BillyHunt:
I think you’ll find that this is what you actually posted, clearly stating “with no right of veto or opt out by any separate state” . You are wrong on both counts & you know it.
Only the in campaign could try to dress up the extremely limited,effectively worthless,so called ‘right of VETO’,over just 20% of the EU’s decision making process,as opposed to the 80% carried out by majority federal vote,as the so called ‘right of VETO’ or ‘opt out’.
IE either we’ve got the right of VETO, ‘or’ also preferably opt out,over 100% of the decision making process within the EU,or it ain’t the ‘right of VETO or opt out’.
It’s only a “so called” veto because, surprise surprise, you don’t agree with it, but then again you don’t agree with anything anyone else says so no change there. We have the right to veto or opt out, that’s a fact & you know it.
It isn’t a question of what I do or don’t agree with.It’s all about ‘the fact’ that the VETO only applies to 20% of the EU decision making process.Therefore we don’t have ‘a VETO’ over ‘that process’.That’s one of the inconvenient ‘facts’ that will hopefully make it more difficult,for the deluded federalist pro EU agenda to fool the public on our membership of such an undemocratic scam,like it did in 1975.
This week will either define Corbyn as a fast-learning player - or a complete buffoon who doesn’t know how to take counsel from the right people, rather than any random talking head wearing a red tie in the vicinity…
(A) Tell your MPs via private letter that “I’ll give you a free vote, but imagine what we could do to Cameron if he calls the vote too soon, and you lot all unexpectedly back ME instead?”
(B) Have a three line whip, and be put under pressure to resign as leader of the opposition - because you can’t rein in your own MPs…
(C) Have a free vote, no strings - and get busted by the Labour rebels… Perhaps be driven out in the aftermath…
Any continued weakness in Labour from here on in - can only strengthen UKIP’s cause.
anyone hoping that this will save us is an idiot !!
it only applies to certain measures , which no one seemingly understands ; and if we can veto eurowaffle , then they can veto anything sensible
i remember the Tories arguing about this with Masstricht Treaty under john major . a treaty is the only thing that we can definately veto . but we cant stop all the other europlonkers doing it themselves , then imposing it afterwards :: remember social chapter anyone ■■
the EU will do what it wants and the only sensible veto is a veto on membership
anyone hoping that this will save us is an idiot !!
it only applies to certain measures , which no one seemingly understands ; and if we can veto eurowaffle , then they can veto anything sensible
i remember the Tories arguing about this with Masstricht Treaty under john major . a treaty is the only thing that we can definately veto . but we cant stop all the other europlonkers doing it themselves , then imposing it afterwards :: remember social chapter anyone ■■
the EU will do what it wants and the only sensible veto is a veto on membership
The VETO is probably more of a red herring in that regard than having the sovereign right of opt out of all directives and regulations in which member state laws and decisions over rule EU ones.Neither of which would have mattered ‘if’ it was supposedly just the trading relationship that Heath and the pro EU agenda sold it to the gullible public as.
So we do have a veto then. If you’re unsure just type “does the uk have a veto power in the eu” into a search engine, Google will do nicely, see what you get.
BillyHunt:
So we do have a veto then. If you’re unsure just type “does the uk have a veto power in the eu” into a search engine, Google will do nicely, see what you get.
Most sensible people would define ‘a VETO’ as meaning one which covers 100% of the decision making process of the ‘Union’ not just 20% of it.While they’d also expect the same regarding the right of opt out assuming that we are a sovereign nation state.
As opposed to a member state of a Federation.In which the Federation claims sovereignty over that of its subservient member states.Which,with the exception of that effectively worthless so called ‘VETO’,is where we are already anyway.
No surprise in that case that you won’t find anything on Google which defines the end game of the EU as a Confederation of sovereign nation states in which state sovereignty and laws,( in this case the right of VETO/opt out of the decision making process in its entirety ),remain supreme and over rule that of the ‘Union’.Not surprisingly because such a move would be seen as a massive threat by the US government that could/would potentially re open all the old wounds of the American civil war fought over that clearly defined difference.
BillyHunt:
Even a so called veto is still a veto meaning we do have one then.
‘So called’ generally means the same thing as false/pretense.Which in this case is a good description of a ‘VETO’ which in reality only provides 20% coverage of the decision making process.So no we don’t have ‘a VETO’ or opt out of the decisions made by what,by its own admission,is a Federalist institution,predictably with rules,regarding the decision making process,to match.
boredwivdrivin:
If u trust a politician to deploy it .
And if he is allowed to deploy it .
Can only find one example of use : that was by cameron regarding Euro bailout contributions . We ended up paying anyway tho .
