The Line I did NOT Cross

In his letter to the members of the European Council, Donald Tusk, the President of the European Council says "the line I did not cross, however, were the principles on which the European project is founded". 

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/02/02-letter-tusk-proposal-new-settlement-uk/

The principle of 'Ever Closer Union' is not and will not be conceded. Moreover, the four pillars of the European Union (freedom of movement of people, capital, services and goods) remain in tact.

Here is a sample of the demolition job of EUReferendum.com:

"Safeguard mechanism (migrant benefits)  

Effectively, this is the biggest confidence trick of them all. The so-called "renegotiations" over the ability of the UK to suspend certain benefit payments to migrant workers are actually nothing of the sort. The UK, in a roundabout way, is simply invoking the pre-existing safeguard measures set out in Articles 112-3 of the EEA Agreement.

While there has been much loose talk about Norway's supposed lack of influence in the EEA, it in common with any EFTA state, can take such measures unilaterally but, as Article 113 of the Agreement states: "For the Community, the safeguard measures shall be taken by the EC Commission".

Thus, all the UK can do is petition the European Commission, which will now consider a proposal to amend Regulation (EC) No 492/2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union, which will then set in train the administrative provisions for invoking Article 112."

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=85913

I urge everyone to read the blog post. It is magnificent. The European Union has not given anything substantive to Mr Cameron - can he really be serious in saying that this is the renegotiation that he will attempt to 'sell' to the electorate in the referendum?

Vote to Leave the European Union

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.

Leaving the European Union is POSITIVE

What is quite striking is the negativity of the remain camp. They generally try to strike fear of leaving the European Union as a reason for staying. This is part of what Richard North, amongst others, calls Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. (FUD)

Thus in "Europe & You", it is stated that leaving the European Union will lead to the loss of 3 million jobs. The first question to this statement is: Is this statement true? Nicholas Clegg amongst others say that it is but the fact that they say it is so does not make it so.

Manuel Valls, the Prime Minister of France has said that the European Union "project could die quickly" whilst Wolfgang Schauble says it would be a 'disaster otherwise' if the United Kingdom voted to Leave. Are these reasons to remain? Is the fact that the project will 'die quickly' if we leave a reason not to leave?

What they don't do is state what are the positives of remaining. It seems probable that the offer will be Associate Membership.

We live in a country where our Supreme Court is not supreme since it is subservient to the European Court of Justice.

We live in a country where our Sovereign Parliament is not Sovereign where it receives directives 'via Fax' and rubber stamps them.

I thank 'Mr Brexit' for the following:

"Daniel Hannan and Vote Leave are continuing to take people for fools. Associate Membership is not some privileged position outside the EU. A two tier property is still a single building. Membership is membership. Britain would remain part of the EU second tier, remain bound by the ECJ, continue to receive and implement directives from Brussels.

The only difference is that the full members will take decisions and further integrate to service their place as Euro currency users. Associate Membership only exists as a concept to enable this deeper integration while keeping non Eurozone countries under Brussels control. So what Hannan is doing is trying to position continued EU membership as something other than that. He is being completely disingenuous.

He is being a loyal director of Vote Leave (since 22 Dec 2015). That group has always wanted a reform deal of the type they always demanded in their guise as Business for Britain. They never call for or endorse Brexit because they want to remain in a 'reformed' EU, and everything they do is geared to achieving that outcome. Even Dominic Cummings' notion of a second referendum only exists to reverse a vote to leave after further EU talks and some more crumbs from the table.

If you want genuine Brexit, Hannan and Vote Leave are not on your side."

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

If we leave the European Union, we restore the Sovereignty of Parliament, we restore the Supremacy of the Supreme court and the judiciary. Parliamentarians will actually earn their salary debating and enacting laws in the interests of the United Kingdom.

If we leave the European Union then the United Kingdom will become an Independent Sovereign State with a Sovereign Independent voice at the top table (for example at the United Nations) and not only have a 28th of a voice as it has now.

What is to fear in that? 

There is no fear in leaving. If we leave, we will be strong, independent, Sovereign.

Vote to Leave the European Union.

