Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Iceland applies for EU membership

by Magnifico Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 04:45:42 AM EST

Wasting no time acting upon the Althingi's historic vote, Reuters reports Iceland delivers its application to join the EU.

"The (Icelandic) ambassador to Sweden has met with the secretary of state and has handed in to him the application of accession to the EU," said Urdur Gunnarsdottir.

Iceland's formal application letter (pdf) states, "The Government of Iceland has the honour to present hereby, in conformity with Article 49 of the Treaty of European Union, the application of the Republic of Iceland for membership of the European Union."

Yesterday, Iceland's parliament, the Althingi, voted to start membership talks with the European Union. The vote was 33-28 with two members abstaining. ForexTV reported the vote was seen as a victory for Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir, "who has been pushing for joining the EU and the adoption of the euro as the recession-hit country's currency."

promoted by whataboutbob


Reacting to the yesterday's vote, Alda Kalda of The Iceland Weather Report blog, wrote:

There is massive controversy over the issue, even within the individual parties, and a part of the problem has been that the two parties in the coalition government...

A number of amendments were put forth about the resolution, that were debated ad nauseum before the actual voting on the main issue began. One was an amendment proposal by the IP that there should be a double referendum - i.e. that there should be a national referendum about whether or not to enter into talks at all and, if that were passed, another on whether the EU agreement should be accepted. Personally I think this was the IP's attempt to bring down the government - had this proposal been accepted, it would have meant an effective collapse of the coalition, paving the way for the IP to return to power. [Which to many of us is an unthinkable nightmare.] So that was very tense - and the relief palpable [at least Chez YT] when the outcome was announced.

More on this later, perhaps - but the bottom line is that this is a historic day for Iceland and - we hope - an auspicious one.

The Telegraph, reporting on the EU application vote, quoted Bjarni Benediktsson, the leader of the now-minority Independence Party as saying, "There are no credible reasons for Icelanders to give away full control of their natural resources." (The IP facilitated and presided over Iceland's economic collapse. The IP-led government was forced to resign and was replaced after a national election.)

When I last wrote about Iceland in January, I concluded talk of EU membership for Iceland was "premature". No more. The question now becomes when, not if Iceland will join the EU. Icelanders will need to address several obstacles before it becomes EU's 28th member.

One such issue is the failed Icelandic banks and the country's economic collapse. The "unpopular Icesave agreement" according to Eirikur Bergmann, professor in political science and director of Centre for European Studies at the Bifrost University in Iceland. In a 'Comment is free' piece at The Guardian, he writes:

Most economists now agree that it's virtually impossible to stabilise Iceland's tiny currency: the euro is therefore luring Iceland in to the EU at this point. There is, however, a twist to the story: the recently signed agreement with the UK and Holland over the Icesave accounts could still halt Iceland's EU membership process and even kill off the newly established government if refused by the parliament.

Not since the old treaty of 1262, when Iceland came under Norwegian rule, has an agreement proved so unpopular. Many Icelanders feel that the Icesave agreement has been forced up on them by the powerful UK government, which has used its influences in international institutions such as the IMF to block Iceland from receiving foreign help in this ongoing crisis.

There will be other issues as well. Bloomberg News reports Iceland's EU Bid May Stumble Over Fish, Farming, Public Opinion.

he Icelandic government's bid for European Union membership may stumble over agriculture and fisheries and its ability to convince islanders to back entry, political scientist Einar Mar Thordarson said...

"The primary hurdle will be the EU's fisheries and agricultural policy, which might cause intense debate between Iceland and the bloc," said Thordarson of the University of Iceland by phone from Reykjavik. "We shouldn't forget that Icelanders are narrowly divided on membership. It's not a given that a membership deal will be approved in a referendum."

