Tag Archive: Article 50

Well, that’s a “priti” poor article……

Ms Patel, the “acknowledged” Eurosceptic Conservative MP for Witham, has an article on ConservativeHome in which she argues that the recent first tranche that has been released about EU competences does not go far enough – and that her party needs to go much, much further. This article is a classic example of a Conservative MP who wishes to “toe the party line” yet appear a Eurosceptic – while also illustrating that she knows squat-diddly about that on which she pontificates.

Immediately we are presented with the scenario that we need to repatriate more powers than have been envisaged. That we can even repatriate powers shows that Ms Patel understands not the Acquis, something which defines that a power ceded can never be reclaimed.

Leaving that small lack of knowledge to one side, Ms Patel compounds further an even greater lack of her knowledge when she cites the European President of Ford who has claimed that EU regulations add £6,000 to the cost of an average car. As one of those who consider themselves superior to we plebs – and therefore the guardians of our best interests, similar to that of a shepherd and his flock – she exhibits her total ignorance where the derivation of regulations is concerned. It is not EU regulations that add to the cost of an average car but the regulations, which the EU implements, that come from the  Harmonisation of Vehicle Regulations, administered by UNECE.

Ms. Patel further displays a distinct lack of ignorance where “matters EU” are concerned when she maintains that the present Government’s focus should be on the 3 ‘R’s, namely Reform, Repatriation and Renegotiation – rather than withdrawal. First, reform cannot take place without treaty change and second, the latter two cannot be achieved without first invoking Article 50 of the TEU, the basis of which is dependent on notice of withdrawal.

While she also maintains that the review of competences is to further debate, one has to question how debate can take place when it is to be driven by one such as Ms. Patel who obviously knows not about that which she wishes to debate.

In my preceding post I queried whether we should not demand of our political elite proof of their superiority over we plebs where matters political are concerned. Methinks that Ms. Patel has just demonstrated that so to do would be a waste of our time and effort.

 

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

This I can’t wait to see…….

The BBC reports that David Cameron, on a visit to Crewe’s Bentley carpark where a Cameron Direct Q&A session/meeting was held, stated that:

“I think a greater uncertainty would be to put your head in the sand and pretend there isn’t a problem with Europe. There is a problem and I’m going to fix it.”

Really? And just when might someone who also believes he can walk on water deign to enlighten us mere mortals how this might be achieved? How does he believe he can reclaim powers ceded to an organisation that will never allow such? Does he, who now appears to believe he has the same powers as the Deity, intend to invoke Article 50 – or do an “Ian Smith“?

Knowing that he, or his office, read this blog – do tell Mr Cameron as I and no doubt at least half the country are all agog.

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

EU Referendum now!

So goes the cry from sections of the political bubble, each with their own “agenda” and each determined not to explain to the electorate just what is their “agenda”. We have the ‘In’ crowd, comprising Cameron, Clegg and MilibandE with other “think tanks/pressure groups who most certainly won’t fairly set out the pros and cons of membership – and opposing them we have the ‘No’ crowd who appear as if they can’t be arsed to even get out of bed. Then of course we have a third element in this “EU Referendum now” meme, namely Nigel Farage, who at times one can be forgiven for wondering if he even understands the meaning of the word “agenda”, let alone spell it.

Much vacuous wordage is penned on this subject and the two most recent examples come from John Prescott (a Temple worshipper) and Dominic Moffitt (Campaign Director of Labour for a Referendum). In all the aforesaid vacuous wordage you will find no mention of how we get out and what do we want if and when we get out. Oh there are cries of a need for a trading arrangement – and how does one get a trading arrangement? What are the conditions that need to be met in order to gain this “trading arrangement!? Do these trading arrangements grow on trees, ready for picking as and when required?

Further “mixing” the question about “A referendum now” meme are those who robotically say that we don’t need a referendum, we can just repeal ECA 1972 as Parliament is “sovereign”.. Yet these are the same people who rail against the loss of sovereignty to Brussels – which immediately begs the question that if we have lost sovereignty to Brussels, how then can Parliament be “sovereign”?

This country has signed an international treaty and as such is bound by international law and within that treaty is an exit clause. Having sourced some learned legal opinion, the consensus is that we are bound to follow that exit clause if we wish to terminate our membership of the EU. If one accepts said learned legal opinion, which I would argue we must, a further question arises for the “Repeal ECA 1972″ brigade – were the UK to abrogate a treaty and the conditions imposed therein, what chance is there of having the party to a new treaty accepting our word and signature?

Those parroting the “Referendum now” meme are putting the British electorate in an impossible position. In this regard, it is worth recalling a point and question posed a few months ago by a female audience member of BBC Any Questions. That was: how are we [the people] supposed to make a decision on something about which we know nothing and do not the political class have a duty to present, fairly, the pros and cons of membership.

Reverting to the first paragraph of this post, bearing in mind the “agendas” about which I mentioned, that lady’s question just ain’t, ever, going to be answered. On reflection, it may get answered on blogs such as EUReferendum, Autonomous Mind, The Boiling Frog and this blog – to mention just a few of a small band – but one gets the impression that we are talking to, through no fault of their own, the deaf, dumb and blind

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Cridland – or should the first vowel be a ‘u’?

Richard North, EUReferendum, links to the words of the head of the CBI – whose vacuous verbosity knows no bounds – hence my querying whether Richard North had made a “typo” where this man’s name is concerned; but I digress.

It is hoped that I am not the only one who has noticed the increase in articles and speeches “rubbishing” the article 50 exit strategy and a seamless move to  EFTA and the EEA. And as Richard North noted in an earlier post, just why should the needs of the business community “control” the question of whether this country remains a member of the EU, or its relationship with the EU? And the voice of the people?

Much is made of those writing and speaking about membership of EFTA/EEA as our having no say over Directives issued by the EU – but that argument is comprehensively demolished by Richard North’s article.

What idiots like Cridland seem to forget, leaving to one side that we would have the ability to have a voice in the framing of legislation long before it reaches the EU to implement, is that we would then have the ability – through our membership of EFTA/EEA – to refuse to implement any Directive that we did not like.

Where any cessation of this country’s membership of the EU is concerned it has to be recognised that we who would wish to leave are in a war and what we are now hearing and seeing from those who wish to maintain the status quo is the “fog of war”. Witness the article by Mats Persson and that from Mandelson, plus this Guardian editorial – and acknowledging the article from WhiteWedneseday who shows Open Europe’s true colours – and it is apparent that already the “In” side are getting their plan of campaign and strategy together. Would that the “No” side engaged brain a tad!

What those asking for a different relationship with the EU tend to forget is that we cannot simply “walk away” – ie, repeal ECA1972 and job done – because, forgetting the Vienna Convention and the fact that the EU has already informed us that under the Lisbon Treaty, EU law is supreme not only to national law but national constitutional law, there are heaven knows how many treaties to which we are a party, but only as a member of the EU. Each of those treaties would need to be renegotiated by us as a separate country. Bearing in mind the enormity of that task, this could not be done in the space of two years, hence the obviousness of “parking” ourselves in EFTA and the EEA while we negotiate bilateral agreements with the EU, as has Switzerland – and negotiating  new individual treaties to replace those negotiated by the EU on our behalf.

 This entire subject – membership or not of the EU – is being highjacked by the Europhiles; and we on the outside are sitting on our hands and letting them set the argument.

Just saying…………..


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Article 50 – and a “nag” or two…….

There has appeared on the blog of The Boiling Frog three articles on the above subject which should be required reading for all those interested in matters EU.

Besides being highly informative TBF debunks the arguments which are raised, should the UK invoke Article 50, about “punitive” laws being imposed on us, which as he states would be against the fundamental principles of the treaties and spirit of the EU and the Single Market. In dealing with the two-year period stipulated within Article 50 (it can, as TBF, states be shortened or lengthened by agreement) he explains how such punitive laws could not be imposed due to the timescale that the formation of law takes. In the final part TBF deals with the matter of possible retribution measures that might be taken by the EU for failing to implement any such law – were it able to be passed -  or, come to that, any law passed within this two year period.

There are two further points worth making at this juncture, one of which TBF covers in his articles. The first of these points is to do with the “repeal the ECA1972 and with one bound we are free” meme, one that once again John Redwood was proposing just a few days ago – a post within which when challenged by me in the comments section he refused to accept that he was wrong, although he did have the grace to concede that exiting from the EU via Article 50 was another way. With such “leading lights” as Redwood within the eurosceptic camp, one is left with a sense of foreboding where the success of the ‘No’ campaign is concerned.

The second point worth making is that Farage and Ukip, among others, are clamouring for a referendum now and until a week or so ago – on the occasion of Cameron’s speech – Farage had not mentioned the magic words “Article 50″. Having at last done so, why did the content of TBF’s three articles not appear on Ukip’s website? Why does it take an independent blogger to do this type of work?

On that last point, let me move onto the “matter du jour” – and no, it is not the EU budget “agreement”, another story on which the media have it so wrong – namely the question of horse meat having been found to enter the food chain. Richard North, EUReferendum, has three posts, here, here and here which are also “required reading” on this subject. Again, one has to query why it should be an independent blogger who provides all the “detail” and information? Just where are the MSM? As Richard North points out, this entire matter has arisen through a checking system introduced by the EU and which relies purely on a “paper trail” and as such is a massive failure by the EU. Food is an EU competence, as Owen Paterson has stated, consequently the UK cannot take unilateral action to solve the difficulties that the problem has thrown up which means that the incompetents that caused this problem – the EU – are now involved, something which does not give one much confidence in the new measures that will surely be forthcoming. One also has to ask where Ukip and Farage are on this matter as their silence has been rather noticeable – should they not be at the forefront of the condemnation, explaining how and why it has arisen?  At the time of writing, this is Ukip’s home page:

Neither the political class nor the MSM have the slightest understanding of the word omnishambles when they use it, which no doubt they will once they realize the true extent of this problem that presently nags at our attention. In plain, simple English it is not an omnishambles, it is a complete disaster, as is the European Union, politics in the UK and they system of democracy under which and by which we are governed.


Share