I thought that

[brionon]

that the words ''Blocked'' and ''Vetoed'' meant to Stop . But the BBC thinks they mean to not take part. Have I misunderstood these words ?

[ojread2]

In what context did they get used then>

[boxtops]

I agree with you, brionon - have you got a link? Blocked (IMO) means to stop altogether, vetoed (IMO) means to vote against something happening. Not taking part is abstention. I suppose they could block or veto participation....

[Kromovaracun]

'Veto', if I remember right, translates as 'I forbid'. It means actually blocking something, not just voting against it - I'm absolutely sure of that.

[brionon]

The link is the BBC News about Cameron's Veto, Block etc. and on Breakfast this morning.

[jno]

that's right, he's used the UK's veto to block changes to the EU treaty. It's open to other EU members to agree what they like among themselves, but it won't be part of the EU treaty.

[rojash]

"Have I misunderstood these words ?"
No, but at a guess you misunderstood what the BBC said. Of course, as you've failed to supply a direct quote, that's impossible to determine for certain.
He vetoed a change to the European Treaty, and therefore 26 of the 27 EU countries will create a separate treaty, which the UK will not take part in.

[Gromit]

They wanted to amend an existing Treaty and that is what Cameron has vetoed or blocked.

The result of that is everyone else will make an agreement without the UK. As the UK is not in the EuroZone, and it is debatable whether we should have a say on the Euro if we do not use it, I fail to see why this is being portrayed as a great victory for Cameron.

[New Judge]

The term “veto” (which does indeed stem from the Latin for “I forbid”) is correct in this case because, since a change to existing EU treaties requires a unanimous vote, all 27 nations hold the power to veto any changes.

I don’t recall it being hailed as a “victory” anywhere. There are no winners in this situation, only losers. It is a situation that many pundits suggested would have a strong chance of occurring when the Euro was launched, a situation that should never have arisen and a situation which would not have been cured whether the UK had voted in favour for the amendments or not. The measures to be adopted by the remaining 26 are hailed as those necessary to “save” the Euro but they will do no such thing.

What is clear is that the proposed changes would have had a profound and disproportionately adverse effect on the UK. The Franco-German axis was not prepared to accept any compromise which might serve to protect the UK’s interest. Mr Cameron realised he would be on the end of an enormous pasting from his MPs had he voted the measures through and I believe he had little realistic choice but to block the proposals.