Its like having a gun : with no bullets .
As we all know UK is the country with some of the most draconian laws against guns in Europe, coincidence?
More like a gun loaded with 20% of its bullet capacity that can only be used against 20% of its targets.Those targets to be agreed by the enemy.So a bit like the bombing of IS in that case.
Come on googlefast make your mind up. First we don’t have a veto, then we do, then we have a so called veto, now we are back to none at all.
Oh and they aren’t bullets, they’re rounds, but I’m sure you knew that.
BillyHunt:
Come on googlefast make your mind up. First we don’t have a veto, then we do, then we have a so called veto, now we are back to none at all.
Oh and they aren’t bullets, they’re rounds, but I’m sure you knew that.
As I said if it doesn’t cover 100% of the decision making process,let alone it just covering 20%,then it ain’t ‘a VETO’.
But then the pro EU federalist scam always knew that.Ever since it tried to dress up what was/is swapping national sovereign government,for being a member of a Federal Europe,as just joining a ‘Common Market’ and succeeded because of the gullibility of the public.
On that note define the meaning of EU ‘directive’ and ‘regulation’ and how can it be a ‘directive’ or ‘regulation’ if it doesn’t have to be complied with by any member state that chooses to ignore it ?.Or are you saying it does,by definition,have to be complied with.With no right of VETO or preferably opt out,in at least 80% of cases.
Carryfast, the whole idea of EU is Federal state, why British people don’t know that I have no idea, but it’s obvious.
One main capitol and Government in Brussels, one currency, same rules everywhere, one interconnected road network, no borders between member states, treaties and laws valid for everyone and on and on. Its like USE(United States of Europe).
You(not you personally) got to be blind and deaf not to know the whole idea of EU.
Well that’s the problem right there Dolph. We (or our parents) voted for a common market, not a federal superstate. With the greatest of respect to you of course you are going to be a fan, your country and many others have benefited massively from membership of the EU, and I can totally understand that and also understand your point of view.
However it’s all about perceptions tbh, and the perception of the majority of British is that the only benefit we have seen is that when we return from Spain on holiday with a pocket full of Euro notes we no longer bother changing them back as they’ll do for when we nip to Berlin or Paris for some shopping!
That is about the only good thing we seem to get for our 50 million pounds per day!
BillyHunt:
Come on googlefast make your mind up. First we don’t have a veto, then we do, then we have a so called veto, now we are back to none at all.
Oh and they aren’t bullets, they’re rounds, but I’m sure you knew that.
As I said if it doesn’t cover 100% of the decision making process,let alone it just covering 20%,then it ain’t ‘a VETO’.
But then the pro EU federalist scam always knew that.Ever since it tried to dress up what was/is swapping national sovereign government,for being a member of a Federal Europe,as just joining a ‘Common Market’ and succeeded because of the gullibility of the public.
On that note define the meaning of EU ‘directive’ and ‘regulation’ and how can it be a ‘directive’ or ‘regulation’ if it doesn’t have to be complied with by any member state that chooses to ignore it ?.Or are you saying it does,by definition,have to be complied with.With no right of VETO or preferably opt out,in at least 80% of cases.
So you’re saying that if the eu wanted to to make change to the constitution, making the eu more, or less for that matter, federal, we don’t have the ability to veto it?
BillyHunt:
Come on googlefast make your mind up. First we don’t have a veto, then we do, then we have a so called veto, now we are back to none at all.
Oh and they aren’t bullets, they’re rounds, but I’m sure you knew that.
As I said if it doesn’t cover 100% of the decision making process,let alone it just covering 20%,then it ain’t ‘a VETO’.
But then the pro EU federalist scam always knew that.Ever since it tried to dress up what was/is swapping national sovereign government,for being a member of a Federal Europe,as just joining a ‘Common Market’ and succeeded because of the gullibility of the public.
On that note define the meaning of EU ‘directive’ and ‘regulation’ and how can it be a ‘directive’ or ‘regulation’ if it doesn’t have to be complied with by any member state that chooses to ignore it ?.Or are you saying it does,by definition,have to be complied with.With no right of VETO or preferably opt out,in at least 80% of cases.
So you’re saying that if the eu wanted to to make change to the constitution, making the eu more, or less for that matter, federal, we don’t have the ability to veto it?
As Dolph rightly says it’s already reached the point where the existing treaties make it a Federal government regardless.Which is why we’ve already got that situation of directives and regulations imposed on member states without right of VETO/opt out.
IE the issue isn’t about the EU being more ‘Federal’ or less ‘Federal’.Which is obviously acceptance in your view of Federal government of one form or another.
