small countries.

Scofflaw wrote: »

We have two voting weights under Lisbon - population (0.8%) and 1 state vote (3.7%). Under Nice, we have three voting weights - population (0.8%), 1 state vote (3.7%), and negotiated votes (7/349 = 2%). The comparison being made by the No campaigns is of the negotiated vote to the population vote - but one is not being replaced by the other. Our composite voting weight under Nice is 2.167% (0.8+2+3.7/3), our composite voting weight under Lisbon is 2.25% (0.8+3.7/2).

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

The condition to block is also bogus; it allows 4 countries with 35% of population to block votes. ie it allows 4 big countries to band together and control QMV decisions.

This is very worrying, is it not? There are a number of combinations of the big 6 countries that can effectivly exercise all controll in the EU!

They can't "control" decisions, they can only block decisions, ie keep the status quo. The blocking clause is specifically designed to prevent a few big countries blocking decisions but you have to put the limit somewhere. 4 seems reasonable to me

MarkK

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

This is very worrying, is it not? There are a number of combinations of the big 6 countries that can effectivly exercise all controll in the EU!

They can only block decisions, not force them through.

ixtlan

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

There are a number of combinations of the big 6 countries that can effectivly exercise all controll in the EU!

As you yourself have pointed out you must have at least 15 countries in agreement to have a chance of making a change (and then hope that there are not 4 states with 35% against). How can you equate that to 6 countries exercising all control in the EU?!

Ix.

marco_polo

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

What about the changes to voting weights at QMV decisions.

At present to pass a Qualified Majority Vote one needs to meet three criteria:
Majority of countries (50% or 67%) and votes (74%) and population (62%)

Under this system we have 3.7%, 2% and 0.9% of the votes respectively.

Under the new system one needs
Majority of countries (55% or 72%) representing 65% of the population or condition to block not met.
So we will have 3.7% and 0.9%. The removal of the "votes" criteria benefits large countries as these were weighted in favour of small countries.

The condition to block is also bogus; it allows 4 countries with 35% of population to block votes. ie it allows 4 big countries to band together and control QMV decisions.

This is very worrying, is it not? There are a number of combinations of the big 6 countries that can effectivly exercise all controll in the EU!

Under Nice it only requires three of the largest countries to block legislation so the addition of the fourth country is a positive step. Also the number of the smallest countries combined that can block a vote reduces from 14 to 12.

There is a good thread on the weighting issue here

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

8-10

This is a very informative discussion on the voting changes: http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1056438

The SF guy is clueless (I know his name, not being ignorant, just can't spell it!)

Stabshauptmann

Really?

And I thought I understood the EU as it is

Where does it say that 3 countries could block a vote, I didnt think there was a blocking mechanism other than criteria to pass not met

marco_polo

Also I have found one or two papers on the matter as well

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.

Also this paper has a full table of the relative weights of each countries under Nice and Lisbon (p12). Which agrees with the above.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0812/0812.4114v3.pdf

Stabshauptmann

marco_polo wrote: »

Also I have found one or two papers on the matter as well

Well now isnt that in stark contrast to the info other yes campaigners have given on this thread, and the QMV thread linked to that claimed to do the same math?

So Ireland is loosing voting weight at QMV decisions, not gaining weight as scofflaw's quote suggests!

marco_polo

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

Really?

And I thought I understood the EU as it is

Where does it say that 3 countries could block a vote, I didnt think there was a blocking mechanism other than criteria to pass not met

Germany, and 2 out of 3 from Italy and France and the UK (40%+ of population) can prevent the 62% Population criteria from being reached.

marco_polo

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

Well now isnt that in stark contrast to the info other yes campaigners have given on this thread, and the QMV thread linked to that claimed to do the same math?

So Ireland is loosing voting weight at QMV decisions, not gaining weight as scofflaw's quote suggests!

It depends on the formula you use I suppose, that particular method used in both papers is the banzaff index. Both show minimum alterations to our strength though.

