Take a stroll down the Wikipedia article on the Treaty of Lisbon until you reach the updated table of ratifications. (Yes, formal German ratification is has been noted.)
By now, the national parliaments in 26 member states have approved the Lisbon Treaty, and they are all hoping for Ireland to join them after Friday’s referendum.
Given the varying domestic political scenes, it is almost a miracle that any new treaty can reach this far, but one striking feature is how large the majorities have been in most national parliaments.
Would they vote for the amending treaty without good reason?
Ralf Grahn
Showing posts with label majority. Show all posts
Showing posts with label majority. Show all posts
Thursday, 1 October 2009
Thursday, 11 June 2009
European Parliament: Two mainstream majorities
The overall results of the European Parliament election results shifted only marginally yesterday, with the recount awarding one MEP to the Greens at the expense of the PES (provisional results 10 June 2009 12:20 CEST).
The European Citizen has written a thoughtful post on the power balance and prospects in: The Battle for the Commission Presidency (10 June 2009).
The results of the vote counting are probably almost final, so the potential changes will have to do more with how the political groups are formed.
Beyond the question of the vote for the Commission President and the various internal EP posts, the European Parliament needs a majority of its constituent members to amend legislative proposals: 369 out of 736 MEPs.
Let us assume that the mainstream groups prefer to work with each other, instead of courting the fringe groups (which have yet to materialise). In that case there would be one constant and two possible variations (with the numbers we have today).
Indispensable EPP
In each case, there is no going around the Group of the European People’s Party (EPP), the largest political group with 264 representatives.
Grand coalition
The traditional “grand alliance” would add the Socialist Group in the European Parliament (PES), which is second largest with 161 members of the EP.
This alternative reflects the current coalition government in Germany, but there it seems to be in its dying days. It is also possible that the socialists, social democrats and Labour movements at European level feel the need to rebuild their political message, without being tainted by daily compromises.
Non-socialist coalition
It looks probable that the German voters will offer the Christian Democrats and the Liberals a mandate at the next election. In German terms this would be a black-yellow coalition, but in the EP blue-yellow (incidentally like the Swedish Council Presidency).
The problem is that in the European Parliament a coalition of the EPP and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) would fall short of the needed majority (by 25 votes at the present time; as it happens, the exact number of the emigrating UK Conservatives).
The Greens made a strong showing in the European elections, so it would be an acknowledgement of the vote to include them in a coalition. With the Greens on board, an EPP-ALDE-Green coalition would represent 397 votes, which attains the needed majority.
But the Greens have campaigned with a view to build a coalition with the PES. They have resisted the appointment of Barroso. A shift in alliances might not go down well with their MEPs or voters, despite the obvious advantages.
Jokers in the pack?
The decisive issue will be, where the EPP finds its future partners. For them the ideal would be to entice into their group a sufficient number from the ranks of nationalists and others, MEPs who at the present time are labelled as Others, UEN or IND/DEM. The second option might be a permanent understanding without group membership.
Here the EPP competes with the nationalist ‘European Conservatives’, who have already bagged 49 MEPs and are looking for representatives from at least four additional member states to be able to form a group.
Neither the EPP nor the ‘European Conservatives’ can contemplate recruiting the most xenophobic and fascistoid elements among the remaining 97 MEPs, so the remaining options are fairly slim for both of them.
We are still waiting for the fat lady to sing.
Ralf Grahn
The European Citizen has written a thoughtful post on the power balance and prospects in: The Battle for the Commission Presidency (10 June 2009).
The results of the vote counting are probably almost final, so the potential changes will have to do more with how the political groups are formed.
Beyond the question of the vote for the Commission President and the various internal EP posts, the European Parliament needs a majority of its constituent members to amend legislative proposals: 369 out of 736 MEPs.
Let us assume that the mainstream groups prefer to work with each other, instead of courting the fringe groups (which have yet to materialise). In that case there would be one constant and two possible variations (with the numbers we have today).