I think the EU should insist that Iceland end its whaling. In June, EUbusiness reported that Kristjan Loftsson, the 66-year-old CEO of Hvalur hf, the Icelandic whaling company, thought EU membership will kill whale hunting in Iceland. "Loftsson said Iceland should stay out of the EU, not in the interests of whale hunters but in the interest of the country's fishing industry as a whole." Loftsson thinks Icelanders should reject EU membership over whaling and fishing concerns. "I think the Icelandic people are sufficiently well-informed to say 'No' to Europe," Loftsson said.

Bloomberg News quotes a May 2009 poll that found only 39 percent of Icelanders wanted to join the EU while 38.6 were opposed. However, "When asked whether Iceland should begin accession talks, 60 percent said they were in favor while 27 percent were opposed."

"For the past 10 years, Icelanders have been divided into three groups, 40 percent favor membership, 40 percent oppose membership and 20 percent are undecided," said Thordarson.

Still despite the obstacles in Iceland's way there are those in the EU, as I noted in January, that desire a speedy entry to the EU for Iceland. AFP notes "Iceland is already a member of the European Economic Area and as such has applied many of the EU 'acquis' or legislation, which should guarantee speedy entry." The current Icelandic government "hopes to join within three years."

If Iceland does join the EU, it would leave Norway as the only Nordic member of the EEA outside of the EU. Iceland Review_Online quotes Ingrid Skjoetskift, a Norwegian journalist, who covers EU matters, as predicting that a possible Icelandic membership is unlikely to change Norwegian minds. But, how the EU reconciles Iceland's whaling and fishing issues with membership may ultimately persuade Norwegians.

"However, I think the discussion will start to evolve more around facts when it is clear what Iceland's membership agreement will look like. The fishing industry is key. It was the main reason for Norway rejecting membership in the 1972 referendum and had considerable weight in 1994 [when Norway rejected membership for the second time]," Skjoetskift said.

That change may be years away. Now, the Iceland is tasked with negotiating with the EU to find a way to reconcile the differences between them. Iceland is motivated and has to gain the euro and the stability that could come with EU membership. Iceland will need to show to the EU, I think, how it will strengthen and improve the EU. Enlargement, just for the sake of getting bigger, is not reason enough. More members may further handicap the EU politically, I think.

To conclude, I'll again quote Alda, my favorite Icelandic blogger on Iceland's EU membership appliation:

Anyway, personally I am very relieved that the EU matter is now out of the way and that we can now get on with membership negotiations. Then, when they're on the table, we can decide in a referendum whether or not we want to join. [They better not reneg on that promise!] And I must say I'm impressed by the new government for getting a move on and checking this matter off their agenda in such an efficient way.

In another six months time, I wonder how far (and fast) Iceland has progressed toward becoming the newest member of the EU.

Display:
Ok, so this is probably a stupid question, but it came to mind when reading this diary.

Why doesn't Iceland apply to be a state of Japan???

They're both oceanic states that like fishing, including whaling. Iceland has lots of national resources that Japan would like to get access to, and Japan has financial stability that Iceland could use.

Historically there's no specific reason why you can't have a far-flung "country" (e.g. France's outpost on that island in Canada, America's outpost in Hawaii), and with modern technology, communication would be possible. Everybody in both places speaks English. What's the problem?

Or, maybe this is not a particularly good example, but perhaps there are other examples that might not be quite so outlandish. Is there a possibility of such a trend in the future, or are we stuck in geographical relationships only?

by asdf on Fri Jul 17th, 2009 at 08:25:06 PM EST
Japan has financial stability that Iceland could use.

Didn't Japan's economy contract, like, 16% last quarter?

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Jul 17th, 2009 at 08:32:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Norway could join Japan too, and then Greenland. Then there will be only one country making trouble in the International Whaling Commission, and matters will be a lot easier for the rest of us.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Fri Jul 17th, 2009 at 09:24:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
OK, more seriously speaking, culture tends to follow geography and people (especially 300,000 compared to 127 million) will not tend to like being united with a completely foreign culture. Until more recently, control was dependent upon geography to a large degree. Living in different timezones can still be a PITA for coordination.