A Man of Straw sends a Message of Fear

I have received through my letter box (unsolicited) the South East version of "Europe & You". This is "promoted by Will Straw on behalf of Britain Stronger in Europe (The In Campaign) Ltd both at St Bride's House Salisbury Square London EC4Y 8EH and published by St Ives PLC Battye Street Laisterdyke Bradford BD4 8AG" 

Europe and you? Shouldn't that be the European Union and you? 

It would be instructive to know how much this propaganda sheet cost and who provided the finance for it - was it the Conservative Party?

Will Straw is the son of the former Home Secretary (and Foreign Secretary) Jack Straw and is one of those who really are an integral part of the Westminster 'village'. Others who could be identified in this group are people like Euan Blair and Stephen Kinnock; children of the Labour 'Hierarchy'. It would be interesting to know what their experience is of real life 'at the sharp end'.

BSE (Britain Stronger in Europe) is 'The In Campaign Ltd'. This is also of interest because of the data protection notice beside the cut out section on the back page:

"The data you provide will be retained by the Britain Stronger in Europe Campaign (The In Campaign Ltd - "The Data Holders") in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 and related legislation. By providing your data to us, you are consenting to the data holders making contact with you in the future by telephone, text, email or other means, even though you may be registered with the Telephone Preference Service. Your data will not be sold or given to anyone not connected to the Britain Stronger in Europe Campaign."

This statement should give pause for thought. Those connected to the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign could feasibly include donors and the Conservative Party - is that where you want your data to go?

BSE is therefore subject to Data Subject Access Requests and should have a nominated Data Controller. I will be enquiring of them who this is.

Leaving the European Union is not a Westminster Centric question and nor should the debate be reserved to the political chattering class which has so badly let us down over 43 years. These people cannot and must not be allowed to be the only 'talking head' in the referendum. 

The Leave Campaign is a grass roots campaign given life by the bloggers like Richard North and Boiling Frog who have been relentless and courageous in pointing out the issues with the European Union.

Do not take advice from Britain Stronger in Europe. Do not give them your data. The fact is that the United Kingdom can thrive outside the European Union. There are positives in leaving - like having an Independent voice at the Top Table.

Vote to Leave the European Union.

Article 50 The Lisbon Treaty

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the (European) Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the Council of its intentions. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Nation State concerned unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

====================

This seems to me to be unambiguous. 

Paragraph 2 states that the European Union SHALL NEGOTIATE and CONCLUDE an agreement with a withdrawing State after that State has given formal notice to the Council of withdrawing. Such agreement will be concluded by Qualified Majority Voting (QMV).

Paragraph 3 says that the Treaties shall cease to apply from the entering into force of the negotiated withdrawal agreement made in paragraph 2 or two years after formal notification of withdrawal. The period could be extended but only by unanimity which would be unlikely so two years would probably be the maximum period.

Article 4 seems to be the subject of misunderstanding. "For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3" clearly means for the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article 50 ONLY. The withdrawing State shall not, in effect, be a member of the Council when discussions are taking place on its withdrawal agreement. 

However, under Paragraph 2, it will be fully involved in the terms of the agreement offered to it. To suggest otherwise is simply incorrect. The words 'negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State' can not have any other meaning or be clearer. The United Kingdom, as, in effect, an Independent Sovereign Nation State will be at the Top Table negotiating its independence but will not not have a vote on the final agreement in the Council. I think it would be safe to assume that we would vote in favour of what we negotiated.

The United Kingdom may withdraw from the European Union. All we need to do is to officially notify the Council of our intention to withdraw to set the clock ticking. 

In order to do that we have to instruct the Government that we want to leave the European Union

Vote to Leave the European Union

Beware of Politicians bearing gifts

The saying is 'Beware of Greeks bearing gifts' but in this instance those who want to Leave the European Union need to beware of Conservative Politicians, what they say and what the press reports them saying.

Chris Grayling, the Conservative Member of Parliament for Epson & Ewell and Leader of the House of Commons is reported as saying that the 'current terms' of membership of the European Union are 'disastrous' for the United Kingdom. Mr Grayling is, however, backing David Cameron's bid to renegotiate the United Kingdom's relationship with the European Union.

