Monday, 1 February 2016
Terms of Membership
It is reported that Chris Grayling, the Leader of the House of Commons is a definite 'Leave' politician. This is not quite what he said. The Daily Telegraph reports that he does not believe in staying in the EU (European Union) 'with our current terms of membership unchanged'. This is a very important distinction.
It seems that what Mr Cameron brings home as a deal to 'change our current terms of membership' will count for everything where Mr Grayling and others are concerned.
EU Referendum has consistently argued that if Mr Cameron brings home a 'good deal' then the 'Leave' side will lose. Whereas if he does not bring home a deal the 'Leave' side will win.
It is probably a good tactic therefore if Mr Cameron can be seen to be struggling valiantly to get such a deal. The latest stance, reported in 'The Huffington Post', that the proposed deal on migrants is 'not good enough' is illustrative of this point. From Mr Cameron's point of view that he has rejected what was offered shows his 'determination', 'valour' and Churchillian side. "Bulldog" Cameron (as 'The Sun' might have it) snaps at the heels of the other 27 until he gets what he wants.
This is all theatre. It is probable that Mr Cameron will be offered Associate Membership. This will change our 'current terms of membership' and I believe that Mr Grayling, Mr Hannan, Mr Redwood and others will all rally around these new terms of membership.
The trouble is that, as I have posted before, if we accept Associate Membership, we will still be members of a regional supranational body where the United Kingdom is not Sovereign and will still be answerable for instance to the European Court of Justice.
The referendum may well decide the fate of the United Kingdom for the next 40 years. The remain side helped by the BBC, the press and the majority of our elected representatives will campaign to stay in mostly on economic grounds.
We will not be hurt by a vote to leave. Quite the contrary as we will, within two tears of invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, be an Independent Nation at the Global Top Table rather than, say, a county council answerable to the real power in Brussels.
This is more important to me than being seen as 'Good Europeans' (whatever that means). Is the European Union really built on such fragile foundations that if the United Kingdom voted to leave it would destroy the rest of the Union like some massive case of subsidence? Is such a flimsy structure worth saving?
I hope that sufficient people will see through the fog and vote to Leave the European Union. I repeat, this country will not be hurt by a vote to Leave.
We must leave whatever Mr Cameron brings home in his 'renegotiation'
Vote to Leave the European Union.