The issue is why not a constitution which makes it a ‘Confederation’ of ‘Sovereign Nation States’ in which by definition the sovereignty and decisions of each member state is the supreme government,( thereby meaning all the relevant VETOs and opt outs ),within the states,not the Confederation.IE a totally different type of Union based on unanimity and choice and local,nation state,democracy and government.As opposed to Federal foreign majority vote dictatorship if not Presidential dictatorship.
As I said the US would obviously view such an idea as being an unacceptable threat to it’s own bs system of government as imposed by zb Lincoln.Which is why we are having this discussion and it’s also why there’s probably no way that the US will allow any dissent within the EU based the issue of nation state sovereignty.
Probably to the point where Cameron will be ‘leaned on’ to find a way to cancel the ‘promise’ of a ‘referendum’.Or,at least if not,the campaign leading up to it will be a whitewash of biased media coverage and propaganda just like 1975.
the maoster:
Well that’s the problem right there Dolph. We (or our parents) voted for a common market, not a federal superstate.
No,having been there and under the rules that the in campaign want now,I’d have been able to vote in it being 16,the ‘problem’ was that most of those who were allowed to vote listened to the lies of the Heath,Thatcher,Jenkins,and Callaghan etc in campaign led media propaganda blitz.Instead of people like Powell,Shore,Benn and Heffer.
Dolph:
Carryfast, the whole idea of EU is Federal state, why British people don’t know that I have no idea, but it’s obvious.
One main capitol and Government in Brussels, one currency, same rules everywhere, one interconnected road network, no borders between member states, treaties and laws valid for everyone and on and on. Its like USE(United States of Europe).
You(not you personally) got to be blind and deaf not to know the whole idea of EU.
Firstly an ‘interconnected road network’ is irrelevant in being any identifier of Federalism as opposed to sovereignty and national borders.IE it’s the border crossing formalities that define national borders not continuous road layout.
But yes the out campaign at least always knew that the plan was all about us handing over sovereignty to a Federal European system.However you’re underestimating the massive Federalist in campaign propaganda exercise which effectively spun the sovereignty angle to the point where it drowned out the truth for those who were undecided.Nothing has changed in that regard.
BillyHunt:
Come on googlefast make your mind up. First we don’t have a veto, then we do, then we have a so called veto, now we are back to none at all.
Oh and they aren’t bullets, they’re rounds, but I’m sure you knew that.
As I said if it doesn’t cover 100% of the decision making process,let alone it just covering 20%,then it ain’t ‘a VETO’.
But then the pro EU federalist scam always knew that.Ever since it tried to dress up what was/is swapping national sovereign government,for being a member of a Federal Europe,as just joining a ‘Common Market’ and succeeded because of the gullibility of the public.
On that note define the meaning of EU ‘directive’ and ‘regulation’ and how can it be a ‘directive’ or ‘regulation’ if it doesn’t have to be complied with by any member state that chooses to ignore it ?.Or are you saying it does,by definition,have to be complied with.With no right of VETO or preferably opt out,in at least 80% of cases.
So you’re saying that if the eu wanted to to make change to the constitution, making the eu more, or less for that matter, federal, we don’t have the ability to veto it?
As Dolph rightly says it’s already reached the point where the existing treaties make it a Federal government regardless.Which is why we’ve already got that situation of directives and regulations imposed on member states without right of VETO/opt out.
IE the issue isn’t about the EU being more ‘Federal’ or less ‘Federal’.Which is obviously acceptance in your view of Federal government of one form or another.
The issue is why not a constitution which makes it a ‘Confederation’ of ‘Sovereign Nation States’ in which by definition the sovereignty and decisions of each member state is the supreme government,( thereby meaning all the relevant VETOs and opt outs ),within the states,not the Confederation.IE a totally different type of Union based on unanimity and choice and local,nation state,democracy and government.As opposed to Federal foreign majority vote dictatorship if not Presidential dictatorship.
As I said the US would obviously view such an idea as being an unacceptable threat to it’s own bs system of government as imposed by zb Lincoln.Which is why we are having this discussion and it’s also why there’s probably no way that the US will allow any dissent within the EU based the issue of nation state sovereignty.
Probably to the point where Cameron will be ‘leaned on’ to find a way to cancel the ‘promise’ of a ‘referendum’.Or,at least if not,the campaign leading up to it will be a whitewash of biased media coverage and propaganda just like 1975.
No, the issue is you haven’t answered the question I’ve asked so, in that situation could we veto any proposed changes to the constitution, yes or no.
