Head over to our T
Ireland as a Minority of One
Read more about: Academia, Blogging, Government, Irish Politics, Lisbon Treaty, Parties, Podcasting 
Brigid Laffan gives her analysis of the Lisbon Referendum in today’s Irish Times suggesting that we are in a minority of one, with scepticism rising about our commitment to Europe and the EU. Vincent Browne is not in agreement – it will plod along as usual.
I am minded to agree with him, it will be months before this settles down and the mood music now is different to what we might end up with. Shapes are being thrown, debates being framed and kites being flown. Wait and see is order of the day.
Incidentally, the podcast is live now over at Inside Out and below – Jo Leinen was heavily pushing Ireland being asked “are you in or are you out?” next time around.
[display_podcast]
Brigid Laffan means the Irish State is in a minority amongst the Euroelites. True, but we are in a majority in terms of the European peoples, and that carries more moral authority with me than what Merkel and Sarkozy think.
Vincent Browne writes that the EU “needs to substitute the European Council with an accountable, elected body, rather like the US Senate, where each state is represented equally – no vetoes, no QMVs”.
Browne’s idea would mean electing officials who are not members of the Irish government to a new supranational body in the EU. That effectively eliminates the intergovernmental nature of the EU in favour of a federal type Union. That would hardly win support from many Yes voters, not to mention the more sceptical No voters. A Federal structure with one voice per nation would greatly undermine Ireland’s influence.
As it stands in Council most decisions are reached by consensus among member states, clearly a superior protection for small states. Furthermore, each member of Council is a representative of a national government and is therefore keenly tuned in to the day to day political concerns in his or her home nation. Permanent members of a European Senate, arguably like the EU parliament, would be remote from citizens or would be seen to be so.
There is another reason why Mr Browne’s proposal has no practical merit. It is completely oblivious to the political reality that some powerful member states, such as Britain, are utterly opposed to any weakening of the intergovernmental nature of the Union. So his idea could never fly. In fact, some members such as Germany would prefer a more supranational Union. Out of these clash of visions came the compromise that is Lisbon, a kind of hybrid Union that is not fully Federal, and not entirely intergovernmental.
A way of reconciling the need for equality with retention of the intergovernmental approach would be for each state to have 2 Senators who are chosen by the government from amongst its members, with equal votes for each state.
“From amongs its members”. That’s effectively what’s there already. The Council of minsters is where Eu agriculture ministers meet to decide on agricultural measures, Eu fisheries minsters the for issues on fishing etc. And under Lisbon 55% of states are required, that is, equal votes for each states, but not a simple 50% majority. True there is a population requirement too, but if you have 55% of the states you have 65% of the population. The advantage here as I pointed out is that each member is the home representative in the relevant area and is close to the issues at home. FT, How is your Senate better?
It’s better because there is strict equality of voting weights. The complicating factor of population size is not introduced into the equation.
Can we get a Muzzel for Avril please?…. God! how embarrassing!
FT, so essentially you are arguing for different voting weights at council? Not a new Senate. Fair enough. But do you accept that the vast bulk of decisions are reached by consensus? Even in areas currently under QMV the decisions are overwhelmingly taken by consensus – and if it is a crucial issue which one country vociferously opposes, they are not voted down but there is a sustained effort to compromise. Why? Because the EU is not the United States where each state was and is forced to stay in the Union. The EU is a voluntary union of nation states. To regularly overrule other nations if the issues are seen to be crucial for them, would see the Union collapse.
Tomaltach the fact that we have a veto remains a trump card even where it is not used, because the threat that it might be used forces other countries to moderate their demands. So the fact that it isn’t used that often can give a misleading impression that it is not needed. In reality, the consensus you talk about is largely due to the veto.
You proposed a Senate. (Leave aside the voting arrangements of the senate for the moment, ie. whether some areas have a veto or not). I am trying to argue that in fact the Council of Ministers is a better institution to protect our insterests. I would like to hear what is the key advantage of a separate Senate that outweighs the significant advantages of the Council that I outlined.
Moving on the the veto. True, in areas where the veto applies it is an incentive to reach consensus. But the fact remains that only a handful of decisions go to a vote – including in those areas where there is no veto. Take the working time directive. The UK has no veto, yet the talks on that issue continued for years until some (sadly terribly watered down) compromise was reached. The other members could have voted down the UK, but didn’t. Because this is the approach which rarely happens.