On 04/06/16 12:09, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Jeff Layman wrote:

If you looked up the article by the Commissioner for Food Safety
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-16-2011_en.htm
you will see that the measure requires _qualified majority_ support.
If you look up "qualified majority"
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/glossary/qualified_majority.html
you will see that this means that 16 out of the 28 states in the EU
must support the measure, and that they must represent
at least 65% of the EU population.

That seems to me a perfectly rational and democratic way of deciding
on an issue like this.

I am afraid we disagree on what is rational and democratic. Why not 50%,
or 50% plus 1 vote? I don't see where the 55% comes from. and "the
proposal is supported by countries representing at least 65 % of the
total EU population" seems a typical EU fudge of trying to satisfy the
main countries which pay for it. It reminds me of "the meek will inherit
the earth if that's all right with the rest of you".

Your argument seems illogical to me.
If in fact the arrangement you favour of 50% + 1 vote were in operation
it would give the larger countries even more influence,
which you seem to think would be a bad thing.

I didn't say I was in favour or not - I simply said it seemed the EU was
trying to find a way to satisfy the main countries which pay for it. I
favour a simple majority (of those voting) as it is the most transparent
system.

I don't think qualified majority is an EU invention.
Many democratic countries that are divided into regions or sub-states
(eg Germany) have similar rules.

I searched on "qualified majority", but although there are many
explanations of how it works, and why it came about, I couldn't find a
succinct explanation of how the % figures were selected.

One webpage I found I thought was quite interesting:
http://www.michaelmunevar.com/website/How%20EU%20Qualified%20Majority%20Voting%20Works%2 0with%20examples

The examples provided, even those referring to a "blocking majority"
(does this still exist? The examples are from 2009) just appear to
emphasise the nonsense of the artificial systems proposed in trying to
come to a method of voting which tries to satisfy everyone and succeeds
in satisfying no one. A simple majority gives a clear result; it may not
satisfy everyone, but that is democracy.

--

Jeff