Question on Qualified Majority Voting

Amhran Nua

This has been presented to me as a representation of the results of the Lisbon Treaty:

Under the system of Qualified Majority Voting, which comes into effect in 2014, a qualified majority, will require that decisions must meet only two conditions:

1.) Just 55% of the members of European Parliament must agree:
(432 out of 785 members.)

2.) Those member states supporting the decision must represent 65% of the EU population.
(This means that any four of the largest member states can carry a decision for all of Europe.)

However
If there are fewer than four member states opposed to a decision then the qualified majority will be deemed to have been reached, even if the population criterion is not met.

# And remember, Ireland gave up its right of Veto.

The source of this information is the Referendum Commissions extended Guide to the Lisbon Treaty.

I'm guessing this isn't the full picture, but I'd like to get a bit of feedback on it.

Coyler

A fair few factual errors there. The wrong number of parliamentarians and QMV only applies to the council. The 55% is the number of member states, not members of the parliament. On top of that it missing the "blocking minority" that also exists to give a bit more weight to the smaller countries. This is an overview of the changes to the institution from the Europa site;

European Parliament

This body represents voters in the EU’s member countries. The treaty has boosted its powers as regards lawmaking, the EU budget and approval of international agreements. The composition of the parliament has also been changed - the number of MEPs is capped at 751 (750 plus the president of the parliament). Seats are distributed among countries according to “degressive proportionality”, i.e. MEPs from more populous countries will each represent more people than those from smaller countries. No country may now have less than 6 or more than 96 MEPs.

European Council

The European Council, which has the role of driving EU policy-making, now becomes a full EU institution. Although it does not gain any new powers, it is headed by a newly created position of president. Elected by the European Council for 2½ years, the main job of the president is to prepare the Council’s work, ensure its continuity and work to secure consensus among member countries. The president cannot simultaneously hold any elected position or office nationally.

The Council of the European Union

The Council represents the EU’s member governments. Its role is largely unchanged. It continues to share lawmaking and budget power with the European Parliament and maintain its central role in common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and coordinating economic policies.

The main change brought by the Treaty of Lisbon concerns the decision making process. Firstly, the default voting method for the Council is now qualified majority voting, except where the treaties require a different procedure (e.g. a unanimous vote). In practice, this means that qualified majority voting has been extended to many new policy areas (e.g. immigration and culture).

In 2014, a new voting method will be introduced - double majority voting. To be passed by the Council, proposed EU laws will then require a majority not only of the EU’s member countries (55 %) but also of the EU population (65 %). This will reflect the legitimacy of the EU as a union of both peoples and nations. It will make EU lawmaking both more transparent and more effective. And it will be accompanied by a new mechanism (similar to the “Ioannina compromise”) enabling a small number of member governments (close to a blocking minority) to demonstrate their opposition to a decision. Where this mechanism is used, the Council will be required to do everything in its power to reach a satisfactory solution between the two parties, within a reasonable time period.

If you want you can read it in the full consolidated treaty here which the QMV section in article 238 and here in article 14.

Article 14
1. The European Parliament shall, jointly with the Council, exercise legislative and budgetary functions. It shall exercise functions of political control and consultation as laid down in the Treaties. It shall elect the President of the Commission.

2. The European Parliament shall be composed of representatives of the Union’s citizens. They shall not exceed seven hundred and fifty in number, plus the President. Representation of citizens shall be degressively proportional, with a minimum threshold of six members per Member State. No Member State shall be allocated more than ninety-six seats.

The European Council shall adopt by unanimity, on the initiative of the European Parliament and with its consent, a decision establishing the composition of the European Parliament, respecting the principles referred to in the first subparagraph.

3. The members of the European Parliament shall be elected for a term of five years by direct universal suffrage in a free and secret ballot.

4. The European Parliament shall elect its President and its officers from among its members.

Article 238
(ex Article 205(1) and (2), TEC)

1. Where it is required to act by a simple majority, the Council shall act by a majority of its component members.

2. By way of derogation from Article 16(4) of the Treaty on European Union, as from 1 November 2014 and subject to the provisions laid down in the Protocol on transitional provisions, where the Council does not act on a proposal from the Commission or from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the qualified majority shall be defined as at least 72 % of the members of the Council, representing Member States comprising at least 65 % of the population of the Union.

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;

(b) By way of derogation from point (a), where the Council does not act on a proposal from the Commission or from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the qualified majority shall be defined as at least 72 % of the members of the Council representing the participating Member States, comprising at least 65 % of the population of these States.

4. Abstentions by Members present in person or represented shall not prevent the adoption by the Council of acts which require unanimity.

Hope that is fills in the holes.

It might also interest you to know that vote are very rarely called (I think its in single digits) at the Council as member prefer to arrive at a consensus.

Scofflaw

I think the figure is slightly higher than single digits - there was an academic analysis that came out with a figure of about a quarter of occasions when it could be used, but that even on those occasions it was only being used for show:

In the EU Council of Ministers, decisions can be made either by unanimity or by qualified majority voting (QMV). Yet, QMV is not used very often, and most of the time, ministers decide by consensus.

The descriptions of the practice of consensus show that it is not similar to unanimity strictly speaking. Indeed, when a decision is made by consensus, the President makes a proposal and asks only if anybody has objections against it, without counting the votes. The absence of objections is sufficient in order to adopt a measure by consensus. It means that consensus can be only apparent, since member states which are opposed to the President's proposal might choose not to express their disagreement.

Besides, when QMV is used by the ministers – in about one quarter of eligible cases – participants are already aware of the distribution of preferences and know that the measure can be adopted; voting is used only for "public display", in order to show publicly that one or more member states are outvoted.

Source

cordially,
Scofflaw

Amhran Nua

So this could in no way be moved beyond a gentlemans agreement sort of thing and be used by larger states to ratify legislation or increase EU competencies against the wishes of smaller states?

Scofflaw

Amhran Nua wrote: »

So this could in no way be moved beyond a gentlemans agreement sort of thing and be used by larger states to ratify legislation or increase EU competencies against the wishes of smaller states?

It certainly can't be used to increase competences - or 'legal bases' as they now term them - because those derive from the Treaties. QMV can of course in theory be used to override the wishes of a smaller state - assuming enough of the other states agree - or indeed the wishes of any single state on any given occasion. It's not used that way for two reasons - first, because a big state will probably need the support of those same small states to bolster their own position on some future occasion, and second, because the EU is a club of independent sovereign nations, so there's no way to really enforce an EU decision against the determination of even the smallest of states, short of war. Sure, the state can be taken to the ECJ and have a judgement taken against it, and a fine levied, but the EU depends on cooperation, and the state in question can simply reject the judgement and not pay the fine. Alternatively, the state in question can seek a derogation, or just drag their feet - Ireland's record in implementing EU environmental legislation is a case in point - because at the end of the day, the EU has to rely on the government and civil service of the member state to carry out any EU decisions.

Once you go down the road of using QMV to override objections, the whole cooperative principle on which the EU depends starts to fall to pieces. Even empires are careful with respect to the wishes of their constituent states, and empires have the legal and military-economic power to enforce their decisions, something the EU noticeably lacks.

If you've ever been part of a voluntary group, you'll recognise the same situation - contentious issues are shelved and reworked until there are no real objections by anybody, and outright majority rule is very rare. Crises, of course, where contentious decisions have to be taken quickly, tend to exacerbate tensions and differences within the group, which is something we're seeing at the moment. Still, the culture and habit of consensus tends to hold sway even at such times, with members grumbling about the actions of other members, but unlikely to force a vote in order to prevent them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BetterLisbon

Scofflaw wrote: »

It certainly can't be used to increase competences - or 'legal bases' as they now term them - because those derive from the Treaties. QMV can of course in theory be used to override the wishes of a smaller state - assuming enough of the other states agree - or indeed the wishes of any single state on any given occasion. It's not used that way for two reasons - first, because a big state will probably need the support of those same small states to bolster their own position on some future occasion, and second, because the EU is a club of independent sovereign nations, so there's no way to really enforce an EU decision against the determination of even the smallest of states, short of war. Sure, the state can be taken to the ECJ and have a judgement taken against it, and a fine levied, but the EU depends on cooperation, and the state in question can simply reject the judgement and not pay the fine. Alternatively, the state in question can seek a derogation, or just drag their feet - Ireland's record in implementing EU environmental legislation is a case in point - because at the end of the day, the EU has to rely on the government and civil service of the member state to carry out any EU decisions.

Once you go down the road of using QMV to override objections, the whole cooperative principle on which the EU depends starts to fall to pieces. Even empires are careful with respect to the wishes of their constituent states, and empires have the legal and military-economic power to enforce their decisions, something the EU noticeably lacks.

If you've ever been part of a voluntary group, you'll recognise the same situation - contentious issues are shelved and reworked until there are no real objections by anybody, and outright majority rule is very rare. Crises, of course, where contentious decisions have to be taken quickly, tend to exacerbate tensions and differences within the group, which is something we're seeing at the moment. Still, the culture and habit of consensus tends to hold sway even at such times, with members grumbling about the actions of other members, but unlikely to force a vote in order to prevent them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I see why there may be a certain reluctance to force through a QMV decision but QMV is obviously there for a reason and that is to override a member state if "concensus" cannot be reached. QMV votes are rarely taken because they dont have to be as a member state that sees the writing on the wall doesnt bother kicking up a fuss voting against the proposal.
For what its worth QMV is an undemocratic means of decision making as a democratically elected government can be forced to implement directives that are contrary to its manifesto.

Scofflaw

...and sooner or later someone will be along to tell us how it's an instrument of oppression.

amused,
Scofflaw

BetterLisbon

Scofflaw wrote: »

...and sooner or later someone will be along to tell us how it's an instrument of oppression.

amused,
Scofflaw

Leaving aside your histrionics the "community method" does allow for directives to be agreed that would have very damaging consequences for one or more member states, furthermore it can be used overturn election manifesto promises and even national referenda.
Each successive treaty has allowed for QMV in more and more policy areas.

Scofflaw

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Leaving aside your histrionics the "community method" does allow for directives to be agreed that would have very damaging consequences for one or more member states, furthermore it can be used overturn election manifesto promises and even national referenda.
Each successive treaty has allowed for QMV in more and more policy areas.

You should read the section about the effects of using QMV to override the wishes of individual states. And you should also think through the implications of the fact that the Treaties require unanimous agreement, yet more QMV has been added to them.

Or you can stick with the conspiracy version you seem to prefer - I can neither stop you doing so, nor stop it looking silly when you do it. I presume your alternative explanation for more QMV being added is that...what? That "the EU" adds that to the Treaties? Or that big states say to the smaller ones "add more QMV to the Treaties so we can override your wishes in further areas, or else we'll override your wishes using QMV"?

Both of those are very silly ideas, but perhaps there's one I'm not seeing?

cordially,
Scofflaw

kaiser sauze

Bloody hell!

Did you not acquaint yourself with the treaty before you voted on it?

Were you a yay or nay?