This does not make Chris Grayling someone who "plans to back (the) Leave campaign" as 'The Daily Telegraph' headlines. Nor does the report that he does not believe in staying in the European Union "with our current terms of membership unchanged". Rather, it puts him in the 'wait and see' lounge with others who argue that we should see what David Cameron manages to renegotiate before making a decision. These people each have a single vote just like you and me. They don't speak for me.

For me, I am not bothered what Mr Cameron has offered to him by the European Union. He can ask for what he likes; what he is offered will be something different. I do not want to be part of a political construct whose goal is ever closer union.

There are reports that Germany, who is the driving force in the European Union, has agreed to some deprivation of benefits to migrants in the United Kingdom but, in order to achieve this, some benefits will have to be withheld from United Kingdom nationals. If this report is true, that will be quite interesting in itself because United Kingdom nationals will then be publicly as well as effectively European Union nationals and the drive to ever closer union will be moved one notch nearer. Equality of treatment of all European Union nationals will be underlined. The Nation State of the United Kingdom is being constantly eroded.

If the current terms of membership of the European Union are disastrous for the United Kingdom, why isn't the political opposition party saying so loudly? Why aren't the Liberal Democrats?

In my opinion, public statements, especially on the subject of the European Union made by Chris Grayling and other politicians are not to be trusted. One could cynically argue that the 'Eurosceptic' politicians are lulling the Leavers into a false sense of security; that these politicians will rally to the ramparts of the Leave campaign when the time comes. I don't think that we can depend on that happening or that it will happen.

When the time comes, these politicians will probably argue that any deal Mr Cameron is offered is his success and lionise him like Wellington or Nelson. They will say 'this deal is brilliant and changes the terms of our membership; vote to Remain'

The European Union is a political construct dedicated to ever closer union. Whether we are offered associate membership, or limits on benefits, or the moon made of blue cheese, we will STILL be a member of a regional supranational power. This power  can and probably will bludgeon the United Kingdom or the next Prime Minister - the heir to the heir of Blair (David Cameron) into submission. The United Kingdom will still be subordinate to another power. This cannot be allowed to continue.

The United Kingdom should not be a subordinate nation to anyone. It should be and can be again an Independent Sovereign State. 

Vote to Leave the European Union.

Stepping Stones

The United Kingdom has been a member of the European Union since 1st January 1973 - 43 years ago. On joining we took on the existing Acquis Communitaire (the body of law) and since then we have adopted many new laws. 

I think it is unrealistic to expect that the United Kingdom can just leave the European Union and on day one revoke all the laws and treaties it has signed up to. Apart from leading to Chaos, the electorate will not vote to leave the European Union if the result is uncertainty, an inability to trade or financial meltdown.

We have to leave in an organised and logical way which preserves our markets, our currency and our economy. In a way that minimises the risks to employment and to the livelihood of the population.

The Market Solution is a blueprint for how the United Kingdom can leave the European Union in a structured way, with minimal risk. It sets a pathway to an endgame where the United Kingdom can once again be a Strong Independent Sovereign Nation State. The Market Solution is a multi-stage process and the first step is an interim one - a stepping stone - to allow for an expeditious exit within the two year Article 50 period.

If you have not seen it I urge you to look at 'The Market Solution' http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/flexcit.pdf principally written by Richard North and the contributors to EUReferendum (www.eureferendum.com). In my view Dr North is owed a huge debt by people like me who want to leave the European Union. His books and articles on the European Union are not only educational but also illustrate the issues with our membership. EUReferendum is simply an indispensable resource to those who want to leave the European Union (including this blogger).

We must all accept compromises - my father once told me that politics is the art of the possible. It is not politically possible to walk away from the single market on day one after our decision to leave. The Westminster 'bubble' (Press, Pundits, Economists and Politicians) will have to accept that until they can be repatriated and renegotiated in our own National Interest that things like the Common Agricultural Policy and Freedom of Movement of people will have to remain in the medium term but TEMPORARILY.

If those who want to leave the European Union can show the mainly risk averse electorate that leaving the European Union can be done with minimal risks and that the stepping stones to a different destination are clearly laid out (as they are in 'The Market Solution') then I believe they will vote to leave.

Let us show the 'Remain' side that there is a logical alternative and that leaving the European Union is not Fear Uncertainty and Doubt but rather Strength, Independence and The Top Table. Let's adopt the plan. Let's win.

Vote to Leave the European Union