The European Parliament has given the green light to changing the EU treaties

Siope

I can’t imagine why some people seem to think this wasn’t real/didn’t happen. The vote on the report and its proposals quite clearly did, with the numbers GG13 gave, and that has moved the process on to the next step. The relevant committee itself have said so, it’s on the EU Parliament site, and reputable European media (in favour and against) have reported it.

Yep!
I just googled it and several reputable sites came up with the same info straight away.

Yes Siope

I can’t imagine why some people seem to think this wasn’t real/didn’t happen. The vote on the report and its proposals quite clearly did, with the numbers GG13 gave, and that has moved the process on to the next step. The relevant committee itself have said so, it’s on the EU Parliament site, and reputable European media (in favour and against) have reported it.

Verhofstadt is a first rate self-publicist!

Do you think he made it all up, Grantanow 😲

GrannyGravy13

I have been caught out by Twitter and other social media sights previously.

I have no reason to disbelieve Guy Verhofstadt.

I am having trouble posting links, which is why I posted the screenshot.

Verhofstadt is a first rate self-publicist!

It was a general comment GG13. Some does not mean any single person.

I do understand the problems you have been having but, rather than the dismissive "Google is your friend" you could have explained the problem earlier, and where your information was comining from.

As it was you just added to the feeling you were determined to make a point but not give the origin of the information. That may appear to be an attempt to prevent opportunity for discussion - even if that us not what you intended.

DaisyAnneReturns

maddyone

Mmmm, some comments verging on suggesting the OP is making things up.
Thanks for your post at 9.57 GrannyGravy.

Rather that the OP is misinterpreting what she has read, MO, and that she needs to allow people to make their own minds up.

It seems some want to use GN to propagandise, rather than discuss. I think it is reasonable to then ask for the tools for proper discussion.

DaisyAnneReturns How on earth have you managed to turn my OP into propagander ?

It posted results of a vote on abolishing individual countries vetoes and closer alliances in the European Parliament.

Although we are no longer part of the EU, I for one still find its politics interesting and it is still relevant to those with borders with the EU.

maddyone

Mmmm, some comments verging on suggesting the OP is making things up.
Thanks for your post at 9.57 GrannyGravy.

Rather that the OP is misinterpreting what she has read, MO, and that she needs to allow people to make their own minds up.

It seems some want to use GN to propagandise, rather than discuss. I think it is reasonable to then ask for the tools for proper discussion.

Twitter is fine, as long as you are aware of the pitfalls and shortcomings. So i only follow and read certain people like politicians, well known commentators, scientists, doctors etc. Oh and animal stuff😀 - there are some glorious animal videos.

I rarely look at the subsequent comments,

I hope you’re right Whitewave.
I have never done Twitter, I have never thought it reliable. In any case, I think some of the things I hear about it, such as death threats to Dianne Abbott, and to other people, are a reflection of it and it’s management.

I reckon it is only going to get worse with AI.

People will have to be prepared to be caught out posting incorrect stuff - as long as we all behave like grown ups and accept that sometimes we are wrong, or have been caught out it will all run smoothly🙂

Some hope😀😀

I have been caught out by Twitter and other social media sights previously.

I have no reason to disbelieve Guy Verhofstadt.

I am having trouble posting links, which is why I posted the screenshot.

maddyone

Mmmm, some comments verging on suggesting the OP is making things up.
Thanks for your post at 9.57 GrannyGravy.

Absolutely not! I have been “caught” by twitter etc at times and posted in good faith, only to find that it was entirely wrong, incorrect etc.

This happens and it is sensible to look at these things with an open mind and critical eye.

It is no reflection on the gg13 and I’m sure she doesn’t think it is.

Mmmm, some comments verging on suggesting the OP is making things up.
Thanks for your post at 9.57 GrannyGravy.

This is where I found out

GrannyGravy13

This was reported by Guy Verhofstadt, on his social media account.

Then link it. We need a proper reference to be able to review what was said and you need to acknowledge where it comes from so you are not plagiarising other peoples work.

Whitewavemark2

I have tried every which way to find reference to the OP - zero luck.

Beginning to think that it was an aberration!

I agree. Google may be some people's "friend", but it doesn't appear to be the OPs, as nothing us coming back to show that what they suggest is accurate.

This was reported by Guy Verhofstadt, on his social media account.

Mamie

I think Siope is correct. This is a narrow majority for proposals that have a long way to go before any possible treaty change.
There is a lot of discontent from right-wing groups.

Yes I think that is the probably the correct explanation.

I think Siope is correct. This is a narrow majority for proposals that have a long way to go before any possible treaty change.
There is a lot of discontent from right-wing groups.

I have tried every which way to find reference to the OP - zero luck.

Beginning to think that it was an aberration!

It sounds important but the European Parliament is largely a talking shop. Decisions are made by the Council of Ministers on proposals from the Commission. I doubt this is a serious runner right now.

GrannyGravy13

DaisyAnneReturns

Where is GrannyGravys OP from. There seems to be no source information. If tha3t's the case it's been made up although for what purpose, who knows ?

Definitely not made up, it was a vote in the European Parliament today, Google is your friend.

I'm afraid I will think you have misunderstood whatever you read unless you can point us to where you picked it up and post it on here. I have put you first sentance in Google and got nothing saying anything like that.

Just copy and paste the link and the we can read it.

The Committee has its own social media accounts, and also has a micro site on the main EU Parliament website for those who are nicely geeky about this stuff

www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/afco/home/highlights

My understanding is that the quoted changes are simply proposals in a report by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. It includes a proposal for 267 changes to both treaties - the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

On the matter of majority voting, not all votes presently require unanimous agreement. For those that don’t, there is a weighted majority vote (not a simple one, so nothing like the Brexit referendum) so that a majority = countries representing 65% of the EU population. I think that is at least 15 of the 27 members. The proposal is to make this a weighted 50+% - it’s a response to the proposed expansion of member countries.

The report was written following a detailed, one year consultation with EU residents.

What was voted on today was moving that report on for discussion by the Council of Ministers for European Affairs on December 12. Even if f they approve all the proposals, there will be a long, multi-stranded process to go through before any changes to the Treaties could be made.

There’s quite a lot of grumping and complaining (and some mis- and dis-information) on social media, predominantly from far-right sources, as extreme right wing groups and caucuses were excluded from the Committee.