Britain nears abandoning Brexit trade deal hope - The Telegraph

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 Kindly give us a few examples of EU legislation where unanimity was required and can now be passed by QMV.

 

However many these amount to, whatever the percentage, as already shown to you several times, any such change from unanimity to QMV must itself be agreed unanimously.

 

I repeat: I obviously have more faith in UK governments than you. Perhaps you can give an example of a weak UK government which caved in under pressure and didn't use it's veto?

 

Not that I expect an answer; it would be a first were you to so do!

 

Your last comment is untrue. But you are right. I won't answer this time. You and your allies just keep rolling out lists of demands and then just wave off the responses. So it's all just a waste of time that I don't have right now anyway.

 

[melvinmelvin]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

You already have the same freedom, sovereignty and self determination as part of the EU.

 

Scotland though has far less freedom, sovereignty and self determination.

 

5555

the jocks think that will change as soon as they become members of EU

555

[melvinmelvin]

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 Kindly give us a few examples of EU legislation where unanimity was required and can now be passed by QMV.

 

However many these amount to, whatever the percentage, as already shown to you several times, any such change from unanimity to QMV must itself be agreed unanimously.

 

I repeat: I obviously have more faith in UK governments than you. Perhaps you can give an example of a weak UK government which caved in under pressure and didn't use it's veto?

 

Not that I expect an answer; it would be a first were you to so do!

 

 

see bold above,

isn't that true for most ordinary directives?

 

[stevenl]

12 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

5555

the jocks think that will change as soon as the become members of EU

555

No, that would be achieved by independence from UK.

 

That is for a different topic though.

[melvinmelvin]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

No, that would be achieved by independence from UK.

 

yes, sure, you are right,

but in that perspective your utterance ain't no funny

when joining EU it becomes funny

 

its Tuersday already, have a Belhaven - its on me

(I don't enjoy heavies unless the weekday is spelt with an r)

 

[david555]

.....!

 

(Page link )
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/08/04/lockdown-news-over-50s-coronavirus-shielding-boris-johnson-brexit/
 

 

Live: Politics latest news: EU rejects Tory MP's call to reopen Brexit divorce deal 
By Cat Neilan, Politics Live Editor 
4 August 2020 • 3:54pm 

The European Commission has rejected calls for the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement to be rewritten after senior Tories complained it could leave the UK liable for £160 billion of unpaid loans.

Former Conservative leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith yesterday claimed the EU "want our money and they want to stop us being a competitor", adding "the Withdrawal Agreement we signed last year sadly helps them".

 

On top of the £39bn divorce bill, he claims the UK is on the hook for defaults on loans made available through the European Investment Bank (EIB) - a AAA-rated multilateral financial institution - and European Financial Stability Mechanism.

 

 

much more...

 

[7by7]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

Your last comment is untrue. But you are right. I won't answer this time. You and your allies just keep rolling out lists of demands and then just wave off the responses. So it's all just a waste of time that I don't have right now anyway.

 

 

I knew you couldn't give even one example and instead would resort to a hissy fit.

 

The only surprise is that you've managed more than one word this time.

[7by7]

2 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

see bold above,

isn't that true for most ordinary directives?

 

 Yes, most directives are passed either by a majority in the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers, and always have been.

 

What @nauseus has claimed, though, is that of those important matters which used to require unanimity in the Council, 80% can now be passed by Qualified Majority Voting. 

 

Of course, QMV has been a principle of the EU since the birth of the EEC in 1957; it's nothing new.

 

See this 2014 paper, Extending Qualified Majority Voting in the European Union: does this mean the end of British sovereignty?

Quote

Have rights been taken away from the UK?

Individual States’ powers of veto have been removed in some of the 43 areas, where unanimous agreement has been replaced with agreement by a qualified majority. This means governments have to work harder to form coalitions, find allies and negotiate compromises.

In many of these areas the UK is not affected by any changes to voting because it has an opt-out from that policy area. So the list of items (as reported on blogs) over which it is claimed the UK will have no control is misleading and in some cases wrong:

(7by7 emphasis)

 

Note also

Quote

Common defence policy: any move towards achieving a common defence policy will be by unanimity. QMV can be used only to establish ‘structured cooperation’ in defence, whereby a group of like-minded Member States choose to cooperate in a defence-related matter. If the UK does not want to participate, it does not have to.

 

Whilst this paper was published in 2014 and it's contents will no longer apply to the UK post Brexit; the facts on QMV and unanimity are there for all to see.

[nauseus]

3 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Yes, most directives are passed either by a majority in the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers, and always have been.

 

What @nauseus has claimed, though, is that of those important matters which used to require unanimity in the Council, 80% can now be passed by Qualified Majority Voting. 

 

Of course, QMV has been a principle of the EU since the birth of the EEC in 1957; it's nothing new.

