The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (305 Viewers)

[Astute]

We can sell things to Japan though. Are they pulling out of Europe or out of the UK?

So who will be better off? I will give you a clue. It won't be us. Just like it isn't us with trade in the EU.

 

---

[Astute]

The irony being that Japan was one of the country’s banded around by leavers that we must leave to do a trade deal with. Shame non of the leave lot stopped to engage their brains that actually being in the EU was actually protecting jobs with Japanese manufacturers in the U.K. The minute we voted leave the EU clambered over itself to get a trade deal done with Japan as there was no longer a risk of us vetoing it to protect British jobs. India has also stated its exited by us leaving as they can now finally do a trade deal with the EU now we’re no longer able to veto it. Another country banded around by leavers as a reason to leave despite the fact that we always could have had the trade deal if we hadn’t vetoed it.

You just don't have a clue.

Being part of the EU means we have a trade deal with Japan. So Japan can now close all manufacturing in the EU countries which includes us. Being a part of the EU hasn't helped here in the slightest.

 

[Astute]

The leave argument was that we want a „cut and paste“ FTA with Japan. Liam Fox is in charge of that. Japan have stated that any trade deal with the UK won’t be as good as that with the EU. If Japan makes cars in the EU or Japan, there is no difference, apart from transport costs. There will be a difference if they make them in the UK.

And as you well know there are idiots on both sides that know much less than many on here. But you want us to concentrate on those happy to see us leave only.

 

[martcov]

Yes Mart. Of course Mart.

And I suppose remain told the truth......

If only you could look at both sides the same way you would see the whole situation much better.

Remain made some exaggerated predictions which have only partly come true or not come true. Leave have told whoppers. Brexit is not going at all to plan because it was built on lies. The latest example of a liar is the new Minister of Defence who claimed we had no veto on stopping Turkey joining the EU. She was informed that we did, but continued lying. IDS was caught out lying in an interview with the ex head of the WTO sitting next to him in an interview a couple of days ago. Lying in front of a guy who has had years of experience with WTO, Pascal Lamy. It is constant lies from leave. They are getting even more blatant as Brexit continues to flounder.

 

[martcov]

And as you well know there are idiots on both sides that know much less than many on here. But you want us to concentrate on those happy to see us leave only.

Leaving is changing the status quo. It is a dangerous gamble based on lies. If remain had won and it turned out all vetos could be cancelled by Frau Merkel and the fourth Reich, I would be calling them out. They didn’t and that cannot happen, so, yes, I am calling the leave lies out.

 

[Grendel]

Leaving is changing the status quo. It is a dangerous gamble based on lies. If remain had won and it turned out all vetos could be cancelled by Frau Merkel and the fourth Reich, I would be calling them out. They didn’t and that cannot happen, so, yes, I am calling the leave lies out.

They can be cancelled within the Eu constitution rules

 

[martcov]

They can be cancelled within the Eu constitution rules

Show me the rule that says that. Do you have to have unanimous consent to do away with vetos?

 

[SkyBlueDom26]

Have you accepted the result of the ref yet mart?

 

[martcov]

They can be cancelled within the Eu constitution rules

Fact Check: would the UK have a veto on Turkey joining the EU?

 

[martcov]

Have you accepted the result of the ref yet mart?

You mean the flawed advisory referendum based on lies, dark money, overspending and not giving a majority to any particular form of Brexit that has split the country and the government and the result of which is nothing like what was promised before the referendum? You mean that one? No, of course I haven’t accepted it.

 

[Grendel]

Show me the rule that says that. Do you have to have unanimous consent to do away with vetos?

Providing they can move legislation with the support of the European Parliament and European council the veto on key areas can be removed.

They are already looking at harmonisation of fiscal policy across all member states and aim to implement by 2025 and remove the power of veto in that area regarding taxation and VAT

The Eu pretty much makes rules on the hoof as the decision of unilateral revoking of article 50 proved as it works in Brussels favour.

Also the farce over Scottish independence - the legislation here is very specific and the rules clear. If they became independent they would be prevented from Eu membership for at least two years. Yet there was an indication this would be “changed” to allow immediate entry. The Eu legislature process is about as robust as a banana republic it changes to suit time and time again

The key though is the fiscal ambition and it’s been stated vetos can and will be removed to ensure total harmonisation

 

[Grendel]

Fact Check: would the UK have a veto on Turkey joining the EU?