Iceland doesn't have that many natural resources. It planned to get cheap power by flooding its nature in order to smelt aluminium from imported bauxite, but it will be interesting to see what happens to that right now.

But there is the case of the Arctic. That will drive even Norway to full EU Membership, in due time, pace Chris Cook.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Fri Jul 17th, 2009 at 10:06:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It planned to get cheap power by flooding its nature in order to smelt aluminium from imported bauxite, but it will be interesting to see what happens to that right now.

Plan it does not anymore, unfortunately. The smelter is not yet ready, but the dam is; so what could be done to it now is only decommissioning.



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 03:32:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The smelter is not yet ready, but the dam is

Apparently, both are operational but incomplete.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 04:02:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
there are those in the EU, as I noted in January, that desire a speedy entry to the EU for Iceland.

The issue of the EU's supposed wish to fast-track Icelandic membership has been subject to some contentious debate in your previous diary; and I think the above interpretation has been conclusively disproven by the evidence brought forth. It was people from Iceland who pushed for membership, it can be fast due to already extensive conformity due to EFTA membership; what the EU wished was to have the accession coincide with Croatia's.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 04:10:43 AM EST
I think Croatia's accession will not happen. Diary forthcoming.

The "fast track" refers to the fact that, as a long-time member of the EFTA and EEA, Iceland is already applying the acquis. So the negotiations could be very quick without any need to force things to make it so.

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 09:56:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Let's gloat about the Eurosceptics a little... this is from after the elections this spring:

Icelanders have NOT voted for EU membership - Telegraph Blogs

Let's look at those results, shall we? It's true that the Euro-sceptic Independence Party lost ground - hardly surprising since it has held power since the early 1990s, and presided over the recent collapse. None the less, it won 24 per cent of the vote and 16 seats. The chief beneficiary was not the pro-Brussels Social Democratic Alliance: its result (30 per cent of the vote and 20 seats) is in line with previous elections: it got 31 per cent in 2003, 27 per cent in 2007. No, the big winner was the anti-EU Left/Green Movement, which won 21.5 per cent of the vote (up from 14 per cent in 2007) and 14 MPs.

The remaining seats were split between the Progressive Party, which traditionally represents farmers, and which tentatively favours exploratory talks with Brussels, but is by no means pro-accession (9 seats); and the Civil Movement, which wants more referendums and direct democracy, and but has no settled policy on EU membership (4 seats).

Only 5 of the Left-Greens voted against. I couldn't find a complete voter breakdown, but, assuming that both abstainers were Left-Greens, it should be 20 SocDems, 7 Left-Greens, 1 Civil Movement, and 5 Progressive Party (or rebel IP) parlamentarians voting in favour.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 04:20:13 AM EST
Ah, found a list. According to party:

  • Social Democratic Alliance: 20 for

  • Left-Green Movement: 8 for, 5 against, 1 absent

  • Citizens' Movement: 1 for, 3 against

  • Progressive Party: 3 for, 6 against

  • Independence Party: 1 for, 14 against, 1 absent

Of course, the left-Eurosceptic Left-Greens continue to oppose membership, but not the talks.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat Jul 18th, 2009 at 04:42:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
With about 300.000 Inhabitants Iceland would be the smallest member of the EU, even smaller than already tiny Malta. The next step would be to give Monaco, San Marino and Andorra full EU Membership. For its 300.00 Inhabitants it will get a Commissioner, a seat in the Council, with all the rights that entails, and (I believe) 5 seats in the Parliament.

I really do not believe that this is a wise idea. Iceland should not be allowed to become a member of the EU. I understand that small nations will have over proportional power in the EU institutions, and I am fine with this, but Iceland is just to small and inconsequential.  

by rz on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 08:36:02 AM EST
Iceland and Norway will more likely than not come as a package.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 08:50:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Dream on.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 10:53:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You mean they won't come as a package?

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 11:11:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There is zero chance IMHO Norway would now join the EU: that moment has gone.