 

See this 2014 paper, Extending Qualified Majority Voting in the European Union: does this mean the end of British sovereignty?

 

Note also

 

Whilst this paper was published in 2014 and it's contents will no longer apply to the UK post Brexit; the facts on QMV and unanimity are there for all to see.

You have just misquoted me again. So tiresome. Your use of the word important is floppy, just like Wilson & Co in 1975.

[kingdong]

1 hour ago, david555 said:

.....!

 

(Page link )
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/08/04/lockdown-news-over-50s-coronavirus-shielding-boris-johnson-brexit/
 

 

Live: Politics latest news: EU rejects Tory MP's call to reopen Brexit divorce deal 
By Cat Neilan, Politics Live Editor 
4 August 2020 • 3:54pm 

The European Commission has rejected calls for the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement to be rewritten after senior Tories complained it could leave the UK liable for £160 billion of unpaid loans.

Former Conservative leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith yesterday claimed the EU "want our money and they want to stop us being a competitor", adding "the Withdrawal Agreement we signed last year sadly helps them".

 

On top of the £39bn divorce bill, he claims the UK is on the hook for defaults on loans made available through the European Investment Bank (EIB) - a AAA-rated multilateral financial institution - and European Financial Stability Mechanism.

 

 

much more...

 

tell them they're knocked

[david555]

4 minutes ago, kingdong said:

tell them they're knocked

It is him....  your ex Tory headman who tells that , not the E.U. …..they just said as before NO ! to  reopening W.A.   ….

[kingdong]

On 8/3/2020 at 2:42 PM, Rookiescot said:

Problem is the Brexiteers cannot compromise. They have promised complete freedom from the EU to their devout followers. This means there is no room for compromise. 

If only they had said that during the referendum. Then people would have known what they were voting for. There is no way vote leave would have won if they had been honest with people.

So what we got were promises of unicorns and sunny uplands where the rest of the world rolls over and capitulates to the UK's demands. Plenty of meaningless slogans ensured the reality was never going to be exposed or questioned.

If I had voted for leave I would be raging at how I had been lied to and duped into voting for something which will hurt my country. 

But it seems many of them are not bothered about that happening.

what exactly is happening now?not a lot from where i,m sitting except a load of prophesies of doom from the remainers on the basis of ifs buts maybes,and perhapses,its obvious this was going to be the case when cameron went to them cap in hand and they laughed in his face before the referendum,the french are still doing it now with the illegal immigrants crossing the channel,thats why people voted to leave not because of a red bus.

[Lormak]

We don't want to be connected to the EU is any way.

A no deal Brexit with WTO rules is the best way forward. Those prepared to put their backs into and rebuild the country, like after the war, will prosper.

Cut benefits and limit housing rights. Get the newly unemployed out in the fields doing the jobs the immigrants are doing now and then stop immigration.  Then stop benefits to anyone who refuses any job.

[7by7]

18 hours ago, 7by7 said:

<snip>

What @nauseus has claimed, though, is that of those important matters which used to require unanimity in the Council, 80% can now be passed by Qualified Majority Voting. 

 

17 hours ago, nauseus said:

You have just misquoted me again. So tiresome. Your use of the word important is floppy, just like Wilson & Co in 1975.

Misquoted you? Really?

 

A reminder:

On 8/2/2020 at 1:22 PM, nauseus said:

Well, as about 80% of all EU legislation is now passed by QMV.............

 

I admit that I did make an assumption; I assumed that as we were talking about the veto that you meant important matters which used to require unanimity.

 

Are you now saying that my assumption was wrong and you actually meant inconsequential matters of no importance?

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 

Misquoted you? Really?

 

A reminder:

 

I admit that I did make an assumption; I assumed that as we were talking about the veto that you meant important matters which used to require unanimity.

 

Are you now saying that my assumption was wrong and you actually meant inconsequential matters of no importance?

I said that you had misquoted me. And I'm still saying that. If you go back and read it properly, you will see that. 

[Rookiescot]

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

Misquoted you? Really?

 

A reminder:

 

I admit that I did make an assumption; I assumed that as we were talking about the veto that you meant important matters which used to require unanimity.

 

Are you now saying that my assumption was wrong and you actually meant inconsequential matters of no importance?

Wasting your time mate.

All he will keep repeating is "I never said that" even when he is presented with the evidence he did.

Brexiteers have a huge capacity for simply ignoring evidence and then claiming they never said what they did.

It is a talent.

Wish I had it. Would make life a lot simpler if I could.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

Wasting your time mate.

All he will keep repeating is "I never said that" even when he is presented with the evidence he did.

Brexiteers have a huge capacity for simply ignoring evidence and then claiming they never said what they did.

It is a talent.

Wish I had it. Would make life a lot simpler if I could.

If you are so keen on "evidence" why don't check what I really said.   

