By Bruno Waterfield, updated 13.00 - 18th June 2004
New European constitution texts have failed to make EU decision-making more clear or effective, says a senior MEP.
Socialist spokesman for constitutional affairs Richard Corbett argues that a compromise proposal setting out two diffrent EU voting systems is a failure.
"One of the aims of the constitution was to have a simple, clear and effective system," he told EUpolitix.
"So having two different formulae each with a different percentage and with higher thresholds achieves none of the above objectives."
European Commission officials have welcomed the compromise bid. "It all looks very reasonable. We just hope everyone can agree," said a source.
Ireland has tabled a compromise deal on EU voting rights as Europe's constitution talks go into the final lap.
The compromise focuses on an increased population threshold of 65 per cent and builds in a safeguard against a 'big three' blocking minority.
"A qualified majority shall be defined as 55 per cent of the members of the Council, representing Member States comprising at least 65 per cent of the population of the [EU]," states the new paper.
Under the new balance a majority can alos be formed by 21 members states.
But in the areas of justice, foreign policy, economic governance and EU membership a higher ministerial threshold is set when proposals come from member states or ministers.
This is a move that may dismay some capitals keen to move towards more EU decision-making - rendering a majority at Europe's council of ministers difficult.
"When the council is not acting on a proposal from the commission or from the [EU] minister for foreign affairs, the qualified majority shall be defined as 72 per cent of the members of the council, representing member states comprising at least 65 per cent of the population of the EU," the new draft says.
The development is not entirely new - the original text set a similar mechanism but with a ratio of 66 per cent of ministers and 60 per cent of the population.
Irish foreign minister Brian Cowen denied that rounds of number crunching and horse trading has generated an overly complex voting system.
"I think there is a simplification in all of this, everyone agrees that the 'double majority' system is the system we should move to. It is certainly a less complicated system than the Nice system," he told journalists.
"I think the bottom line is that we are trying to achieve an outcome which will be transparent, which will make it easier for the EU to make decisions in the future in its enlarged format going forward."
Ahern is sticking to the principle of ‘double majority’ – a majority of ministers and a majority of the EU’s population.
An original draft proposal ‘double majority’ set at 50 per cent of ministers who also represent 60 per cent of the population has been dropped.
Countries such as France, Germany, the UK and Italy backed this balance as a move toward a simplified and transparent decision-making process.
Dublin’s latest plan is less complex that existing voting rights based on political horse trading but still sacrifices simplicity to expediency.
Ahern is suggesting a balance of 55/65 “as part of an overall balanced outcome”, a move that brings in a third element.
Smaller countries are concerned at higher population thresholds of over 60 per cent, because it is harder for them to push through proposals.
Germany, France, and Britain have over 42 per cent of EU’s population, raising the spectre of built in blocks benefiting Europe’s heaviest hitters.
To counter a structural imbalance in favour of Europe’s ‘big three’ Ahern is pushing for a “compensating mechanism” setting a minimum blocking minority.
"However, the qualified majority shall also be attained if the negative votes are cast by fewer than four members of the council," states the new draft.
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.