Jeff Layman wrote:

"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".

To me, this implies that you think it would be wrong for the countries
which have large populations to determine policy.
Is that what you think, or am I misunderstanding your meaning?

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.

One webpage I found I thought was quite interesting:

http://www.michaelmunevar.com/website/How%20EU%20Qualified%20Majority%20Voting%20Works%2 0with%20examples

In fact, as this web-page points out, the aim of a qualified majority
is exactly the opposite of what you say - the aim is to prevent
a small number of large states combining to dominate the EU.

A simple majority gives a clear result; it may not
satisfy everyone, but that is democracy.

This may be simple, but the effect would be to bring about a situation
which is precisely what you imply you want to avoid.

Incidentally, the founding fathers of the US faced exactly the same problem.
They came up with a different solution, but the intention was the same -
a small number of states with large populations cannot dominate the rest.



--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin