Clarify what Liberatas said on Six-One news please

Hitman Actual

On the Six-One news yesterday a Liberatas spokesperson said something which seemed contradictory to what I believe to be the new voting schemes given by Lisbon. She either said that:

a) France and Germany can join with two other smaller nations to get a law passed, or

b) France and Germany can join with two other smaller nations to prevent a law from being passed.

Apologies for being unclear, I'm just not sure which one she said. The first one is clearly incorrect (if she did say that), but is she correct in what she said about preventing laws being passed? I thought you needed four nations with a total of 35% of the EU population, which means that even the four biggest nations can't join together? I'm a tad confused...

Edit to add: Here's the link.

She actually said that "Germany and France can get together with two other member states and out-vote the other 23". Is this correct?

Also, she said we were losing our commissioner. I thought a 'Yes' vote guarantee's that we keep our commissioner until 2014, but we lose the commissioner next year with a 'No' vote.

sink

lenny_leonard wrote: »

a) France and Germany can join with two other smaller nations to get a law passed, or

This is what she seemed to imply, but it is false. To pass any law by QMV requires 55% of members states, that means no less than 15 states can pass legislation. Those 15 or more states must consist of 65% of the total Unions population.

lenny_leonard wrote: »

b) France and Germany can join with two other smaller nations to prevent a law from being passed.

This is possible as 35% of the population must vote against legislation to block it, they must be from four or more states.

lenny_leonard wrote: »

Apologies for being unclear, I'm just not sure which one she said. The first one is clearly incorrect (if she did say that), but is she correct in what she said about preventing laws being passed? I thought you needed four nations with a total of 35% of the EU population, which means that even the four biggest nations can't join together? I'm a tad confused...

You are correct, libertas miss present the truth quiet often and I would not trust anything they say with out it being verified by an independent source.

lenny_leonard wrote: »

She actually said that "Germany and France can get together with two other member states and out-vote the other 23". Is this correct?

Only to block legislation, not to have it passed as that require 15 member states.

lenny_leonard wrote: »

Also, she said we were losing our commissioner. I thought a 'Yes' vote guarantee's that we keep our commissioner until 2014, but we lose the commissioner next year with a 'No' vote.

Once again you are correct, we loose our permanent commissioner regardless if lisbon passes or not.

Hitman Actual

Okay, thanks for that, sink. I have to say that Liberatas are really starting to annoy me at this stage.

Vinegar Hill

Lenny might I suggest you do some research on your own and not take what is said as fact on here.

try:

www.euinfo.ie

oscarBravo

Vinegar Hill, if something that's said on here is factually incorrect, feel free to point it out.

Vinegar Hill

oscarBravo wrote: »

Vinegar Hill, if something that's said on here is factually incorrect, feel free to point it out.

I am just saying people should do some research on their own. People on both sides of this issue tend to put their own slant on it.

Hitman Actual

Vinegar Hill wrote: »

Lenny might I suggest you do some research on your own and not take what is said as fact on here.

try:

www.euinfo.ie

Thanks for that link, I actually haven't seen that site. And I use the forum here as part of my research, not the whole.

Also, in case it sounded like I was bashing Liberatas, I didn't (really) mean to. But I first heard them about two months ago talking, incorrectly, about the tax issue, and I haven't heard them saying anything of any real substance since.

By the way, is there anything sink said that you think is incorrect, or do you agree with anything the Liberatas spokesperson said in her piece on Six-One?

Vinegar Hill

lenny_leonard wrote: »

Thanks for that link, I actually haven't seen that site. And I use the forum here as part of my research, not the whole.

Also, in case it sounded like I was bashing Liberatas, I didn't (really) mean to. But I first heard them about two months ago talking, incorrectly, about the tax issue, and I haven't heard them saying anything of any real substance since.

By the way, is there anything sink said that you think is incorrect, or do you agree with anything the Liberatas spokesperson said in her piece on Six-One?

