|
" For their adaptation ,acts of the Council shall require at least:
---62 votes in favor where this treaty requires them to be adopted on a proposal from the commission,
---62 votes in favor, cast by at least 10 members, in other areas."
Here, two compromises should be noted. One is Luxembourg compromise/accords, another is Ioannina compromise. Luxembourg accord is the result of a crisis in 1962 in the Council. Originally, some more sensitive areas of the treaty were required to be implemented only by unanimous vote. It was, however, intended that once the period of adjustment to membership provided by the treaty had expired, member states would be required to more towards qualified majority voting. This didn''t happen. The more towards a greater use of qualified voting was frustrated in 1963 when France absented itself from the Council for the latter part of that year. In the end, Luxembourg accord came up. The Luxembourg accord did not have the force of law, but it was followed in the practice, with the result that in many areas the Council sought unanimity where the treaty would not have required it. Ioannina compromise took place in 1994. Spain and the UK objected to what they saw as the dilution of their voting strength. They suggested that old number of votes required to block a proposal (23) should remain in place. Eventually the Ioannina compromise was agreed with the result that the blocking minority increased to 71 percent of the new total, but it states carrying together 23 to 25 votes intend to vote against the proposal, then negotiations will continue in an attempt to satisfy their concerns.
The relationship between the Council and the EP has evolved greatly in recent years and the TEU brought additional changes. The EP''s ability to affect the course of Council negotiations varies, depending on the legislative procedure applicable to the measure under consider considerations.
For instance, under the co-operation procedure, certain of the options available to the EP at second reading have a direct impact on the Council''s legal situation: thus, if the EP approves the common position, either expressly or tacitly, it places the Council under a legal duty to adopt the act in question in accordance with that position. While, if the common position is rejected, this will prevent the Council from acting at second reading otherwise than by unanimity. Under the new co-decision procedure of Article 189 b, if the Council is willing to accept amendments which the EP has proposed, it will be required to participate in the Conciliation Committee with representatives of the EP, where a genuine effort must be made to reach agreement on a joint text, and delegations will be aware that, in the absence of agreement, a unilateral decision by the Council conforming its common position would be liable to the EP''s veto, although the risk be cessened if some of the amendments previously put forward by the EP are included.
|