Oh dear

 

[Grendel]

EU announces plan to scrap member state veto on tax policy

 

[martcov]

EU announces plan to scrap member state veto on tax policy

Read the last sentence and not just the headline. “The proposal would need to get past the European Parliament and European Council, where it is expected to face opposition“ It is a proposal and it won’t get through without unanimous consent. The 15% minimum VAT, plus exceptions, only got through by unanimous consent. The U.K. waived it’s veto in this instance.

 

[martcov]

Oh dear

Still waiting. Where is your link to prove your lie? There isn’t one. Just confirmed, yet again, my point that leavers are lying, and if anything lying at a faster rate ( as is Trump BTW ), as Brexit continues to flounder.

 

[martcov]

EU announces plan to scrap member state veto on tax policy

An Irish account of what Juncker said: EU should scrap national vetoes on tax, says Juncker

 

[skybluetony176]

You just don't have a clue.

Being part of the EU means we have a trade deal with Japan. So Japan can now close all manufacturing in the EU countries which includes us. Being a part of the EU hasn't helped here in the slightest.

Yes I do have a clue which is why I say it is ironic as Japan is one of the country’s brexiteers claimed we have to leave the EU to get a free trade deal with. If we were remaining in the EU we could veto this trade deal to help safeguard British jobs and the deal won’t happen. This has been India’s frustration in getting a trade deal with the EU as we keep vetoing it over proposed new visa rules as part of the trade deal. India. India sees Brexit as an opportunity to do a deal with the EU not the U.K. and have stated that any U.K. India trade deal post brexit must include new visa rules making it easier for Indian nationals to travel to the U.K. Only we’re now that desperate to get a trade deal over the line so Fox and his cronies can say I told you so will now accept the new visa rules that we had the luxury of vetoing as EU members. In another twist of irony the EU Japan trade deal is being pointed to as what we need to achieve with a U.K. Japan trade deal post brexit.

So basically you’ve missed what is actually happening and Brexit is loosing us the protection of the veto meaning U.K. jobs are threatened by the EU Japan trade deal as they will be by a U.K. Japan trade deal that aims to emulate what the EU has achieved. It also means that rather than taking control of our borders we’re making them easier to access in exchange for a trade deal which has the danger of increasing illegal immigrants as despite the hysteria surrounding people crossing the channel in rubber dinghies, stowaways in lorry’s, people clinging to the side of ships etc, visa overstay is by far the biggest issue with regards to illegal immigrants in this country.

 

[Grendel]

Still waiting. Where is your link to prove your lie? There isn’t one. Just confirmed, yet again, my point that leavers are lying, and if anything lying at a faster rate ( as is Trump BTW ), as Brexit continues to flounder.

It’s not a lie. The Eu constantly change the way they approve legislature powers - constantly - and can put treaties through without individual consent - Lisbon and Maastricht being the classic examples where countries views were ignored and against all democratic principals were shoved through

The Lisbon treaty itself weakened the veto by reducing areas where unanimous voting is required to pass legislation. - therefore the Eu can very easily do this again with another treaty which means only 15 states are required to approve legislation to pass it thereby eliminating the veto

 

[martcov]

It’s not a lie. The Eu constantly change the way they approve legislature powers - constantly - and can put treaties through without individual consent - Lisbon and Maastricht being the classic examples where countries views were ignored and against all democratic principals were shoved through

The Lisbon treaty itself weakened the veto by reducing areas where unanimous voting is required to pass legislation. - therefore the Eu can very easily do this again with another treaty which means only 15 states are required to approve legislation to pass it thereby eliminating the veto

No it doesn’t. Constantly? You named 2 examples since we have members - in nearly 50 years. The Lisbon Treaty did away with some vetos, but not the most sensitive. The Lisbon Treaty was signed by all governments. If the British government doesn’t want Turkey, then that is it. If the British government doesn’t want to give up it’s veto, then it doesn’t. It is not complicated.

 

[skybluetony176]

No it doesn’t. Constantly? You named 2 examples since we have members - in nearly 50 years. The Lisbon Treaty did away with some vetos, but not the most sensitive. The Lisbon Treaty was signed by all governments. If the British government doesn’t want Turkey, then that is it. If the British government doesn’t want to give up it’s veto, then it doesn’t. It is not complicated.

The myth here of course is that Turkey wants to join the EU. You may as well be arguing that the U.K. couldn’t veto North Korea joining the EU. Which of course the U.K. could do anyway.

 

[martcov]

Yes I do have a clue which is why I say it is ironic as Japan is one of the country’s brexiteers claimed we have to leave the EU to get a free trade deal with. If we were remaining in the EU we could veto this trade deal to help safeguard British jobs and the deal won’t happen. This has been India’s frustration in getting a trade deal with the EU as we keep vetoing it over proposed new visa rules as part of the trade deal. India. India sees Brexit as an opportunity to do a deal with the EU not the U.K. and have stated that any U.K. India trade deal post brexit must include new visa rules making it easier for Indian nationals to travel to the U.K. Only we’re now that desperate to get a trade deal over the line so Fox and his cronies can say I told you so will now accept the new visa rules that we had the luxury of vetoing as EU members. In another twist of irony the EU Japan trade deal is being pointed to as what we need to achieve with a U.K. Japan trade deal post brexit.

So basically you’ve missed what is actually happening and Brexit is loosing us the protection of the veto meaning U.K. jobs are threatened by the EU Japan trade deal as they will be by a U.K. Japan trade deal that aims to emulate what the EU has achieved. It also means that rather than taking control of our borders we’re making them easier to access in exchange for a trade deal which has the danger of increasing illegal immigrants as despite the hysteria surrounding people crossing the channel in rubber dinghies, stowaways in lorry’s, people clinging to the side of ships etc, visa overstay is by far the biggest issue with regards to illegal immigrants in this country.

Liam Fox wanted to rubber stamp the EU Japan agreement. It’s what leavers want... apparently. Now the EU has it and we have no chance of getting a deal on the same or better terms than the EU, it has become a stick to beat the EU with. And you, @ Astute, have the cheek to say the leave side doesn’t lie.

 

[Grendel]

No it doesn’t. Constantly? You named 2 examples since we have members - in nearly 50 years. The Lisbon Treaty did away with some vetos, but not the most sensitive. The Lisbon Treaty was signed by all governments. If the British government doesn’t want Turkey, then that is it. If the British government doesn’t want to give up it’s veto, then it doesn’t. It is not complicated.

I’m not talking about turkey

Answer this - is it within Eu legislative powers to propose a treaty which changed the voting structure of the legislative bodies so the veto on that issue is weakened or vanishes?

Answer yes or no please

 

[dutchman]

The myth here of course is that Turkey wants to join the EU.

Accession of Turkey to the European Union - Wikipedia
Turkey is negotiating its accession to the European Union (EU) as a member state, following its application accede to the European Economic Community, the predecessor of the EU, on 14 April 1987.
Turkey signed a Customs Union agreement with the EU in 1995 and was officially recognised as a candidate for full membership on 12 December 1999, at the Helsinki summit of the European Council.
Negotiations for full membership were started on 3 October 2005. Progress was slow, and out of the 35 Chapters necessary to complete the accession process only 16 had been opened and one had been closed by May 2016.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

What are you blathering about you melon?

Think it is Ed that was doing the blathering...but surprise surprise not leading by example - just stocking up his excuses. He could easily exchange his gas guzzler for an electric one but not quite got around to taking action yet.

You don’t fix systemic carbon output (mostly from industry) by individual actions. That’s what national and supranational bodies are for. We didn’t fix the ozone layer by asking everyone to use the fridge less, we banned CFCs.

So why are non-electric cars being phased out? Why are towns & cities looking to stop fuel burning vehicles entering them? Emissions from carbon-fuel are a major contributor to various health issues as well as global warming, you melon!

Fuck me.

Thanks for the kind offer - but I will pass if that is ok?



Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[SkyblueBazza]

It’s not a lie. The Eu constantly change the way they approve legislature powers - constantly - and can put treaties through without individual consent - Lisbon and Maastricht being the classic examples where countries views were ignored and against all democratic principals were shoved through

The Lisbon treaty itself weakened the veto by reducing areas where unanimous voting is required to pass legislation. - therefore the Eu can very easily do this again with another treaty which means only 15 states are required to approve legislation to pass it thereby eliminating the veto

And WILL change the rules on vetos...so they only apply in ever decreasing circumstances over a protracted time period. Anything important to feeding the machine will be steamrollered through

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[skybluetony176]

Accession of Turkey to the European Union - Wikipedia
Turkey is negotiating its accession to the European Union (EU) as a member state, following its application accede to the European Economic Community, the predecessor of the EU, on 14 April 1987.
Turkey signed a Customs Union agreement with the EU in 1995 and was officially recognised as a candidate for full membership on 12 December 1999, at the Helsinki summit of the European Council.
Negotiations for full membership were started on 3 October 2005. Progress was slow, and out of the 35 Chapters necessary to complete the accession process only 16 had been opened and one had been closed by May 2016.

Thank you for confirming what I said. Very good of you.

