This response to Moberg (2002) demonstrates that some of his figures and calculations require more thorough analysis. His dismissal of the risk of inertia in the Council after enlargement, his measurement of blocking power of individual EU states and his figures on relative under- and over-representation of EU states in the Council are disputed. The article pleads for a dialogue between academics and practitioners in order to avoid random outcomes and ad hoc deals, such as those resulting from the political bargaining during the 2000 Nice summit meeting. Sound expert advice on voting rules and their effects is desirable for achieving more transparent, equitable and sensible institutional solutions, and allocation of voting weights and seats in the EU Council and Parliament. Copyright Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).
Related research
Keywords:
Cited by: (explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)