The composite weighting that Scofflaw did is valid as well for it measures from a different perspective. It is certainly much more valid than the voting weight is halved argument.

The banzhaff index is a measurement of the number of times a countries vote is critical in a decision (ie the deciding vote).

I guess if the 0.14% loss in our voting weight under this is a deal breaker for you then then you should vote no.

Stabshauptmann

marco_polo wrote: »

I guess if the 0.1% loss in our voting weight under this is a deal breaker for you then then you should vote no.

A minute ago you said it was 7%

marco_polo

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

A minute ago you said it was 7%

Apologies, I was stating the index drop percentage, a .14 drop in the index rating is indeed 7%

2.04 / 2.18 * 100 = 93%

marco_polo

As a final point on the matter what this all means is the following.

Under QMV a formal vote is not even taken something in the region of 75%-80% of the time.

Of the 20%-25% of the times when there is some opposition, only a small fraction of all of these possible voting configurations will be balanced in such a way as a single country will be in a position to be the difference between blocking a proposal or not.

The percentage of times this country will be Ireland drops from 2.18% to 2.04%.

K-9

The 35% block only occurs in cases that not all 27 vote. In those cases, 4 can block, regrdless of size.

Blitzkrieg covers it well on the EU debate.

Stabshauptmann

That doesnt make any sense, how can you require 55% of countries to support a decision, or 4 to oppose it. That makes no sense.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

That doesnt make any sense, how can you require 55% of countries to support a decision, or 4 to oppose it. That makes no sense.

It's that a minimum of 4 are required to block something.

Imagine Germany, Italy and France oppose something.

They have 17% + 12% + 12% between them which is 41% of the population, so theoretically the 3 of them could shoot down any vote based on stopping the rest from getting to 65%. However the 4 country requirement means they need to find someone else to help them do it.

Where not all countries are participating in a vote then the blocking requirement becomes the (minimum number of countries to form at least 35%) + 1.

It's there to protect smaller states.
http://www.bloggersforeurope.ie/?p=109

Sam Vimes

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

It's that a minimum of 4 are required to block something.

Imagine Germany, Italy and France oppose something.

They have 17% + 12% + 12% between them which is 41% of the population, so theoretically the 3 of them could shoot down any vote based on stopping the rest from getting to 65%. However the 4 country requirement means they need to find someone else to help them do it.

Where not all countries are participating in a vote then the blocking requirement becomes the (minimum number of countries to form at least 35%) + 1.

It's there to protect smaller states.
http://www.bloggersforeurope.ie/?p=109

Why would not all countries be participating? In an area where they have an opt out?

And this sentence doesn't really make sense to me:

"The 35% block only occurs in cases that not all 27 vote. In those cases, 4 can block, regrdless of size."

how can the 4 be "regardless of size"? Can the four smallest countries with only, say, 8% block something but only if not all countries are voting?

K-9

In article 238(3) of the treaty of the functioning of the european union, the figure 35% is stated but it is stated for QMV when not all member states are present and it is instead of the 4 country minimum.

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;

As Pope says even if the 3 biggest opposed it wouldn't reach the 4 state rule. Though it is kind of redundant as the 65% part wouldn't be reached to be passed. How often you would have 3 big states together opposing something is another matter. Is it that realistic?

There is nothing stopping 7/8 countries covering 35% blocking something, but again how realistic is something 7/8 countries oppose getting voted on?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Why would not all countries be participating? In an area where they have an opt out?

And this sentence doesn't really make sense to me:

"The 35% block only occurs in cases that not all 27 vote. In those cases, 4 can block, regrdless of size."

how can the 4 be "regardless of size"? Can the four smallest countries with only, say, 8% block something but only if not all countries are voting?

Yes exactly, if they have an opt-out, or decide to abstain.

No, the quoted sentence is incorrect. In fact that was my initial reading, ages ago, which you kindly corrected for me.

