The Single Market... Johnsons lies come home to roost

LaPennaBianca said:
The veto comes in the Council where each country is represented by their head of state and it requires unanimity. Nothing to do with MEPs.

Yes MEPs have a say in policy, but nothing gets done without the council's approval. Especially not treaty changes - which is the only way to change the SM and CU. If the UK was in the SM and CU but not in the council then we'd be affected by this hypothetical new treaty. If we were a full member we'd have a role in drafting it (as with Maastricht and Lisbon) and be able to veto it. We'd even have the chance to have a referendum on it.
Click to expand...
I don't have a problem with the EU creating trade policy. It's the other political agendas I may have a problem with.
 
LaPennaBianca said:
The veto comes in the Council where each country is represented by their head of state and it requires unanimity. Nothing to do with MEPs.

Yes MEPs have a say in policy, but nothing gets done without the council's approval. Especially not treaty changes - which is the only way to change the SM and CU. If the UK was in the SM and CU but not in the council then we'd be affected by this hypothetical new treaty. If we were a full member we'd have a role in drafting it (as with Maastricht and Lisbon) and be able to veto it. We'd even have the chance to have a referendum on it.
Click to expand...
Crikey "we'd even have the chance to have a referendum on it". Imagine how lucky we'd be to have that in our own country!
That only possible if a PM who opposes further EU powers has a majority strong enough to get that through parliament. With the likes of Major that was never going to happen.
Cameron miscalculated dramatically in a way Major was never going to do.

I am far from stupid and appreciate we will have to respect rules to be part of the economic union the EEC has currently morphed into. But "the project" will not engulf us.
Thankfully people like Laughing are also able to call objection to the political superstate that the EU is intent on being.
I'm glad we are out of that, but will pragmatically accept rules where they need to apply.
Whatever Trade/economic agreement we reach with any country/block will have rules which we can not expect to control.
 
LaPennaBianca said:
But it's not spot on - he thinks the EP has the only veto.
Click to expand...
Read my responses - they make clear where my mis-trust of veto lies. A PM so pro Euro project can easily block any referendum. Major did.
A leader like Hammond would never have allowed for a mis-calculation like Cameron did.
 
indeedido said:
Read my responses - they make clear where my mis-trust of veto lies. A PM so pro Euro project can easily block any referendum. Major did.
A leader like Hammond would never have allowed for a mis-calculation like Cameron did.
Click to expand...
It's true, but you've not read mine.

If we are in the SM and CU but out of the political side we have no recourse It wouldn't matter if it was Hammond, Major, Johnson, Cameron, Corbyn or Gareth Southgate - we'd *have* to lump it.

IF we were in, then we'd be able to input into the drafting of the treaties (like with Maastricht and Lisbon) and l, if we so wished, veto. That would of course depend on the gov of the day, but it would be am option available.

So it's a question of possible (even if you think improbable) Vs Impossible.
 
Lots and lots of misinformation here.

MEPs had barely any influence of the exercise of EU veto rights.

Where a referendum is required to waive certain veto rights or e.g. proposals to change the EU Treaties, joining the euro, or giving up our national border controls there is no legal means of avoiding that referendum.

Being members of the SM and CU without being a member of the EU represents ceding control to the EU rather than exerting any. It is literally the reason being put forward for not wanting to be part of the so called political union i.e. that we don't want to be swept up by the EU and taken places we don't want to go.

These are not opinions but facts. These arguments do not and have never stood up to any scrutiny.
 
LaPennaBianca said:
It's true, but you've not read mine.

If we are in the SM and CU but out of the political side we have no recourse It wouldn't matter if it was Hammond, Major, Johnson, Cameron, Corbyn or Gareth Southgate - we'd *have* to lump it.

IF we were in, the we'd be able to input into the drafting of the treaties (like with Maastricht and Lisbon) and l, if we so wished, veto. That would of course depend on the gov of the day, but it would be am option available.

So it's a question of possible (even if you think improbable) Vs Impossible.
Click to expand...
I think that is complete spin.
I don't think we will significantly influence the still broader unification of Europe from within. It is on a path. Fat lot of good it did us having input into Maastricht and Lisbon and their concentration of central powers.
An EU supportive PM will not veto anything.
The EU would far prefer us in the Single Market and Customs Union, so we would still have some influence in economic affairs if we were not in the "full EU" and where that goes.
I don't care if we don't have influence in the rest of the European convergence.
 
LaPennaBianca said:
So why did you say that our veto depended on our number of MEPs? Banter?
Click to expand...
No because as in parliament MEP's have a right to question the parliamentary commission and the right to table amendments to anything proposed in parliament. The first power is particular pertinent given that I don't believe the EU parliament is very democratic even though many would disagree with that too.

It's the primary reason I don't want any part of the political union. There are other reasons, the 100 grand a year salary and the 5 grand a month expense account. The 3.5% of gross salary as a pension for every year they serve rankles with me too. Thats 10 years as an mep gives you a pension of 35 grand a year and we have just removed the triple lock on our state pension.

There are other reasons some more pertinent than others.
 
indeedido said:
I think that is complete spin.
I don't think we will significantly influence the still broader unification of Europe from within. It is on a path. Fat lot of good it did us having input into Maastricht and Lisbon and their concentration of central powers.
An EU supportive PM will not veto anything.
The EU would far prefer us in the Single Market and Customs Union, so we would still have some influence in economic affairs if we were not in the "full EU" and where that goes.
I don't care if we don't have influence in the rest of the European convergence.
Click to expand...

You can't accuse me of spin when I've just laid out the literal reality of how the EU functions and the powers of Member States over non-Member States while you just assert what the 'EU would far prefer' with no evidence.

And the UK wouldn't be alone in opposing further integration. Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and the Nordic countries would also oppose as well.

We're talking in circles here. You dislike the idea of a political union, but that can't be divorced from the SM on which it's based.
 
Laughing said:
No because as in parliament MEP's have a right to question the parliamentary commission and the right to table amendments to anything proposed in parliament. The first power is particular pertinent given that I don't believe the EU parliament is very democratic even though many would disagree with that too.

It's the primary reason I don't want any part of the political union. There are other reasons, the 100 grand a year salary and the 5 grand a month expense account. The 3.5% of gross salary as a pension for every year they serve rankles with me too. Thats 10 years as an mep gives you a pension of 35 grand a year and we have just removed the triple lock on our state pension.

There are other reasons some more pertinent than others.
Click to expand...
But what has any of this got to do with the fact that the power to veto still lies with the council - which is our elected appointed head of national government?
 
indeedido said:
The EU would far prefer us in the Single Market and Customs Union, so we would still have some influence in economic affairs if we were not in the "full EU" and where that goes.
Click to expand...

This is pie in the sky. The negotiations of the last few years have demonstrated just how strongly the EU is prepared to defend the union. It's exceptionalism again. We would not be given any sort of preferential treatment to be members of the SM and CU. We would either play by their rules or not at all. And you can't separate the political union from the economic one. That is the unicorn.

Laughing said:
No because as in parliament MEP's have a right to question the parliamentary commission and the right to table amendments to anything proposed in parliament. The first power is particular pertinent given that I don't believe the EU parliament is very democratic even though many would disagree with that too.

It's the primary reason I don't want any part of the political union. There are other reasons, the 100 grand a year salary and the 5 grand a month expense account. The 3.5% of gross salary as a pension for every year they serve rankles with me too. Thats 10 years as an mep gives you a pension of 35 grand a year and we have just removed the triple lock on our state pension.

There are other reasons some more pertinent than others.
Click to expand...

The power of veto is held by the member state, not the MEP. You're saying that the primary reason you don't want to be part of the political union was the influence of MEPs who literally have next to no influence. It is the council that holds the power, delegated to them by the member states whose governments have in turn been delegated that power by the electorate, to which certain powers are still reserved by the requirement to have a referendum. It genuinely doesn't make any sense to me.

And didn't we only have 70-odd MEPs? So your other problem is with less than a hundred people being paid well?
 
LaPennaBianca said:
But what has any of this got to do with the fact that the power to veto still lies with the council - which is our elected appointed head of national government?
Click to expand...
It ignores that what is being vetoed is amended by meps. Those amendments are likely to be tabled by meps that support the political union. The Council being questioned by EU sympathisers is hardly thorough scrutiny.
 
Laughing said:
It ignores that what is being vetoed is amended by meps. Those amendments are likely to be tabled by meps that support the political union. The Council being questioned by EU sympathisers is hardly thorough scrutiny.
Click to expand...

But you accept presumably that legislation and amendments must be approved by both the Council and the Parliament to be enacted?
 
Adi_Dem said:
Lots and lots of misinformation here.

MEPs had barely any influence of the exercise of EU veto rights.

Where a referendum is required to waive certain veto rights or e.g. proposals to change the EU Treaties, joining the euro, or giving up our national border controls there is no legal means of avoiding that referendum.

Being members of the SM and CU without being a member of the EU represents ceding control to the EU rather than exerting any. It is literally the reason being put forward for not wanting to be part of the so called political union i.e. that we don't want to be swept up by the EU and taken places we don't want to go.

These are not opinions but facts. These arguments do not and have never stood up to any scrutiny.
Click to expand...
More jaundiced interpretation and selective observations.
Of course being members of the SM and CU concedes power to EU on the conditions of inclusion in those specific arrangements. We can't stand alone and we do need Trade agreements.
We supposedly had input into the Maastricht and Lisbon political concentration and centralisation of European power. We had PM's who had no intention of vetoing and no intention of putting anything to referendum. These were fundamental changes.
I am not delighted with all aspects of the SM or CU but economically we can't have our cake and eat it. It is what it is and given we are unlikely to change it, we are better in it than out of it.
If we do rejoin those, and further political development and centralisation of the EU then attempts to change the SM and CU, then we would have a clear choice to make about leaving those arrangements again; but it would then be a much bigger deal to vote on joining once more the whole bloated showboat and where that had sailed and was sailing to.
It depends where your belief lies.
Some believe we can influence best within and are happy to let the behometh grow in scale and reach. They believe there are voting rights and vetos that leave us still in ultimate control. They point to rules and terms and hypotheticals of their own.
Others believe we don't have to be all in, accept we will take rules on some things as we would have to with any economic agreement. They don't conceptually like the central project and don't trust in conceptual rights and vetos that give illusion of influence and security.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top