IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jcmkts/v40y2002i2p283-307.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Veto Players and Decision‐making in the EU After Nice

Author

Listed:
  • George Tsebelis
  • Xenophon Yataganas

Abstract

The Treaty of Nice introduced a triple majority requirement for Council decisions. In order to be valid, Council decisions require not only a qualified majority (slightly larger than before), but also an absolute majority of Member States and, at a country’s request, a 62 per cent majority of the total population of EU countries. We explain why this significant modification of the rules occurred and what the likely consequences are. The triple majority requirement was introduced because the approaching enlargement of the EU differentiates for the first time between the three majoritarian criteria (weighted votes in the Council, majority of countries, and majority of the population). Different countries have insisted on each of these criteria and the final outcome is an explicit incorporation of all three. The likely outcomes of this change in rules are increased difficulty of legislative decisions, a shift of veto powers in favour of the Council, an increased role for the judiciary, and a further bureaucratization of the EU.

Suggested Citation

  • George Tsebelis & Xenophon Yataganas, 2002. "Veto Players and Decision‐making in the EU After Nice," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(2), pages 283-307, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jcmkts:v:40:y:2002:i:2:p:283-307
    DOI: 10.1111/1468-5965.00355
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5965.00355
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1468-5965.00355?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fabio Franchino, 2013. "Challenges to liberal intergovernmentalism," European Union Politics, , vol. 14(2), pages 324-337, June.
    2. Csaba, László, 2006. "A stabilitási és növekedési egyezmény új politikai gazdaságtanáról [On the new political economy of the Stability and Growth Pact]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 1-30.
    3. Běla Plechanovová, 2011. "Coalitions in the EU Council: Pitfalls of Multidimensional Analysis," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 5(3), pages 249-266, November.
    4. Moo Sung Lee, 2004. "The European Union beyond 2004: Small States and Trade Policy," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 7(1), pages 19-35, March.
    5. Jorge M. Streb & Gustavo Torrens, 2011. "La economía política de la política fiscal," CEMA Working Papers: Serie Documentos de Trabajo. 455, Universidad del CEMA.
    6. Jenny Helstroffer & Marie Obidzinski, 2014. "Codecision procedure biais: the European legislation game," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 29-46, August.
    7. Magnus Lundgren & Theresa Squatrito & Jonas Tallberg, 2018. "Stability and change in international policy-making: A punctuated equilibrium approach," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 547-572, December.
    8. Cesar Garcia Perez de Leon, 2011. "Coalition Formation and Agenda Setting in EU Environmental Policy after the Enlargement," Les Cahiers européens de Sciences Po 5, Centre d'études européennes (CEE) at Sciences Po, Paris.
    9. Robin Hertz & Dirk Leuffen, 2011. "Too big to run? Analysing the impact of enlargement on the speed of EU decision-making," European Union Politics, , vol. 12(2), pages 193-215, June.
    10. Trofimov, Ivan D., 2017. "Political economy of trade protection and liberalization: in search of agency-based and holistic framework of policy change," MPRA Paper 79504, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Thomas König & Thomas Bräuninger, 2004. "Accession and Reform of the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 5(4), pages 419-439, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jcmkts:v:40:y:2002:i:2:p:283-307. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0021-9886 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.