 

[Astute]

Read the last sentence and not just the headline. “The proposal would need to get past the European Parliament and European Council, where it is expected to face opposition“ It is a proposal and it won’t get through without unanimous consent. The 15% minimum VAT, plus exceptions, only got through by unanimous consent. The U.K. waived it’s veto in this instance.

European what?

How about where Selmayr only got 10 votes out of well over 500 on keeping the position he should have never got as it broke EU laws, rules and regulations? There was very serious opposition. Yet what happened?

Like you finally agreed Selmayr should have lost his position if only to show there is transparency in the EU. So you agreed that there is no transparency in the EU. Yet you try and make out that the opposite is true.

 

[skybluetony176]

Liam Fox wanted to rubber stamp the EU Japan agreement. It’s what leavers want... apparently. Now the EU has it and we have no chance of getting a deal on the same or better terms than the EU, it has become a stick to beat the EU with. And you, @ Astute, have the cheek to say the leave side doesn’t lie.

Indeed it is now on the list of trade deals that Fox wants to roll forward.

 

[martcov]

I’m not talking about turkey

Answer this - is it within Eu legislative powers to propose a treaty which changed the voting structure of the legislative bodies so the veto on that issue is weakened or vanishes?

Answer yes or no please

The Commission has just proposed that. So of they can propose things.

 

[martcov]

European what?

How about where Selmayr only got 10 votes out of well over 500 on keeping the position he should have never got as it broke EU laws, rules and regulations? There was very serious opposition. Yet what happened?

Like you finally agreed Selmayr should have lost his position if only to show there is transparency in the EU. So you agreed that there is no transparency in the EU. Yet you try and make out that the opposite is true.

What are you on about? I said Selmayr should have resigned in the interest of transparency. He didn’t = a Union of 500m people is therefore not transparent? WTF.

Now. Back to May‘s appointment as head of the civil service. Was he vetted? Did he have to apply for the job? Are there any rules for the appointment which require transparency? As far as I know...no he wasn’t vetted for security, he didn’t have to apply for the job and May could appoint him without having to go through the normal civil service procedure.

The Selmayr case has nothing whatsoever with the EU Council. The parliament cannot remove a civil servant in any country. They are supposed to be immune to being removed by politicians. Neutral.

Selmayr doesn’t alter the EU one way or another. No effect on veto right which Grendel was twisting.

 

[Grendel]

The Commission has just proposed that. So of they can propose things.

So it’s yes

People will respect you if you admit things

So the veto can be rendered worthless - we are in agreement

 

[martcov]

And WILL change the rules on vetos...so they only apply in ever decreasing circumstances over a protracted time period. Anything important to feeding the machine will be steamrollered through

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

No it won’t. Just more lies. Veto is veto. You cannot take a veto away without the agreement of all parties. It’s really not difficult. Rhetoric not facts. FFS.

 

[martcov]

So it’s yes

People will respect you if you admit things

So the veto can be rendered worthless - we are in agreement

How? How can vetos be rendered worthless without unanimous consent? A veto stops vetos been rendered worthless. Please explain how you come to your conclusion- with a relevant link ( Brexit Party or UKIP links don’t count ). Do you know what a proposal is? Ever turned down a proposal at JLR? Or do they just enact all proposals without discussion and agreement?

 

[martcov]

Accession of Turkey to the European Union - Wikipedia
Turkey is negotiating its accession to the European Union (EU) as a member state, following its application accede to the European Economic Community, the predecessor of the EU, on 14 April 1987.
Turkey signed a Customs Union agreement with the EU in 1995 and was officially recognised as a candidate for full membership on 12 December 1999, at the Helsinki summit of the European Council.
Negotiations for full membership were started on 3 October 2005. Progress was slow, and out of the 35 Chapters necessary to complete the accession process only 16 had been opened and one had been closed by May 2016.

Erdogan has said he is no longer interested in joining the EU. He has not met enough criteria and never will.

 

[Grendel]

How? How can vetos be rendered worthless without unanimous consent? A veto stops vetos been rendered worthless. Please explain how you come to your conclusion- with a relevant link ( Brexit Party or UKIP links don’t count ). Do you know what a proposal is? Ever turned down a proposal at JLR? Or do they just enact all proposals without discussion and agreement?

With respect your links are pro Eu journals which have no more credence than the parties you mention

Yes plenty of proposals get turned get turned down by JLR - they then don’t get introduced anyway as the Lisbon treaty did when a country rejected it

How many voting arrangements are there in the Eu parliament to decide on if legislation is passed - one,two or three and what are they?