Reply #6: It's a complicated setup [View All]

[muriel_volestrangler]

and indeed one of the reasons for the new constitution is meant to be having one constitution would be simpler than the several treaties that now shape the EU.

To answer some of the questions here (but it's complicated enough that I may get some of this wrong too):

Most of the power in the EU is in the Council of Ministers - the representatives of the member governments. The EU Parliament is more a talking forum than a legislature.

In the Council, at present, some matters have to be agreed unanimously by the member governments - so even Luxembourg has a right of veto on those. Examples are taxation and foreign policy. Other matters have qualified majority voting - roughly proportional to the countries' populations, but with the smaller countries getting a bit bigger voice (a bit like the US electoral college). So some rules can be forced on a country if they are out-voted. It would still take the largest 6 countries to force a change on the remaining small 9.

The new constitution introduces the double majority, to replace qualified majority voting. This means a rule change must be agreed on, in the Council, both by a majority of nations (ie at least 13 out of 25), and by nations representing a majority of the EU population. I think the proposal is for a change needing 60% of each vote. Some change from qualified majority voting was needed, because most of the new EU nations are small (after enlargement, the total population of the smallest 15 countries will be less than the largest one, Germany).

The power to enforce these decisions is not physical - nations are expected to abide by the rules. When disputes arise, you get drawn out negotiations and legal cases. The EU can threaten to withold payments to countries (eg farm subsidies) if things get bad. Nations are allowed to leave the EU, unlike the United States, and I suppose the EU could expel a country if all the other countries agreed to.