Least Surprising News of The Day..

That was pointed out as a lie, but Brexers don't care.
 
Funny how the brexit campaign claimed that tens of millions of turks would be coming here when they joined the EU...

Well the fact is that the UK would have had a veto option!
Amazing how these remainers with brains as big as planets can't get their head around the fact vetos days are numbered, ask von de Leyen if you don't believe me.
 
Amazing how these remainers with brains as big as planets can't get their head around the fact vetos days are numbered, ask von de Leyen if you don't believe me.
And you can't when some one explains what it really means. ;) The same group probably voted for MEP's that had no interest at all in getting anything useful for the country out of that prearticular area and just enjoyed the salaries and media exposure. Farage is very clear about what he gained from the media exposure. It even allowed him to threaten the Tory - form another party and rob them of votes or do what I want.
 
Oh dear all these google followers on here and they can't find this or understand the implications, you just keep on believing it's one big happy clappy club.
Or this.

 
Oh dear all these google followers on here and they can't find this or understand the implications, you just keep on believing it's one big happy clappy club.
Or this.

Both of those articles are positive outcomes for member states.
 
Funny how the brexit campaign claimed that tens of millions of turks would be coming here when they joined the EU...

Well the fact is that the UK would have had a veto option!
its odd how all these Turkish barber shops have sprung up since we left
 
Oh dear all these google followers on here and they can't find this or understand the implications, you just keep on believing it's one big happy clappy club.
did you not read the articles or did you not understand them
which is it?

as they dont mention end of the veto, only in some areas: "in areas such as sanctions, the so-called passerelle clauses, and in emergencies;"
 
Oh dear all these google followers on here and they can't find this or understand the implications, you just keep on believing it's one big happy clappy club.
Or this.

gant yet again proves his inability to understand the governance of the European Union.
There's Treaties and there's other normal Parliamentary business such as Finance, Health, Defence, Energy, etc.

Now it's currently written into EU Treaties (agreed unanimously among members) that these Treaties can only be changed unanimously.
And in those Treaties, it sets out the way that EU Parliament/Council business is conducted, currently only by unanimous accord of all members (nation members, not MPs).
What is being discussed is whether the EU Parliament/Council can conduct business with a majority vote deciding issues.
If this is agreed, then it will be re-written into a Treaty, which will require a unanimous approval of all members.
Then the EU Parliament/Council day-to-day business can be conducted on a majority vote (just like the UK parliament).
But the Treaties will still need a unanimous accord for any future Treaty changes.

I do appreciate it's slightly technical, but I would have thought it's possible you could understand it.
Imagine it as the Treaty (s) being like the UK constitution (which doesn't exist, by the way) which describes how the government works. And in that constitution it determines the majority vote in Parliament will carry the motions.
And to take it a stage further, if the Constitution was to be modified, it would require a unanimous agreement of all MPs, which it currently doesn't in UK, the Government of the day can change the (unwritten) constitution to scurry away their dodgy dealings and dodgy MPs, with a simple majority.
 
Last edited:
did you not read the articles or did you not understand them
which is it?

as they dont mention end of the veto, only in some areas: "in areas such as sanctions, the so-called passerelle clauses, and in emergencies;"
You obviously don't understand the term mission creep, you just keep following your leaders there's a good boy.
 
gant yet again proves his inability to understand the governance of the European Union.
There's Treaties and there's other normal Parliamentary business such as Finance, Health, Defence, Energy, etc.

Now it's currently written into EU Treaties (agreed unanimously among members) that these Treaties can only be changed unanimously.
And in those Treaties, it sets out the way that EU Parliament business is conducted, currently only by unanimous accord of all members.
What is being discussed is whether the EU Parliament can conduct business with a majority vote deciding issues.
If this is agreed, then it will be re-written into a Treaty, which will require a unanimous approval of all members.
Then the EU Parliament day-to-day business can be conducted on a majority vote (just like the UK parliament).
But the Treaties will still need a unanimous accord for any future Treaty changes.
Your just a lickspittle so I won't be giving you the time of day but feel free to have a one way conversation.
 
Oh dear all these google followers on here and they can't find this or understand the implications, you just keep on believing it's one big happy clappy club.
Or this.

As I said,
Not for new members accession, no plans to change that.
 
Back
Top