[Rookiescot]

39 minutes ago, nauseus said:

If you are so keen on "evidence" why don't check what I really said.   

We have been through this already Nauseus.

You take one word out of context in a post and claim it means something completely different.

And by doing so it means what you said is not actually what you said.

Its really obvious and if I'm honest should be beneath you.

You are able to debate without such tactics. 

[7by7]

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

I said that you had misquoted me. And I'm still saying that. If you go back and read it properly, you will see that. 

 

I see, your saying "Well, as about 80% of all EU legislation is now passed by QMV" doesn't mean that about 80% of all EU legislation is now passed by QMV!

 

I am agog; please enlighten us; what does it mean, then? 

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

I see, your saying "Well, as about 80% of all EU legislation is now passed by QMV" doesn't mean that about 80% of all EU legislation is now passed by QMV!

 

I am agog; please enlighten us; what does it mean, then? 

But that's not what you said.....that I said.

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

We have been through this already Nauseus.

You take one word out of context in a post and claim it means something completely different.

And by doing so it means what you said is not actually what you said.

Its really obvious and if I'm honest should be beneath you.

You are able to debate without such tactics. 

No. We haven't. Just compare what I said to what 49 said.  

[Scott]

Keep it civil.   Bickering can result in a suspension.

 

[paddypower]

5 hours ago, Scott said:

Keep it civil.   Bickering can result in a suspension.

 

thank you!! I started debating at school, so in my opinion, these recent posts are not debating, they arguments. Reminds me of the 'I want an argument' sketch by Monty P.

[JonnyF]

1 hour ago, paddypower said:

thank you!! I started debating at school, so in my opinion, these recent posts are not debating, they arguments. Reminds me of the 'I want an argument' sketch by Monty P.

No they're not!

[paddypower]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

No they're not!

I've told you once!

[paddypower]

On 8/3/2020 at 2:46 PM, transam said:

Not again, think that has been done to death over the last 4+ years, chap.....

LSE ? all lefties anyway....

 

[7by7]

15 hours ago, nauseus said:

But that's not what you said.....that I said.

In the post in question I did not quote you word for word, I paraphrased. That's why it was in neither a quote box nor quotation marks.

 

As already said, I did make an assumption; I assumed that as we were talking about the veto that you meant important matters which used to require unanimity.

 

Following your denials, I have asked you for clarification; without a response from you providing such. Instead of posting more nonsense like the above, there is one very simple way for you to clear this up; answer the following.

 

What exactly did you mean when you said "about 80% of all EU legislation is now passed by QMV?"

 

Are you now saying that my assumption was wrong and you actually meant inconsequential matters of no importance?

 

I wonder if you will now clarify what you meant, or as usual simply ignore questions you can't answer.

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, 7by7 said:

In the post in question I did not quote you word for word, I paraphrased. That's why it was in neither a quote box nor quotation marks.

 

As already said, I did make an assumption; I assumed that as we were talking about the veto that you meant important matters which used to require unanimity.

 

Following your denials, I have asked you for clarification; without a response from you providing such. Instead of posting more nonsense like the above, there is one very simple way for you to clear this up; answer the following.

 

What exactly did you mean when you said "about 80% of all EU legislation is now passed by QMV?"

 

Are you now saying that my assumption was wrong and you actually meant inconsequential matters of no importance?

 

I wonder if you will now clarify what you meant, or as usual simply ignore questions you can't answer.

I meant what I said as per the direct quote which you have finally included. A paraphrase can be an alternate wording of the same quote but the intended meaning of the original quote should remain as was. By inserting the word important, you have altered the meaning to promote your own point. You guys do this far too often.

 

When I say "about 80% of all EU legislation is now passed by QMV" then that is all I want to say. The point is that, if you can acknowledge that >50% of UK law is derived from EU law, at present, up to 40% of UK law can be made outside the UK and with us having no veto and no way to avoid it, even if we (or our representatives) didn't want it. 

 

Now, this 80% does include some critical and important laws, as far as I am concerned. But I'm sure that my definition of 'important' is rather more rigid than yours, in this case. 

 

 

 

[evadgib]

HMG are (still) getting on with it ????

Joint statement from the UK Government and European Commission following a meeting of the Specialised Committee on Citizens' Rights

[Logosone]

14 hours ago, nauseus said:

The point is that, if you can acknowledge that >50% of UK law is derived from EU law, at present, up to 40% of UK law can be made outside the UK and with us having no veto and no way to avoid it, even if we (or our representatives) didn't want it. 

Well that's obviously not true. 

 

Because  you can avoid it. You exit the EU. Which you did. So in due course the UK will make most of its laws. How is that possible? Because the UK never lost sovereignty and can leave the EU if it so wants.

 

It's really hard to argue you're a chained up slave when you can leave any time you want.