And if that is indeed so, then when push comes to shove I don't think Iceland will join either because they have Norway to fall back on.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 12:36:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't see that much Norwegian interest in joining.
by Andhakari on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 04:03:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Come on. Your problem is with disproportionality, not Iceland. I don't see why between Luxembourg (490,000), Malta (410,000) and Iceland (320,000), you want to draw the line between the latter two; and surely these differences aren't as great as with Andorra (85,000, including many non-citizens), Liechtenstein (35,000), Monaco (33,000, not even a democracy), San Marino (30,000) and Vatican (826).

Would the current number of EP seats all be apportitioned proportionally, one constituency would be for 680,000 people. All three, Luxembourg, Malta and Iceland fall below. But, a constituency 50% smaller than the average would be nothing unusual in any country-level democracy with sub-national constituencies (not to mention special seats for some minorities, f.e. Romania). So you may protest 5 seats for these three, but the right for any seat?...

As for the Council, the rotating Presidency is largely symbolic and is destined to go, while voting rights are weighted there too; while Commissioners -- so what, the problem is selection by national apportitioning in place of merit.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 09:51:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The solution is double voting and an additional-member system.

Give states seats in the parliament proportionally to the square root of population (Penrose rule). Then complete the EP with seats to be assigned to EU-wide party lists for overall proportionality.

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 09:54:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yep to the EU-wide lists. Even electing 22 MEPs is hard on the limit of sensible; but say Ireland's 12 or the even less for all the sub-national constituencies just reduces the expression of democratic will. As for the Penrose rule, that's too far from proportional for me; maybe with a lower power.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 10:11:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Proportionality is achieved by the additional members form EU-wide votes.
ceiling(sqrt(EU.population)/200)
    Germany	 France 	 UK	  Italy       Spain	 Poland 
	 46	     41 	 40	     39 	 34	     31 
    Romania Netherlands      Greece	Belgium    Portugal	Czechia 
	 24	     21 	 17	     17 	 17	     17 
    Hungary	 Sweden     Austria    Bulgaria     Denmark    Slovakia 
	 16	     16 	 15	     14 	 12	     12 
    Finland	Ireland   Lithuania	 Latvia    Slovenia	Estonia 
	 12	     11 	 10	      8 	  8	      6 
     Cyprus  Luxembourg       Malta 
	  5	      4 	  4 
for a total of 497 seats. Add to this another 200 or 250 elected on a single EU-wide list and you get a parliament of 697-747 which is comparable to the current 736. Iceland would have 3 seats under this scheme, bringing the total to 500 + 200 or 500 + 250.

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 10:24:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Still. Don't. Like. It. Rather a lower power and less direct seats for ther minis. BTW, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino: 1, Vatican: 0.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 10:37:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Still. Don't. Like. It. is not a very persuasive argument.

This is a parliament - you want to increase the number of possible different voices able to speak in it. Proportional representation along EU-wide ideological lines is preferable to proportional representation along national lines. What is gained by having 64 as opposed to 49 Germans? Not much in terms of representation of views. Whereas having 4 instead of 2 Maltese may be the difference between getting a single -party or a 3-party Maltese delegation. 2/3 of the seats on EU-wide lists will ensure ideological balance.

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 10:42:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I mean 1/3 on EU-wide lists.

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 11:39:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I wonder if a situation similar to overhang mandates in Germany could arise; more MEPs for one EP party from smaller countries than in the proportional vote.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 11:44:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The additional-member system tends to give the nationwide seats to smaller parties which can-t make the threshold in constituencies. The parties that are over-represented in the constituencies are the largest ones.

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 11:55:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
However, the question is the possibility of over-representation overall; and in this case, the question is one that would come from the Penrose rule.

Silly example I calculated for myself: right-populist parties that join Europe of the Nations sweep all former communist countries minus Poland at 60% of elected MEPs, while sister parties fail to get on the ballot everywhere else. That's 69 MEPs, or 9.2% tof a total 747. Now, assuming similar ratios in the all-EU list vote, and using the 2009 population projections, Europe of the Nations would deserve 8.3% of the vote, or 62 MEPs.

