Originally Posted by Hawkeye118
Boy, are you sure it wasn't a political post? Never heard someone spout so much rubbish. Perhaps you should read something about the EU and its functioning. Britain ALWAYS has a veto. So, can we get back to the original thread? I wanted to find out how people were going to deal with it.
Im pretty familiar with VETO rights of each country and the pecking order in terms of contributions to the EU.
Im pretty familiar with Percentages of population and the distribution rights within the voting system.
Im pretty certain that ONLY certain things can be blocked solely by a single member
The UK can veto some laws alone, but needs three allies to block others. In practice, and generally the UK has complied 95% with EU mandates.
Majorities are enough. Under the new system for majority voting, a law has to pass two hurdles.
First, 16 out of 28 member
states have to vote for it. In special cases, it's 21 out of 28.
The UK naturally counts for only 1/28th from this point of view.
But there is a second condition: population matters. Member states representing 65% of all the people in the EU have to vote for a law before it passes.
The ability of the UK to combine with a couple of other big countries to block a law it doesn't like is made more difficult by a rider to this rule
. You can get to 36% against a proposed law from just three countries, but they won't be able to block it unless joined by at least one more.
In other words, if fewer than four countries oppose or abstain on a law in the Council, it passes.
As an ex pat living in Spain
, WE (the brits) determined that best way to overcome a law from the EU was to refuse to comply. If the issue was not big enough to worry about then generally the EU let it go.
Spain used this tactic over OLIVE OIL
. It became law to put new sealed olive oil
on tables for customers. Spain has a tradition of local Olive oil production, and refilled the bottles from the yard. To a restaurant and every person in Spain, this was how it was and would continue to be. Spain defied the law and in 3 weeks the law was changed.
Now the majority vote in the EU was that Britain take 1 million 'refugees'. Britain kinda refused and:...
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) on Wednesday ruled that British authorities must accept asylum seekers who entered the EU via the UK for the period in which it is a member, even though it has announced its intention to leave the bloc.
The ruling is an affirmation of asylum procedures in Europe under the so-called Dublin rules, which gives EU member states the right to deport asylum seekers to their point of entry in the bloc.
What the ruling says:
"A Member State that has given notice of its intention to withdraw from the EU … remains the responsible State for the purposes of the Dublin III Regulation"
Triggering Article 50, which started Brexit proceedings, "does not have the effect of suspending the application of EU law in that Member State"
"Consequently, that law continues in full force and effect in that Member State until the time of its actual withdrawal from the EU"
What does this mean for the UK?
The ruling reaffirms the UK's responsibility for the period in which it is an EU member state.
Despite launching withdrawal proceedings, British authorities continue to be responsible for taking back asylum seekers who first entered the EU through the UK and later went on to apply for protection in another member states.
The whole refugee immigrant issue was the EU distribution of countries to take them. I remember in 2016 that the leave voters had this issue in their mind during voting.
Will we leave the EU? Seems once more the EU is saying it will take years to sort out all the conditions.
It will be disappointing to find that the EU triggers a non-member status for the UK and enact the Schengen treaty, and yet still retain us as members. I will be pissed if Im still a member but my boating
rights have been curtailed.
I hate everything to do with politics because we look in one direction and the action is somewhere else.