We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The EU won't be beastly to us because...
Comments
-
A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »Why?
The EU moved the goalposts recently, were you not aware?
Voting now means a "qualified majority" is all that is needed.
In fact now an agreement could still go ahead even if countries representing up to 35% of the EU's population voted against.
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-system/qualified-majority/
The Treaty of Lisbon was signed in 2007 including by the UK. How many decades do you think need to elapse before it will not be "recent"?Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
-
The Treaty of Lisbon was signed in 2007 including by the UK. How many decades do you think need to elapse before it will not be "recent"?
But if you'd actually been bothered to click the link, you'd have seen it read:
A new rule from 1 November 2014"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance" - Confucius0 -
But if you'd actually been bothered to click the link, you'd have seen it read:
A new rule from 1 November 2014
There is no need to be offensive. The post I commented on stated that the goal posts had moved RECENTLY.
The Treaty of Lisbon in 2007 amended the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. Article 238 changed the definition of qualified majority voting which would become effective in 2014.
My point was that even though the process changed in 2014, it was known that it would change in 2007 when the Treaty of Lisbon amended the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU.
As Thrugelmir states the change is not fully effective until 2017. Those who want to argue for using the previous rules (the Nice rules) can seek agreement to do so.
The difference between the Nice and Lisbon Rules is quite small both require 15 nations to vote in favour and that they comprise 65/62% of the population.
So maybe you ought to read the facts before you start resorting to large bold text
A UK Government publication in 2008Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
There is no need to be offensive. The post I commented on stated that the goal posts had moved RECENTLY.
The Treaty of Lisbon in 2007 amended the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. Article 238 changed the definition of qualified majority voting which would become effective in 2014.
My point was that even though the process changed in 2014, it was known that it would change in 2007 when the Treaty of Lisbon amended the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU.
As Thrugelmir states the change is not fully effective until 2017. Those who want to argue for using the previous rules (the Nice rules) can seek agreement to do so.
The difference between the Nice and Lisbon Rules is quite small both require 15 nations to vote in favour and that they comprise 65/62% of the population.
An example of backtracking since you did not read the link correctly, methinks.
Because my original post did clearly show in the link provided that the new ruling commenced November 1st 2014 which I certainly would class as "recent" even if you do not, in your facile response in post # 32 in this thread; "how many years ....".
Consider this: "it was known that it would change in 2007" by whom?
Recently - and the 2014 process change - was known by whom?
Where was any media coverage informing UK citizens (or even other EU citizens) that majority voting rules were changing?
Or when they were changing?
So unless EU citizens had actively looked for these changes, they would have known how exactly?
I welcome you providing evidence from mainstream media - UK or other EU - detailing these (proposed) changes that you say were known.
Good luck with that hunt.0 -
There is no need to be offensive. The post I commented on stated that the goal posts had moved RECENTLY.
The Treaty of Lisbon in 2007 amended the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. Article 238 changed the definition of qualified majority voting which would become effective in 2014.
My point was that even though the process changed in 2014, it was known that it would change in 2007 when the Treaty of Lisbon amended the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU.
As Thrugelmir states the change is not fully effective until 2017. Those who want to argue for using the previous rules (the Nice rules) can seek agreement to do so.
The difference between the Nice and Lisbon Rules is quite small both require 15 nations to vote in favour and that they comprise 65/62% of the population.
So maybe you ought to read the facts before you start resorting to large bold text
A UK Government publication in 2008
When you're in a hole......
."Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance" - Confucius0 -
When you're in a hole......
.A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »An example of backtracking since you did not read the link correctly, methinks
It is you who are in a hole trying to justify not checking your facts.
Lisbon clarified the exit rules under Aricle 50 and clearly stated that qualified majority voting would apply. QMV had been around long before Lisbon.A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: ».
Because my original post did clearly show in the link provided that the new ruling commenced November 1st 2014 which I certainly would class as "recent" even if you do not, in your facile response in post # 32 in this thread; "how many years ....".
It was a genuine question. I have known about this for years. I am not the one who is being facile (I even know what the word means which you seem not to be in your simplified world).
But yes had the rule changed in 2014 and had you have only just noticed I guess you might think it was a recent change. That does not justify you implying conspiracy by the use of the phrase "moving the goalposts". As I have noted the difference between the Nice rules and the Lisbon rules is quite minor so there has been little real change at all. Neither does the fact you have recently become aware of something make it recent.Consider this: "it was known that it would change in 2007" by whom?
Recently - and the 2014 process change - was known by whom?
You ask by whom? By those who signed the Treaty, By those who published it on the EU and UK Government websites, by anyone who read the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007, or the document I created a link to that was published by the UK in 2008.
Then you have MPs who debated in in 2008, you remember all the talk about a referendum after Lisbon to ratify it.Where was any media coverage informing UK citizens (or even other EU citizens) that majority voting rules were changing?
Or when they were changing?
So unless EU citizens had actively looked for these changes, they would have known how exactly?
I welcome you providing evidence from mainstream media - UK or other EU - detailing these (proposed) changes that you say were known.
Good luck with that hunt.
I am not offering a research service for you but here is one...It concludes: "We recommend that all amendments to the treaty, including extensions of qualified majority voting, should be done by primary legislation and not simply by a vote of the House."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/1576036/Tell-truth-on-EU-treaty-say-MPs.html
or
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/majornews/6257617/Lisbon-Treaty-Q-and-A-your-guide-to-what-it-means-and-what-happens-next.html
or maybe
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/irish-voters-back-lisbon-but-what-does-the-treaty-actually-mean-1797463.html
or even
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8285849.stmFew people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
It looks like France are going to replace their current slightly left of centre pro-european president who is plumbing the depths of political unpopularity with...a left of centre pro-european president in M. Macron.
A little bit of political fixing with a SPD senior partner German govt and we are back to full steam ahead to European integration even if the electorates have shifted to the right and nationalism overall.
And definitely no quarter for the British as there must certainly be no suggestion that there could be an alternative.I think....0 -
It looks like France are going to replace their current slightly left of centre pro-european president who is plumbing the depths of political unpopularity with...a left of centre pro-european president in M. Macron.
A little bit of political fixing with a SPD senior partner German govt and we are back to full steam ahead to European integration even if the electorates have shifted to the right and nationalism overall.
And definitely no quarter for the British as there must certainly be no suggestion that there could be an alternative.
Sitting here in Luxembourg just a few kilometres from FRANCE it still seems all to play for.
The thoughts of a National Front President should frighten and does frighten many people in the rest of Europe.There will be no Brexit dividend for Britain.0 -
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/771726/Brexit-BRUSSELS-Juncker-EU-demands-Britain-London-Theresa-May
This is the reason why GB needs allies like Donald Trump / US on its side to play the negotiation game.
This is also the reason why the right of EU nationals should not be guaranteed unless reciprocal right for British citizen living abroad in other EU countries is guaranteed.
It is not hard to see really …
The following chart is showing who is subsidizing other EU countries
https://order-order.com/2017/01/12/eu-faces-funding-cliff-edge/
There is no point to talk about "leave or remain" the focus should be focused on the team GB negotiations to get the best deal.
The EU is demanding GB to pay future liability such as pension liability. In return the negotiator from team GB should also claim EU assets which is estimated €152.5 billion. UK has been a net contributor to EU budgets for a few decades.
https://www.rt.com/uk/377561-brexit-divorce-assets-share/0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards