On the 1st November 2014 the right of Parliament to legislate over us in 43 areas, the important ones, will be removed and be made subject to approval. They call it QMV, Qualified Majority Voting.
Each member State will lose it right of Veto over these areas, so Cameron’s idea of negotiation to recover any areas goes out the window at the same time.
The following areas of competence will switch from requiring unanimous approval of all member states to qualified majority voting only:
Initiatives of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Administrative co-operation – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Asylum – Nice: QMV; Lisbon: QMV
Border controls – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Citizens’ initiative regulations – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Civil protection – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Committee of the Regions – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Common defence policy – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Crime prevention incentives – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Criminal judicial co-operation – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Criminal law – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Culture – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Diplomatic & Consular protection – Nice: Unanimity Lisbon: QMV
Economic & Social Committee – Nice: QMV Lisbon: QMV
Emergency international aid – Nice: Unanimity Lisbon: QMV
Energy – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
EU budget – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Eurojust – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
European Central Bank – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
European Court of Justice – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Europol – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Eurozone external representation – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Foreign Affairs High Representative election – Lisbon: QMV
Freedom of movement for workers – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Freedom to establish a business – Nice: Unanimity Lisbon QMV
Freedom, security, justice, co-operation & evaluation – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Funding the Common Foreign & Security Policy – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
General economic interest services – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Humanitarian aid – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Immigration – Nice: QMV; Lisbon: QMV
Intellectual property – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Organisation of the Council of the EU – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Police co-operation – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
President of the European Council election – Lisbon: QMV
Response to natural disasters & terrorism – Lisbon: QMV
Rules concerning the Armaments Agency – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Self-employment access rights – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Social Security Unanimity – Nice: QMV; Lisbon: QMV
Space – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Sport – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Structural & Cohension Funds – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Tourism – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Transport – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Withdrawal of a member state – Lisbon: QMV
A brief review of the Treaties confirms the Transitional arrangements which allow, only on specific votes, for the Nice Treaty Provisions to apply from 1st November 2014 until March 2017, hence I imagine PM David Cameron’s determination to delay our referendum beyond that date, tying Britain for ever within the non-democratic, totalitarian and now clearly despotic EU.
For your reference, if anyone interested in the Treaty Articles behind this change, here is the legal bit. http://grahnlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/eu-qualified-majority-voting-qmv.html
h/t Goodnight Vienna
IanPJ on Politics 
Just for clarification ‘Withdrawal of a member state’ is already under QMV – it merely changes from Nice rules to Lisbon rules.
TBF, Thanks for clarifying that point.
A really excellent factual summary of some – only some – of the powers that successive Governments have given away, without ever asking the British people if that was their wish..
So; if you want to remain in the EU and pay the £20 billion p.a. fee- vote Conservative. If you want more wind-factories- vote Conservative. If yo want greedy developers to despoil our countryside – vote Conservative. If you want HS2 vote Conservative. If you want £8 billion of your taxes spent on helping corrupt leaders of corrupt countries to upgrade their private jets and Swiss bank accounts-vote Conservative. And finally if you want the Inland Revenue to remove money from your bank account without a court order- vote Conservative.
Or think of supporting another party.
Willoughby de Broke
I Will do, Lord Willoughby de Broke, with pleasure. I’ll be voting UKIP
Why not make this more public? Tell the people the next time DC talks of ‘renegotiation’ There is no point waiting till 2017. There is only one answer to this -a vote to leave ASAP.
I agree. I really think it should be offered to the Guardian – they may take it, at least on their web page.
And does the move from Unanimity/Veto to QMV represent a loss of sovereignty? I would have thought so, but will Labour see things differently?
Labour will not see things differently, I think it’s quite evident Labour are content in becoming a federal Europe.
Quite. No doubt Labour will say this loss of sovereignty occurred when the Lisbon Treaty was signed and therefore there is no new loss of sovereignty to cause them to have a referendum.
Which is precisely one of the biggest reasons to vote UKIP. Because ONLY they will rescue us from the EU Dictatorship if they can get enough influence!
I feel physically sick
Teddy, Join the club of people who feel sick of the EU, even better join the party that is bringing hope to those of us who are determined to take back our democratic rights as a nation of freemen and women.
Join and campaign for UKIP.
It’s a shame that the only two realistic choices we have, is to vote to stay in the EU, or vote for a homophobic, racist party who want us out. Where’s the decent party who actually care about individuals, and thus wants us out of the EU? I don’t see one.
If it is UKIP you are refering to in your comment, it is unfortunate that some cannot see beyond the sick propaganda.
I have no particular support for UKIP, however I would like to see them strong enough to break the mold. Only when the mold of the LibLabCon is broken can we begin to have serious debates within all the parties about serious matters, such as a clear exit strategy and how to take the UK back into the world as an independent nation again.
I don’t like everything that UKIP stand fore but as i see it you can either stick your head in the sand or vote for someone with the passion to change things, the big question here is do you want to be told how you do thing by people that no one voted for because its bad enough with the ones we did elect
Reading comment like this is depressing if it is really what you believe. But my recommendation is to take the trouble to meet a few UKIP people in your own area and I’m sure you will change your mind.
I assume you’re refering to UKIP as your alternative choice have fallen for the propaganda smear campaign from the MSM and the Liblabcon party, run mostly & financed from big corporations that favour continued membership of the EU.
Ask youself this question.
When has a State or a political party ever “cared” about anyone? It can provide welfare benefits, housing, education, medical help etc, but the State only cares about preserving its right to exist, and it will by trying to impose its will on you, using coersive techniques to make you feel “safe and secure” in the bosom of the State. All the time removing rights you, as an individual used to enjoy, eroded, or gone forever and they will make you think you asked for it. The only people who truly care for you, are friends, relatives and family members. The State will do all it can to make you dependent on it, so on hard times, instead of your family backing you, you rely on the State. The individual becomes lazy and any ideas of self determination become a distant memory. You rely on the State to do everything. A man lying unconscous in the street is not for you to be responsible for or trouble yourself with, that is for the States responsibility….. and so it goes on. The authoritarian State, whether it is fascist, communist or socialist, all it cares about is ruling your lives, so the smaller it is the better. The State should only deal with affairs of state, not individual lives or interfering in peoples lives. A “caring” government is the last thing I would want.
If you are happy to have most of the laws you have to live under, made by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels, then continue to vote LIBLABCON. They are EU stooges, nothing less.
From a UKIPPER
Have you a view on the Wiki page regarding withdrawal? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union
I never comment about Wiki pages as they are editable by anyone, therefore unreliable as sources of fact.
thankyou , why was this not made more public, i am sure the people of this country will rage against the destruction of our parliament.please tell it from the rooftops long and loud.
While I can see from the 1st November 2014, the European Parliament will enter into the 55% QMV.
I cannot seem to find any information the State will essentially have to ask the EU to legislate any new national laws and I cannot find any information in the reduction of the States right to veto within these areas. Would you please enlighten me. Thank you.
Rupert,
When these 43 areas move to QMV, there will be virtually nothing left for Westminster to make laws about, other than rubber stamping those that are force fed from Brussels. But no doubt the Westminster Theatre and expenses will continue as though nothing has changed.
But these powers do not move to the EU Parliament, they go to the Council of Ministers.
Acts shall be adopted if there are at least 255 votes in favour representing a majority of the members where, under the Treaties, they must be adopted on a proposal from the Commission. In other cases decisions shall be adopted if there are at least 255 votes in favour representing at least two thirds of the members.
When these 43 areas move to QMV, it replaces the VETO. You cannot have QMV with a veto, it is one or the other. The VETO is dead, it is no more, just like a Norwegian Blue Parrot.
Thank you very much.
May I please have a direct link to the point where QMV strips the veto from Member States. I have no reason to doubt this but I would like to cite this issue. Thank you.
Rupert,
Without being rude, what part of my previous comment did you not understand. You cannot have both QMV and a Veto, one replaces the other.
For instance, if you were to commission a painter to paint your white wall black, that is what he will do, the black will replace the white. You will not see a point where the painter says “and the white will cease to be seen”.
If for example a new criminal law is made, from what I can make out 255 ministers have vote in favour i.e 55% (QMV) for it to be passed.
Therefore if it originates in Brussels why can we not veto it in our Parliament? You say we cannot have veto while there is QMV (you can’t have one with the other) but I’m asking you to point me in the direction to be able to cite this.
Thank you.
Hi Rupert,
Can’t seem to find a reply button on your latest comment below, so will reply here.
The point, as I understand it, is that if a “new criminal law is made” in Brussels, then the UK Gov have no choice but to translate it into UK Law. Under the veto system, if an EU Directive was discussed and all member states had been in agreement but not the UK, then the UK could have vetoed the whole idea and no country would have had it – at least not through the EU, there would have been nothing stopping them enacting their own legislation in their own National Parliaments. Under QMV, we would be outvoted and our own Parliament would have no say in the matter.
Hi Ian. I’m trying to get to grips with all things EU and it is a fearsomely difficult subject.
To put some meat on the bones of this article, could you give us an example in 3 or 4 of the above categories of a potential new directive that could come our way and a potential policy that we could still originate in the UK.
For example: Crime Prevention Incentives – a potential policy from the EU could be standardisation of car number plates. If this was voted through (now on QMV) in Brussels, then we would have to adopt the standard number plate. But if my local council decided on a Crime Prevention Incentive of its own – say putting a camera into a car park, then surely that would not be stopped?
In other words, QMV in Crime Prevention Incentives does not mean we can’t have any local/national crime prevention incentives of our own, only that it is more likely that there will be more Crime Prevention Incentives originating in Brussels that we will have to adopt.
Taken as a whole these new areas of QMV do not necessarily mean that the EU will actually exercise more control over UK citizens, nor does it mean Westminster has nothing to do, but it certainly means the EU has more potential to exercise control over us and Westminster can do nothing about it.
Don’t think I don’t know where this is heading – I add so you don’t think I’m being naive. I’m about as anti-EU as you can find, but I don’t like hyperbole and don’t want to overstate the case.
In other words, QMV in Crime Prevention Incentives does not mean we can’t have any local/national crime prevention incentives of our own, only that it is more likely that there will be more Crime Prevention Incentives originating in Brussels that we will have to adopt.
Unfortunately that is not the case. The Sovereignty or Competency for Crime Prevention Incentives will have already passed to Brussels with the signing of the Rome/Maastrict/Nice/Lisbon Treaty (which Treaty depending on subject area), therefore if Westminster wanted to introduce any laws on that subject, they would have to get permission from Brussels first, as Westminster no longer is Sovereign in that subject area.
An example is when Alistair Darling changed VAT. He had to get Brussels permission before he could do it.
An easy way to check whether any law is originated in Westminster or Brussels is to look at the Act of Parliament, as it will clearly state whether it refers to any Brussels directive. However, directives are not the only law making mechanism within the EU. For an understanding on how EU laws are made, see my article https://pjcjournal.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/how-eu-law-is-made/
I previously read your other article – very scary.
Thanks for your clarification on this point. So from November, if (as in my example) my local authority wanted to introduce a camera into a carpark for purposes of crime prevention, they would need EU permission for it?
You are conflating Acts of Parliament with local regulation and by-laws. Very different.
However to use your example, if Westminster wanted to pass an Act of Parliament requiring a camera to be placed in every car park, then yes, they would need permission, i.e. a ‘decision’, before being able to do so.
Thanks, that’s very clear.
Geoff
I’m still slightly confused by this all so wondered if someone could clarify. No.43 withdrawal of a member state is the most interesting one, but what does that actually mean? Am I right in saying that if the UK wanted to leave the EU that 55% of the voters in the EU parliament would have to approve this? You said it switches from unanimous to QMV so does that in fact mean that it would be easier for the UK to leave?
Article 50 is already under QMV as it was a “new item” in Lisbon, all it means is the outcome of any negotiations (which will almost certainly be a Treaty to do it) has to be ratified by QMV by the EU, in the same way Parliament would have to ratify the same outcome of negotiations.
It’s the same process as joining the EU but for obviously opposite reasons.
However failure of negotiations doesn’t affect our exit, we would leave by default after two years regardless.
I’m gone to say to my little brother, that he should also pay a
visit this webpage on regular basis to obtain updated from hottest news update.
Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
Take note of why it is Cameron won’t shift from his “by the end of 2017” EU referendum date.
Thanks for this information. I never thought Cameron’s stance on the referendum was for anything other than show, likewise his current huffing and puffing about Junckers and Brussels being too big and too bossy. My question though is why aren’t Farage, Hitchens and Hannan etc broadcasting this – or have they been and I’ve just missed it?
Farage was probably in some Brussel’s brasserie spending his expenses when the measures were being debated.
Nothing to do with Farage or anyone else in the EU parliament. It was that left wing twit Gordon Brown who signed this.
Once upon a time Britain was a beautiful, progressive, wealthy country of industrious hard working people. Progressive governments (generally labour) increased the social benefit system where it attracted votes, with the result that the people now are better off not working. So they joined the European Union to get labour, yes, they did get many hard working decent people, but they also got a collection of drug peddlers, brothel keepers, scroungers, prostitutes that they are now saddled with, where they cannot send them back to where they came from. We must get out of the European Union this year, before we are anchored with it the rest of our lives.
Virtually game over chaps, should have voted BNP when you had the opportunity 6 years ago. Too “B” late now!
Reblogged this on Musings of a Penpusher and commented:
Are we drifting into an EU dictatorship?
Reblogged this on Hwaairfan's Blog and commented:
܀ Between the State of the City of London and the Crown*
Surely the UK population is not the only one in the EU that has concerns about the changes due on November 1? Is there no pan-EU resistance to this or is it far too late (thanks to Gordon Brown)?