So, the possibility is there, though I submit it is a minor effect.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 02:06:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Over-representation of small parties is not a problem. The real problem is a steamrolling majority from 40% of the overall vote.

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 02:22:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The question in this subthread wasn't if it is a problem or not, but if overrepresentation is possible, and how the system would deal with it. Based on the above calculation, I say it is possible, and may be dealt with either with overhang mandates or by reducing the proportional share of other parties.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 05:24:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Proportional representation along EU-wide ideological lines is preferable to proportional representation along national lines.

By that argument, why have national lists at all? Also, what do we do with sub-national constituencies: apportition seats according to the Penrose law, or proportionally? And won't this make elections in the smallest countries overly focused on the direct seats, as opposed to the largest countries?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 11:42:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
By that argument, why have national lists at all?

Because there is actually an advantage to the combination of smaller local constituencies with a global list for overall proportionality. Electing 46 seats in Germany by proportional representation leads to someon on the #20 slot of one of the big parties being elected. Who actually votes with the #20 candidate in mind? An EU-wide list of 250 candidates has the same problem - someone in position #100 of the EPP or PES list is likely to get elected. Also, I would say that you want to have representation from all combinations of nation+party, even if it is only one from each. That's for giving views a voice. The vote is the overall proportionality.

Also, what do we do with sub-national constituencies: apportition seats according to the Penrose law, or proportionally? I would abolish them. Or institute a similar EU-wide rule where if a country wants to have subnational constituencies they have to use the same Penrose + country-wide scheme as is used in the EU as a whole.

And won't this make elections in the smallest countries overly focused on the direct seats, as opposed to the largest countries?

As opposed to making the votes from the smallest countries all but irrelevant? Iceland will have 1/1500 of the EU's population. Why vote in the EU elections if there are only 750 seats to be filled?

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 11:52:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Also, as was pointed out in my silly question about Iceland and Japan, "culture tends to follow geography and people." Even the very homogeneous USA has a Senate where regional differences are represented without regard to population.
by asdf on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 12:45:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
However, the Senate is a separate body from the House. Just like the European Council or the Bundesrat is separate from the European Parliament resp. the Bundestag.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 02:09:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Also, I would say that you want to have representation from all combinations of nation+party, even if it is only one from each.

That still won't apply for Malta. But, you could prescribe something like that for the parties.

As opposed to making the votes from the smallest countries all but irrelevant?

By that argument, why vote in any single voter district in a national election? For disproportional national representation, we could reform the European Council.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 02:18:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That still won't apply for Malta.

No, not in the "every combination" sense. But 4 seats is better than 2 in that respect. For Germany, it is not clear how 99 seats is better than 49.

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 02:23:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not "for Germany". For the single voter. Similar weight of vote and all that.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 02:25:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Similar weight of vote comes from the additional member system. If your vote is overrepresented at the constituency level it is underrepresented at the additional-member level.

Let's start from the opposite end. I would vehemently oppose 736-member E_ wide party lists. People would usually vote paying attention to at most the top 2 people in each party's list, or the top one and the top compatriot. It really makes a lot of sense to have constituencies with a small number of seats (using transferable votes to ensure proportionality). But to insist on even-sized constituencies leads to redistricting nonsense including gerrimandering. So you want

  1. small constituencies with STV
  2. a sizeable number of seats elected on overall party lists
The Penrose method evens out the size of the constituencies.

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 02:38:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If your vote is overrepresented at the constituency level it is underrepresented at the additional-member level.

Why do you think that doesn't make a difference? I haven't made this angle explicit before; but there is also the issue of ideological weights within EP-parties.

It really makes a lot of sense to have constituencies with a small number of seats

What about using the 97 second-level NUTS regions rather than nation states?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 05:40:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
...I of course mean first-level NUTS regions.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 05:49:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But the point of having additional members assigned at the EU level is that it will force the state-level parties to take a serious look at what their "fellow party members" in other states are like. If it works that way, it should force EP parties to form around political conviction instead of relative position in their domestic politics. That should prevent having EP parties that are total ideological crapshots.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 06:05:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm sceptical that that alone would achieve such a change. The 'national delegations' would act like party wings and old boy networks do in any party, and positions on the all-EU list would be haggled for.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 06:26:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
DoDo:

It really makes a lot of sense to have constituencies with a small number of seats

What about using the 97 second-level NUTS regions rather than nation states?

I would like that, but good luck getting the Member States to agree to it.

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 07:05:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think significant resistance would come more in nationalist tones, than for practical reasons. For Belgium, France, Spain, Poland or Italy, the first-level NUTS regions would more or less correspond to the current sub-national EP election regions -- only the number of seats contested would change. For Germany, the NUTS regions are the federal states, thus the new system would bring it closer to what they have in federal elections -- also, much to the liking of the regionally strong CSU, I suppose. (Though, 18 million strong Northrhine-Westphalia still stands out -- the most populous NUTS area, unless I missed one of the Italian ones.) Many of the small countries are a single NUTS area, so again a potential change only in number of seats only. It would make a significant difference in the mid-sized countries, from Sweden to Romania (minus Belgium).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 08:21:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
DoDo:
For Belgium, France, Spain, Poland or Italy, the first-level NUTS regions would more or less correspond to the current sub-national EP election regions
Except Spain or Italy don't do constituencies in the EP elections.

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 08:48:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I was mistaken about Spain, then, so the comment about Germany applies; however, Italy does have EP election sub-national regions.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 02:57:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I would abolish them.

With what argument? (Not that I wouldn't want to abolish them myself, but what is the rationale in your system?)

Or institute a similar EU-wide rule where if a country wants to have subnational constituencies they have to use the same Penrose + country-wide scheme as is used in the EU as a whole.

But a national level Penrose (apportitioning a number of seats as given by Penrose for the whole country), instead of EU level? With that, you are strenghtening the national character of the elections further.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 02:24:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm saying, if a country wants to have constituencies they have to have an additional-member system in order not to distort overall proportinality of the national delegation. The penrose-apportinment of the national constituencies is a footnote, but it is necessary when apportionment proportionally to population would lead to extremely large disparities in numbers of seats per constituency (as would be the case in Spain). It is actually an advantage of the Penrose system that it limits the size of the largest constituencies.

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 02:28:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But, again, if that is your choice, you fix the system to countries, perpetuating "national delegations".

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 05:27:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Vatican zero, eh? We could give them one seat, but only if it's filled personally by the pope. ;)

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 12:11:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah, why shouldn't we have one Bishop speaking in Parliament? But not the Pope or a Cardinal (members of national parliaments cannot be in the EP so the Vatican curia members would be disqualified).

That way there won't be an argument against an EU-wide Islamic party. Or Bulgaria's Turkist minority party...

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 12:16:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, it has to be the pope himself, in full regalia, or it won't count.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 12:29:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
He gets to go to Council meetings...

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 12:45:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I like this idea a lot and indeed it would essentially help to solve most of the problems I have with the entry of Iceland. Additionally it would be necessary to appoint commissioner for their capability and not a commissioner per country.

Btu As I have noted further down, as the number of countries in the EU increases it will become effectively impossible to change the institutional setup. That is why all those things have to be done before we extend the EU even further.  

by rz on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 12:26:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Here's "a lower power"
ceiling(exp(log(c(EU.population, iceland=300000))/1.5)/3000)
    Germany	 France 	 UK	  Italy       Spain	 Poland 
	 64	     54 	 52	     51 	 43	     38 
    Romania Netherlands      Greece	Belgium    Portugal	Czechia 
	 26	     22 	 17	     17 	 17	     16 
    Hungary	 Sweden     Austria    Bulgaria     Denmark    Slovakia 
	 16	     15 	 14	     13 	 11	     11 
    Finland	Ireland   Lithuania	 Latvia    Slovenia	Estonia 
	 11	     10 	  8	      6 	  6	      5 
     Cyprus  Luxembourg       Malta	iceland 
	  3	      3 	  2	      2
for a total of 553 + EU-wide list. The problem I see with allowing flexibility in the power is that you will then get endless bickering as well as not having a clean a priori justification for the choice (which Penrose's square-root does have).

