On 05/06/16 09:49, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Jeff Layman wrote:

"the
proposal is supported by countries representing at least 65 % of the
total EU population" seems a typical EU fudge of trying to satisfy the
main countries which pay for it. It reminds me of "the meek will inherit
the earth if that's all right with the rest of you".

To me, this implies that you think it would be wrong for the countries
which have large populations to determine policy.
Is that what you think, or am I misunderstanding your meaning?

As I said, It does not matter who determines policy provided it is a
simple majority. If this happens to favour the countries with the larger
populations, so be it. If the intention is ever greater union, the EU
should be moving towards a single community in which votes have equal
weight, no matter on whose behalf they are made.

Your argument seems illogical to me.
If in fact the arrangement you favour of 50% + 1 vote were in operation
it would give the larger countries even more influence,
which you seem to think would be a bad thing.

I didn't say I was in favour or not - I simply said it seemed the EU was
trying to find a way to satisfy the main countries which pay for it. I
favour a simple majority (of those voting) as it is the most transparent
system.

One webpage I found I thought was quite interesting:

http://www.michaelmunevar.com/website/How%20EU%20Qualified%20Majority%20Voting%20Works%2 0with%20examples

In fact, as this web-page points out, the aim of a qualified majority
is exactly the opposite of what you say - the aim is to prevent
a small number of large states combining to dominate the EU.

A simple majority gives a clear result; it may not
satisfy everyone, but that is democracy.

This may be simple, but the effect would be to bring about a situation
which is precisely what you imply you want to avoid.

Incidentally, the founding fathers of the US faced exactly the same problem.
They came up with a different solution, but the intention was the same -
a small number of states with large populations cannot dominate the rest.

I am in favour of one person one vote, with a simple majority winning.
That may favour larger population countries, but so what? If smaller
countries don't like it, they don't have to join the EU. That's
democracy in action. And, as we are currently seeing with the UK, larger
countries don't always like what the EU decides! And the Brexit decision
will be taken on a simple majority of votes - no artificial systems
biasing the decision one way or the other.

--

Jeff

Martin wrote:

So far only the Dutch have wanted to have a (partial) ban on Glyphosate.

Not true; lifting the ban (just for 18 months) failed to get
a qualified majority of EU states:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-eu-glyphosate-idUSKCN0YS0Y0
6 June 2016

"The EU executive had offered a 12- to 18-month extension to allow time for
further scientific study by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), in hopes
of allaying health concerns. Its earlier proposal to renew the glyphosate
license for up to 15 years had failed to win support in two meetings this
year.

The compromise proposal failed to win the qualified majority needed for
adoption, an EU official said, adding the European Commission will discuss
the issue at a meeting on Tuesday."

--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

Martin wrote:

Whether a herbicide causes cancer/ is harmful or not cannot be determined
by a majority vote.

At the moment there is a (small) difference of opinion
between the EU's ECHA and the UN's WHO/IARC.
The truth can only be determined by further study,
not by dogmatic assertion on either side.

While both organisations are susceptible to lobbying,
in my view the IARC has greater scientific credibility.

--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

Martin wrote:

lifting the ban (just for 18 months) failed to get
a qualified majority of EU states:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-he...e-idUSKCN0YS0Y
06 June 2016

The URL doesn't work

Sorry, should be
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-eu-glyphosate-idUSKCN0YS0Y0

"The EU executive had offered a 12- to 18-month extension to allow time
for further scientific study by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), in
hopes of allaying health concerns. Its earlier proposal to renew the
glyphosate license for up to 15 years had failed to win support in two
meetings this year.

The compromise proposal failed to win the qualified majority needed for
adoption, an EU official said, adding the European Commission will discuss
the issue at a meeting on Tuesday."


--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

On 09/06/16 17:27, Martin wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 15:06:01 +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote:

Martin wrote:

lifting the ban (just for 18 months) failed to get
a qualified majority of EU states:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-he...e-idUSKCN0YS0Y
06 June 2016

The URL doesn't work

Sorry, should be
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-eu-glyphosate-idUSKCN0YS0Y0

"The U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health
Organization (WHO) said in May glyphosate was unlikely to pose a risk to people
exposed to it through food.

The finding matches that of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), an
independent agency funded by the European Union, but runs counter to a March
2015 study by the WHO's Lyon-based International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC).
"That agency said the chemical was probably able to cause cancer and classified
it as a 'Group 2A' carcinogen. It assessed whether the substance can cause
cancer in any way - regardless of real-life conditions on typical levels of
human exposure or consumption."

You might find this of interest:
http://www.politico.eu/article/europ...an-commission/

And I find the last paragraph here is a real ROTFLMAO comment:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...-of-glyphosate

EU decisions democratic? I have been trying to find a link to an EU
webpage which shows how that voting decision panned out. In other words,
how the countries actually voted - all we know from the Reuters article
is that Malta voted against. There seem to be dozens of articles like
the Reuters one commenting on the latest (non) decision, but none seem
to reference where their information came from (I assume it was from a
press release, but I can't find that, either). It seems there is nothing
like a "qualified majority" for avoiding any possibility of a democratic
decision, is there?

What comes next? Well, you might like to watch the first video he
http://euranetplus-inside.eu/which-p...ns-glyphosate/

I was so glad to hear from that paragon of common sense, Bart Staes,
that glyphosate kills bacteria and algae in the soil. In fact it seems
to kill everything (about 10.00 in). And it was wonderful to be assured
that yields from organic farming are "at least as high" as those from
conventional farming (at about 9.15 in). But I didn't hear anything
specific about what specifics "Plan B" will use in practice. Never mind,
they are organic, so must be safe, effective, and productive, and so we
have absolutely nothing to worry about.

I am sure than anyone who bothered to read the penultimate paragraph in
my post on 15 April in the thread "Glyphosate and the EU" would have
thought they were the ravings of a lunatic. I'll just repeat it here to
save time looking for it:

"Oh, well, the writing has been on the wall for some time for all amateur
chemical pesticide products. Once glyphosate has gone the Greens will
look for the next target. Neonics will be the first. Pyrethrins might be
the last as they are based on a "natural" chemical. Within a couple of
years there won't be any. Then they will target all the professional
agricultural products. It' would be interesting to see, when the first
food shortages appear after a devastating pest attack (will it be a
fungus, insect, or something else, I wonder), who starts blaming whom."

Would you still consider this fantasy after the latest EU vote?

--

Jeff

On 10/06/16 09:54, Martin wrote:

Would you still consider this fantasy after the latest EU vote?

Dutch plan B and Plan C haven't worked. Plan D must surely be to define
pavements and roads as wild flower gardens,

Of course, but first the law will have to be changed to define pavements
as "pedestrianised areas not for walking on"...

--

Jeff