33 minutes ago, aright said:

You are right we should be in a position of leadership. The fact we are not has nothing to do with right wing euro sceptics and everything to do with the EU Parliament sensibility and makeup.

Since 1981 there have been seven Presidents of the European Commission none of them British.

The President is nominated by the European Council and voted in by the European Parliament.

We have seventy odd MEP's in a forum of seven hundred odd MEP's...………..only 10%

Is it surprising we don't have a leadership role?  

Yes, what I was pointing out the other day (possibly on a closed topic). The big EP groups with the real voting power are dominated by the Germans and French, with Italian (at least for now) and Spanish support.

 

It's hard enough for the UK to block anything, let alone get anything through.

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

Yes, what I was pointing out the other day (possibly on a closed topic). The big EP groups with the real voting power are dominated by the Germans and French, with Italian (at least for now) and Spanish support.

 

It's hard enough for the UK to block anything, let alone get anything through.

The UK has an independent sovereign veto at the EU.

 

51 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The UK has an independent sovereign veto at the EU.

 

A broad statement. What can we veto?

 

Tick-tock.

53 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The UK has an independent sovereign veto at the EU.

 

Cabinet minister Iain Duncan Smith told the BBC’s Today programme we have “just given away our right to veto” euro area changes that will affect us, for “next to nothing” in return. (2h19’). Chris Grayling, another cabinet minister, says the deal constitutes a “significant – and underappreciated – loss of leverage. We now lack a key tool in preventing further EU integration – which we might be dragged along into”.

 

As an aside a right of veto as a means of decision making serves no useful purpose and can mean no decisions at all or deadlock.

If memory serves me, the right to veto, only existed on issues that require 100% assent but I might be wrong on that one.

33 minutes ago, nauseus said:

A broad statement. What can we veto?

Back in 1974, and which could be history now, is that any constitutional changes to the EU treaties - to make the EU more federal, or (Euro-sceptics note) less federal - have to be agreed by all 12 members. Thus Britain has a formal veto over constitutional change.

 

No idea if this still applies in 2018, but according to Duncan-Smith this is still relevant. Otherwise, what does seem to apply is that the UK can vote against a proposal, but that has to be backed up by other EU countries. In practice, the EU makes proposals that meet every member country's agenda, and are passed without any voting required. 

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

A broad statement. What can we veto?

For important decisions such as amending treaties, fiscal policy, social policy, etc... a full majority is still required at the Council.

For other decisions, a double majority of 55% of member states and 65% of population is required, so UK as one of the most populated state is not without weight in the process.

Practically, the Council tries to reach consensus and I don't remember of any significant decision having not been made unanimously, I.e without UK voting for it.

 

On 7/1/2018 at 7:37 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

I volunteered with Labour during the last election.

 

As I remarked at the time here on TVF, despite speaking face to face with  over a hundred people a day in what was a very strongly pro Brexit area, no more than two people a day raised Brexit as an issue.

 

The top concerns were: welfare, the NHS, local services, jobs and wages. [edit] housing and rents.

Next time speak to the ordinary man in the street, and not restrict your conversations to the party activist, who blindly follow any process that they hope will result in 

Just now, nontabury said:

Next time speak to the ordinary man in the street, and not restrict your conversations to the party activist, who blindly follow any process that they hope will result in 

I spent my time canvassing, knocking on people’s doors and talking with them.

 

I spent Election Day driving people with mobility or transport problems to and from polling stations. (some I’m sure were not Labour voters, but then if I helped people vote, I helped democracy).

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Yes, what I was pointing out the other day (possibly on a closed topic). The big EP groups with the real voting power are dominated by the Germans and French, with Italian (at least for now) and Spanish support.

 

It's hard enough for the UK to block anything, let alone get anything through.

The UK has been quite influent on some matters. For example, Britain was a keen supporter and indeed a “driver” of accession of Central and Eastern European countries into the EU from early on (starting with M. Thatcher). It has also been proactive in allowing freedom of movement for workers from these countries  ?

1 minute ago, candide said:

The UK has been quite influent on some matters. For example, Britain was a keen supporter and indeed a “driver” of accession of Central and Eastern European countries into the EU from early on (starting with M. Thatcher). It has also been proactive in allowing freedom of movement for workers from these countries  ?

Well the latter point (freedom of movement for workers from Eastern and Central European countries) really illustrates the whole problem with the UK's approach to the EU in recent years at least. The Governments thought it was a jolly good idea. The people, when finally (reluctantly, almost accidentally) given a say on the matter, disagreed.

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

A broad statement. What can we veto?

 

Tick-tock.

By example: 

 

The assention of Turkey to the EU.

 

Turkey joining the EU followed by a flood of Turkish Muslims into the UK was one of the many Brexit lies.

 

The UK could veto Turkey joining the EU.

 

That's a whole lotta hogwash here. There is never a 'last' call. All is happening behind the scene. What May and Brussels have worked out will be seen soon. They will make a new deal that will allow Britain to cut their annual contribution to Brussel, already at a low 65 or so percent.

This way, all will be continuing and the Brits will be 'happy' with the hogwash tactics. 

It has been a seesaw right from the start, something which should have long been decided.

 

Making more bucks with Brexit. Deception is their game. Always has been.

15 minutes ago, JAG said:

Well the latter point (freedom of movement for workers from Eastern and Central European countries) really illustrates the whole problem with the UK's approach to the EU in recent years at least. The Governments thought it was a jolly good idea. The people, when finally (reluctantly, almost accidentally) given a say on the matter, disagreed.

Here’s duplicitous for you.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/27/boris-johnson-says-britain-will-now-help-turkey-join-eu-despite/

5 hours ago, JAG said:

Only those that agree with "Grouse" can vote.

Great idea!