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 10:37:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The probability of "endless bickering" is exactly why the two-house system works. You set up a rule: Proportional representation in one house and per-country representation in the other, and then you don't change the rule when some new tiny country is added.
by asdf on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 12:48:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The European Council operates as the second house - it is not unlike the "Federal Council" (even in name!) of Germany or Switzerland. I am not sure the second house needs to be directly elected, and in fact that was not the case originally in the US but the result of an amendment.

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 12:50:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The point of direct election (or appointment, as in the original rules) is that there is a fixed pair of formulas: 1.) Population, and 2.) Per geographically separate unit.

A given combined formula (logarithmic or whatever) can by correct selection of parameters give the same--or close to it--result for a given set of data, but if the parameters can be fiddled politically, they will. Like rorting or gerrymandering or whatever, you always get it from a political system.

I have wondered whether this issue was at the root of the UK's handing over of some independence to Wales and Scotland, the idea being that with the current arrangement, Britain could potentially claim to have four distinct geographical units.

by asdf on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 03:21:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The swedish upper house (before 1970 iirc) was appointed by the regional and local assemblies. I think that was a good model as it prevented the creep of powers to the highest level by giving lower levels representation. Since it was the assemblies and not the local executives it also kept the seperation of powers (in contrast to the Councils make-up).

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by A swedish kind of death on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 04:38:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
a constituency 50% smaller than the average would be nothing unusual in any country-level democracy with sub-national constituencies

ell, at least in some countries. Just checked Germany, where borders have been redrawn a few years ago; ad found that the rule is max. 25% deviation from the average.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 10:03:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You are correct, that Iceland is much closer to Malta and Luxembourg, than to the Lichtenstein, etc. That was somewhat polemical of me.

My major problem is with expansion in general. We do not know how the EU should look like in the future and even supporters of the Lisbon Treaty (like me) have to acknowledge that it is not a particularly inspired document and will clearly not be the last. Adding more countries guarantees that it will become impossible to change anything in the future.

by rz on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 10:14:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Enlargement, just for the sake of getting bigger, is not reason enough. More members may further handicap the EU politically, I think.

I think that in the minds of our decisionmakers, expansion for the sake of expansion is reason enough. And as long as the EU expands by adding white, christian and generally prosperous populations I suspect there is no downside.

Afaik, all nordic countries that has joined the EU has done so in the wake of economic crises so I do not think that Icelands crises is seen as something negative for the EU, I think it is seen as an opportunity for expansion.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 04:49:28 PM EST
If you think of the EU as merely a free trade area, expansion is a good thing. If you want a political EU, disorderly expansion is a problem.

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 04:50:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But in general expansion of a system gives great chances for advancement for those already in the system. And disorderly expansion has the advantage of making accountability harder to demand.

So if you are a politician or bureacrat involved on the higher levels of EU power, you may want a political EU in theory, but more power for yourself in practice. If a political EU does not serve your needs ideals what good is it? And who will defend that if your personal power does not expand?

What power does the lowly citizens of the EU have over the question of Icelandic membership?

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 05:54:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What power does the lowly citizens of the EU have over the question of Icelandic membership?

Icelandinc membership will take place through a treaty. Any power that citizens have over their government entering into international treaties applies to Icelandic membership.

This is why I think Croatia will not join the EU: there's nothing to prevent Croatia's accession treaty from being defeated either by the Slovenian parliament, or the Slovenian people in a referendum.

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 05:57:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]