PopeBuckfastXVI

K-9 wrote: »

As Pope says even if the 3 biggest opposed it wouldn't reach the 4 state rule. Though it is kind of redundant as the 65% part wouldn't be reached to be passed. How often you would have 3 big states together opposing something is another matter. Is it that realistic?

No that's the point.

It would be passed if only 3 states objected, even if their population combined was greater than 35%.

PopeBuckfastXVI

K-9 wrote: »

In article 238(3) of the treaty of the functioning of the european union, the figure 35% is stated but it is stated for QMV when not all member states are present and it is instead of the 4 country minimum.

35% is implicit in the rule when all members vote, being the other side of the 65% population requirement mentioned.

K-9

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Why would not all countries be participating? In an area where they have an opt out?

And this sentence doesn't really make sense to me:

"The 35% block only occurs in cases that not all 27 vote. In those cases, 4 can block, regrdless of size."

how can the 4 be "regardless of size"? Can the four smallest countries with only, say, 8% block something but only if not all countries are voting?

Sorry, badly worded there. 4 states can block when all 27 vote, regardless of size.

K-9

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

No that's the point.

It would be passed if only 3 states objected, even if their population combined was greater than 35%.

Yes.

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

35% is implicit in the rule when all members vote, being the other side of the 65% population requirement mentioned.

Indeed. I'm not wording this correctly!

marco_polo

Article 16 TEU has the 35% and 4 country blocking rule for all countries and is the main QMV article.

Article 16 Lisbon TEU

1. The Council shall, jointly with the European Parliament, exercise legislative and budgetary functions. It shall carry out policy-making and coordinating functions as laid down in the Treaties.

2. The Council shall consist of a representative of each Member State at ministerial level, who may commit the government of the Member State in question and cast its vote.

3. The Council shall act by a qualified majority except where the Treaties provide otherwise.

4. 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. The other arrangements governing the qualified majority are laid down in Article 238(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. The transitional provisions relating to the definition of the qualified majority which shall be applicable until 31 October 2014 and those which shall be applicable from 1 November 2014 to 31 March 2017 are laid down in the Protocol on transitional provisions.

The four country minimum is designed to stop the following scenarios of three countries.

Quick calculatiuon tells me.

Italy, France, UK together
or
Germany + One from (Italy, France, UK) + One from (Italy, France, UK, Spain Poland)

If any four countries could block then under Lisbon QMV would be far more restrictive and subject to deadlock than the current Nice arrangements.

Sam Vimes

K-9 wrote: »

Sorry, badly worded there. 4 states can block when all 27 vote, regardless of size.

No I think you've got the wrong idea there. It's what I thought originally and PopeBuckfastXVI but that's not how it works. The purpose of the 4 country blocking rule is to prevent 3 large countries from blocking changes, it's not specifically meant for smaller countries.

If 15 countries are for something and they have 65% of the population it goes through. In that case 12 countries would be against it but they still wouldn't block it.

This rule is for the case where 24 smaller countries are for something and only 3 large countries are against. In that case the 65% population requirement doesn't have to be met so even if the 24 countries only have say 40% of the population it goes through.

In short the rule is in order to pass a vote must satisfy two conditions:

• It must have at least 15 countries supporting it
• Those countries must represent 65% of the population unless there are only three countries against, in which case this rule does not apply

finbar10

K-9 wrote: »

Sorry, badly worded there. 4 states can block when all 27 vote, regardless of size.

No. Four states won't be enough if their population doesn't exceed 35%.
See TEU article 16(4)

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.

Otherwise there would be a huge increase in blocking power. If any set of four countries could block you'd have a situation not much different from unanimity.

PopeBuckfastXVI

finbar10 wrote: »

No. Four states won't be enough if their population doesn't exceed 35%.
See TEU article 16(4)

Otherwise there would be a huge increase in blocking power. If any set of four countries could block you'd have a situation not much different from unanimity.

Correct. It would effectively make the number of states requirement be 89%.