2 hours ago, vogie said:

Why do you blame the UK every time, the blame game must lie with Juncker, without Juncker I believe the UK would still be in the EU. He has prevented reform within the EU.

OK, let's remove him. Agreed?

12 minutes ago, Grouse said:

OK, let's remove him. Agreed?

 

 

As in "permanently".............. ?

 

 

Either way, you have my vote.

Quote

A former key aide to Barack Obama has confirmed David Cameron personally asked the US president to warn Britain would be "back of the queue" for a post-Brexit trade deal.

https://news.sky.com/story/cameron-personally-requested-obamas-back-of-the-queue-brexit-warning-11423669

 

Let's see the remainers spin that one.

 

Having said that, it probably made more people decide to vote leave ??

7 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

https://news.sky.com/story/cameron-personally-requested-obamas-back-of-the-queue-brexit-warning-11423669

 

Let's see the remainers spin that one.

 

Having said that, it probably made more people decide to vote leave ??

Well if Trump is still POTUS then we won't be in the queue at all!

 

May writing a new "customs union" to present later this week. JRM threatening a coup if May doesn't deliver the Brexit she promised, which she can't do and never could.  All going swimmingly well then.  

5 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

May writing a new "customs union" to present later this week. JRM threatening a coup if May doesn't deliver the Brexit she promised, which she can't do and never could.  All going swimmingly well then.  

How can she not deliver 

 

To paraphrase

 

'' Brexit means Brexit '' and '' No deal is better than a bad deal ''

 

WTO rules it is. Now get on with it.

28 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

https://news.sky.com/story/cameron-personally-requested-obamas-back-of-the-queue-brexit-warning-11423669

 

Let's see the remainers spin that one.

 

Having said that, it probably made more people decide to vote leave ??

He's got form there - he asked Obama, Putin and the Queen to tell us uppity Scots that we have never had it so good.

7 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

He's got form there - he asked Obama, Putin and the Queen to tell us uppity Scots that we have never had it so good.

Was that when the Scots tried to break up the Union in 2014 and in the years 2016 - 18, we have Scots screaming that leaving the EU will break up the Union.

 

It would be funny - Except they are not bright enough to work out the rank hypocrisy.

2 hours ago, stephenterry said:

Back in 1974, and which could be history now, is that any constitutional changes to the EU treaties - to make the EU more federal, or (Euro-sceptics note) less federal - have to be agreed by all 12 members. Thus Britain has a formal veto over constitutional change.

 

No idea if this still applies in 2018, but according to Duncan-Smith this is still relevant. Otherwise, what does seem to apply is that the UK can vote against a proposal, but that has to be backed up by other EU countries. In practice, the EU makes proposals that meet every member country's agenda, and are passed without any voting required. 

That does not really answer my question then.

2 hours ago, candide said:

For important decisions such as amending treaties, fiscal policy, social policy, etc... a full majority is still required at the Council.

For other decisions, a double majority of 55% of member states and 65% of population is required, so UK as one of the most populated state is not without weight in the process.

Practically, the Council tries to reach consensus and I don't remember of any significant decision having not been made unanimously, I.e without UK voting for it.

 

My question remains unanswered. Surprise surprise. 

2 hours ago, candide said:

The UK has been quite influent on some matters. For example, Britain was a keen supporter and indeed a “driver” of accession of Central and Eastern European countries into the EU from early on (starting with M. Thatcher). It has also been proactive in allowing freedom of movement for workers from these countries  ?

Wonderful.

13 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

Was that when the Scots tried to break up the Union in 2014 and in the years 2016 - 18, we have Scots screaming that leaving the EU will break up the Union.

 

We need to be seen to play the game, but the end result is all that matters. You, of all people, should understand the importance of a country making its own decisions within its own parliament rather than them being made by another country. 

 

15 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

It would be funny - Except they are not bright enough to work out the rank hypocrisy.

Sigh.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

By example: 

 

The assention of Turkey to the EU.

 

Turkey joining the EU followed by a flood of Turkish Muslims into the UK was one of the many Brexit lies.

 

The UK could veto Turkey joining the EU.

 

OK then. Does the mean the UK can veto everything if it wants to?

10 minutes ago, nauseus said:

OK then. Does the mean the UK can veto everything if it wants to?

I suggest you look it up. Give you something to do, and then post the outcome. 

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

OK then. Does the mean the UK can veto everything if it wants to?

Hopefully not. UK can veto to some fundamental votes, but hopefully not everything.

 

It would be quite sad to see minority dictatorship within EU.

 

No, EU is not Commonwealth society, where Britain has the Queen and be the centre of the known world. That was what UK wishes to be, but it's times of the long gone glory.

 

Now we work together, without a master race, dictating what to do. This new world order requires us all to work together, making compromises, which sometimes feels like defeats to us, but are actually beneficial to us all. 

 

That's how to world works. 

 

Unless one country wishes to isolate itself to be fully "independent". Then it's up to them to become the Venezuela of the west. Proud and independent, laughing how stupid the other countries, with their globalist views are. Good luck.

 

 

 

This was interesting, I went back to the glory days of good old Tony Blur:

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1555187/Blair-to-surrender-British-vetoes-at-EU-summit.html

 

Concerning the proposed EU Constitution at the time from this article:

 

Two opinion polls published last night also showed growing public scepticism towards a revived EU constitution.

A YouGov survey found that 72 per cent of voters want to make the final decision even if ministers claim national sovereignty is unaffected by this week's deal.

Said proposed EU Constitution was abandoned after it was rejected by France and Holland - then revamped into the Lisbon Treaty of 2009 - cosmetic changes but no referendum then though. 

 

5 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

I suggest you look it up. Give you something to do, and then post the outcome. 

OK done. The answer is no.