Sorry I did not get to see the bit on Six-One but what sink says is basically correct. There are some areas open for interpretation. Refer to the Europolictics website at

http://www.europolitics.info/xg/features/Lisbonne/210482

They have a more detailed explaination and when and how they take effect. In the margins they also have links to other areas of the treaty.

BMH

Vinegar Hill wrote: »

Lenny might I suggest you do some research on your own and not take what is said as fact on here.

try:

www.euinfo.ie

ugh...

turgon

Vinegar Hill wrote: »

Lenny might I suggest you do some research on your own and not take what is said as fact on here.

try:

www.euinfo.ie

That site definitely not biased. I mean the facts are that the Lisbon Treaty will bring in abortion, harmonize taxes, allow select countries including the US and Bangladesh to join up, introduce censorship and conscription. Sure we all knew that Kathy.

Did I mention that the EU are experimenting with Communism?

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

That site definitely not biased. I mean the facts are that the Lisbon Treaty will bring in abortion, harmonize taxes, allow select countries including the US and Bangladesh to join up, introduce censorship and conscription. Sure we all knew that Kathy.

Did I mention that the EU are experimenting with Communism?

Sure. That was the real reason they were able to take down the Berlin Wall, you know.

conspiratorially,
Scofflaw

GUIGuy

Libertas make me despair. Ohhhh so if we pass the treaty some countries might 'gang up on us' (my phrase... their insinuation). Well guess what folks ANY country can veto any directive now. So this is in fact a crock of ****. I despair because this treaty will make the EU truly more democratic. I'm all for democracy so I'm for the treaty... even if it means that our particular bit of Europe has to accept that in a democracy everybody doesn't always get what they want.

johnnyq

GUIGuy wrote: »

I'm all for democracy so I'm for the treaty... even if it means that our particular bit of Europe has to accept that in a democracy everybody doesn't always get what they want.

Lol, tell that to the over 50% of French and Dutch voters who democratically rejected the EU constitution only to have 95% imposed on them.

If the eurocrats get what they want then it's democratic

/sigh

GUIGuy

Well your argument should be with the French & Dutch govts then not the EU. They are separate entities. The French/Dutch people rejected the treaty to protest because they were pissed off with their national govts at the time... not because of the treaty itself.

Hopefully the Irish electorate will decide on the treaty and not our govt.

GUIGuy

Here's why Libertas are against it.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87311

IRLConor

johnnyq wrote: »

Lol, tell that to the over 50% of French and Dutch voters who democratically rejected the EU constitution only to have 95% imposed on them.

If the eurocrats get what they want then it's democratic

/sigh

/sigh

Yet another "democrat" who conveniently ignores the fact that 4 countries voted on the constitution, not 2. Two voted yes, two voted no and the overall majority was yes, not no. Where's your majority now?

turgon

IRLConor wrote: »

/sigh

Yet another "democrat" who conveniently ignores the fact that 4 countries voted on the constitution, not 2. Two voted yes, two voted no and the overall majority was yes, not no. Where's your majority now?

Tut tut IRLConor, would you be suggesting that proposals should be accepted in countries that don't want them, simply because other countries do?

IRLConor

turgon wrote: »

Tut tut IRLConor, would you be suggesting that proposals should be accepted in countries that don't want them, simply because other countries do?

No, but people going around chanting nonsense about "the majority" who rejected the constitution should be pointed out for the misguided fools (or propagandists) that they are.

The vote was quite close (IIRC 54% for, 46% against) and the fact that the constitution is not exactly the same as the Lisbon Treaty means that the outcome of the votes on the constitution are essentially meaningless with respect to the treaty.

turgon

Yes I know. I have a feeling as well that the reason It might have got NO was because it was a constitution, with flag etc.

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

Yes I know. I have a feeling as well that the reason It might have got NO was because it was a constitution, with flag etc.

Certainly the UK and Holland fought to have those bits taken out during the Lisbon Treaty negotiations.

cordially,
Scofflaw