Indispensable EPP
In each case, there is no going around the Group of the European People’s Party (EPP), the largest political group with 264 representatives.
Grand coalition
The traditional “grand alliance” would add the Socialist Group in the European Parliament (PES), which is second largest with 161 members of the EP.
This alternative reflects the current coalition government in Germany, but there it seems to be in its dying days. It is also possible that the socialists, social democrats and Labour movements at European level feel the need to rebuild their political message, without being tainted by daily compromises.
Non-socialist coalition
It looks probable that the German voters will offer the Christian Democrats and the Liberals a mandate at the next election. In German terms this would be a black-yellow coalition, but in the EP blue-yellow (incidentally like the Swedish Council Presidency).
The problem is that in the European Parliament a coalition of the EPP and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) would fall short of the needed majority (by 25 votes at the present time; as it happens, the exact number of the emigrating UK Conservatives).
The Greens made a strong showing in the European elections, so it would be an acknowledgement of the vote to include them in a coalition. With the Greens on board, an EPP-ALDE-Green coalition would represent 397 votes, which attains the needed majority.
But the Greens have campaigned with a view to build a coalition with the PES. They have resisted the appointment of Barroso. A shift in alliances might not go down well with their MEPs or voters, despite the obvious advantages.
Jokers in the pack?
The decisive issue will be, where the EPP finds its future partners. For them the ideal would be to entice into their group a sufficient number from the ranks of nationalists and others, MEPs who at the present time are labelled as Others, UEN or IND/DEM. The second option might be a permanent understanding without group membership.
Here the EPP competes with the nationalist ‘European Conservatives’, who have already bagged 49 MEPs and are looking for representatives from at least four additional member states to be able to form a group.
Neither the EPP nor the ‘European Conservatives’ can contemplate recruiting the most xenophobic and fascistoid elements among the remaining 97 MEPs, so the remaining options are fairly slim for both of them.
We are still waiting for the fat lady to sing.
Ralf Grahn
Sunday, 22 March 2009
Lisbon Treaty & European Council: Simple majority decisions
After looking at qualified majority voting (QMV) in the European Council, we turn to the instances when it takes its decisions by simple majority.
***
SIMPLE MAJORITY
Treaty amendment ─ With or without IGC?
When a member state, the European Parliament or the Commission has submitted to the Council a proposal for the amendment of the treaties, Article 48 TEU under the ordinary revision procedure, sees the European Council deciding by a simple majority to examine the proposed amendments. Normally, this leads to a Convention, but the European Council can decide by a simple majority to refer “small change” directly to an intergovernmental conference (IGC):
Article 48(3) TEU
3. If the European Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, adopts by a simple majority a decision in favour of examining the proposed amendments, the President of the European Council shall convene a Convention composed of representatives of the national Parliaments, of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, of the European Parliament and of the Commission. The European Central Bank shall also be consulted in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. The Convention shall examine the proposals for amendments and shall adopt by consensus a recommendation to a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States as provided for in paragraph 4.
The European Council may decide by a simple majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, not to convene a Convention should this not be justified by the extent of the proposed amendments. In the latter case, the European Council shall define the terms of reference for a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States.
***
Procedural questions & Rules of Procedure
According to Article 235(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the European Council decides by simple majority on procedural questions and the adoption of its Rules of Procedure:
Article 235(3) TFEU
3. The European Council shall act by a simple majority for procedural questions and for the adoption of its Rules of Procedure.
(We are still waiting for progress reports on the preparatory work and concrete proposals concerning the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon. Among the awaited proposals is the one with the European Council’s Rules of Procedure.)
***
The next post is going to indicate the voting rules (a tribute payment to the constraints of unanimous treaty amendment).
Ralf Grahn
***
SIMPLE MAJORITY
Treaty amendment ─ With or without IGC?
When a member state, the European Parliament or the Commission has submitted to the Council a proposal for the amendment of the treaties, Article 48 TEU under the ordinary revision procedure, sees the European Council deciding by a simple majority to examine the proposed amendments. Normally, this leads to a Convention, but the European Council can decide by a simple majority to refer “small change” directly to an intergovernmental conference (IGC):
Article 48(3) TEU
3. If the European Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, adopts by a simple majority a decision in favour of examining the proposed amendments, the President of the European Council shall convene a Convention composed of representatives of the national Parliaments, of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, of the European Parliament and of the Commission. The European Central Bank shall also be consulted in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. The Convention shall examine the proposals for amendments and shall adopt by consensus a recommendation to a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States as provided for in paragraph 4.
The European Council may decide by a simple majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, not to convene a Convention should this not be justified by the extent of the proposed amendments. In the latter case, the European Council shall define the terms of reference for a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States.
***
Procedural questions & Rules of Procedure
According to Article 235(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the European Council decides by simple majority on procedural questions and the adoption of its Rules of Procedure:
Article 235(3) TFEU
3. The European Council shall act by a simple majority for procedural questions and for the adoption of its Rules of Procedure.
(We are still waiting for progress reports on the preparatory work and concrete proposals concerning the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon. Among the awaited proposals is the one with the European Council’s Rules of Procedure.)
***
The next post is going to indicate the voting rules (a tribute payment to the constraints of unanimous treaty amendment).
Ralf Grahn
Thursday, 12 March 2009
European Parliament: Majority and quorum
The antechamber of European level democracy, the directly elected European Parliament, needs rules on majority and quorum.
***
Current treaty
Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) lays down the basic rules on two different questions for the European Parliament:
1) the main rule on majority, and
2) quorum.
Article 198 TEC
Save as otherwise provided in this Treaty, the European Parliament shall act by an absolute majority of the votes cast.
The Rules of Procedure shall determine the quorum.
Source: the consolidated version of the treaties, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 29.12.2006 C 321 E/134.
***
Original Lisbon Treaty
Article 2, point 186 of the original Treaty of Lisbon (ToL) modified Article 197 TEC (OJEU 17.12.2007 C 306/102):
186) In the first paragraph of Article 198, the word ‘absolute’ shall be deleted.
***
Consolidated Lisbon Treaty
After renumbering the slightly amended provision appears in the consolidated Lisbon Treaty as Article 231 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), published OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/152:
Article 231TFEU
(ex Article 198 TEC)
Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, the European Parliament shall act by a majority of the votes cast.
The Rules of Procedure shall determine the quorum.
***
Majority
Treaty provisions
As far as I know, the terms have the following meaning:
Majority and absolute majority should mean the same, so the Lisbon Treaty makes no substantial amendment.
The votes cast include the ‘yes’ votes and ‘no’ votes, but not the abstentions.
***
For each act where the European Parliament participates, you have to look at the relevant legal base to find out if there is a special requirement regarding the majority.
If high (qualified) majorities are required, it means that at least the largest political groups have to agree, which is a factor in preventing parliamentary ‘government’ and ‘opposition’ roles from developing, although the main reason for that is that the members and the policies of Commission are not based on the results of the European elections.
***
EP Rules of Procedure
The main provisions are found in Chapter 5 Quorum and voting of the Rules of Procedure (16th edition, October 2008), but for more detailed studies cf. Index, page 217 to 218, on Majorities (qualified) and minimum numbers of Members required.
***
Quorum
Rule 149 is the provision on quorum (the varying necessary numbers of MEPs to be present, but primarily for votes on substance):
Rule 149 Quorum
1. Parliament may deliberate, settle its agenda and approve the minutes, whatever the number of Members present.
2. A quorum shall exist when one third of the component Members of Parliament are present in the Chamber.
3. All votes shall be valid whatever the number of voters unless the President, on a request made before voting has begun by at least forty Members, establishes at the moment of voting that the quorum is not present. If the vote shows that the quorum is not present, the vote shall be placed on the agenda of the next sitting.
[Official explanation: A request for the quorum to be established must be made by at least forty Members. A request on behalf of a political group is not admissible.
When establishing the result of the vote, account must be taken, pursuant to paragraph 2, of all the Members present in the Chamber and, pursuant to paragraph 4, of all the Members who asked for the quorum to be established. The electronic voting system cannot be used for this purpose. The doors of the Chamber may not be closed.
If the number of Members required to make up the quorum is not present, the President shall not announce the result of the vote but shall declare that the quorum is not present.
Paragraph 3 last sentence shall not apply to votes on procedural motions but only to votes on the subject matter itself.]
4. Members who have asked for the quorum to be established shall be counted as being present within the meaning of paragraph 2, even if they are no longer in the Chamber.
5. If fewer than forty Members are present, the President may rule that there is no quorum.
***
Why did I call the European Parliament the antechamber of European level democracy?
Ralf Grahn
***
Current treaty
Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) lays down the basic rules on two different questions for the European Parliament:
1) the main rule on majority, and
2) quorum.
Article 198 TEC
Save as otherwise provided in this Treaty, the European Parliament shall act by an absolute majority of the votes cast.
The Rules of Procedure shall determine the quorum.
Source: the consolidated version of the treaties, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 29.12.2006 C 321 E/134.
***
Original Lisbon Treaty
Article 2, point 186 of the original Treaty of Lisbon (ToL) modified Article 197 TEC (OJEU 17.12.2007 C 306/102):
186) In the first paragraph of Article 198, the word ‘absolute’ shall be deleted.
***
Consolidated Lisbon Treaty
After renumbering the slightly amended provision appears in the consolidated Lisbon Treaty as Article 231 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), published OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/152:
Article 231TFEU
(ex Article 198 TEC)
Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, the European Parliament shall act by a majority of the votes cast.
The Rules of Procedure shall determine the quorum.
***
Majority
Treaty provisions
As far as I know, the terms have the following meaning:
Majority and absolute majority should mean the same, so the Lisbon Treaty makes no substantial amendment.
The votes cast include the ‘yes’ votes and ‘no’ votes, but not the abstentions.
***
For each act where the European Parliament participates, you have to look at the relevant legal base to find out if there is a special requirement regarding the majority.
If high (qualified) majorities are required, it means that at least the largest political groups have to agree, which is a factor in preventing parliamentary ‘government’ and ‘opposition’ roles from developing, although the main reason for that is that the members and the policies of Commission are not based on the results of the European elections.
***
EP Rules of Procedure
The main provisions are found in Chapter 5 Quorum and voting of the Rules of Procedure (16th edition, October 2008), but for more detailed studies cf. Index, page 217 to 218, on Majorities (qualified) and minimum numbers of Members required.
***
Quorum
Rule 149 is the provision on quorum (the varying necessary numbers of MEPs to be present, but primarily for votes on substance):
Rule 149 Quorum
1. Parliament may deliberate, settle its agenda and approve the minutes, whatever the number of Members present.
2. A quorum shall exist when one third of the component Members of Parliament are present in the Chamber.
3. All votes shall be valid whatever the number of voters unless the President, on a request made before voting has begun by at least forty Members, establishes at the moment of voting that the quorum is not present. If the vote shows that the quorum is not present, the vote shall be placed on the agenda of the next sitting.
[Official explanation: A request for the quorum to be established must be made by at least forty Members. A request on behalf of a political group is not admissible.
When establishing the result of the vote, account must be taken, pursuant to paragraph 2, of all the Members present in the Chamber and, pursuant to paragraph 4, of all the Members who asked for the quorum to be established. The electronic voting system cannot be used for this purpose. The doors of the Chamber may not be closed.
If the number of Members required to make up the quorum is not present, the President shall not announce the result of the vote but shall declare that the quorum is not present.
Paragraph 3 last sentence shall not apply to votes on procedural motions but only to votes on the subject matter itself.]
4. Members who have asked for the quorum to be established shall be counted as being present within the meaning of paragraph 2, even if they are no longer in the Chamber.
5. If fewer than forty Members are present, the President may rule that there is no quorum.
***
Why did I call the European Parliament the antechamber of European level democracy?
Ralf Grahn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
