So Do We Have A Veto Or Not?

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36353013
.

[EDDIE51]

The ONLY reason we are having a referendum is that the Government was panicking that UKIP were on target to get several MPs in the current parliament, which would deny the Tories a majority. They organised the referendum to stop UKIP in its tracks. With hindsight of course it was all unnecessary as the Tory's got a majority and UKIP only got 1 MP ! ( who is not even a member of the official 'leave' campaine)

[Jackdaw33]

But surely it was the referendum which stopped UKIP, so with hindsight very necessary?

[jourdain2]

Jim Hacker without Sir Humphrey!

Seriously, I'll repeat that which I wrote on another thread. As far as I am aware (and I stand quite open to correction, no prob.) Turkey applied years ago to join the EU and no-one vetoed that application so it was accepted. It follows that no veto can, therefore, now be applied, unless they bring in a retrospective ruling. ALL Turkey has to do to gain full membership of the EU is to comply with the rules for admission, no-one can now veto them.

As I understand it they currently comply with all, bar about 10%, of the requirements. Granted that these are the 'sticking points' - things like 'Human Rights'. They are very near entry standard. Erdogan is moving in the opposite direction. BUT the EU is desperate over migrants and I.M.O. they will somehow 'ease' the regulations. Greece, main opponent, can be bought off with a promise to forgive their debts (and possibly Northern
Cyprus could also be a bargaining point).

I may be living in cloud-cuckoo-land, but I wouldn't be surprised.

[Jackdaw33]

I don't know how representative I am of those who think like I do, but the only thing which prevented me from voting UKIP at the last election was that the Tories were best placed to deliver on that promise. Had that pledge not been in the Tory manifesto the outcome could have been quite different.