Tag Archive: Article 50

2013
05/17

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:









COMMENTS:
3 Comments »

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…………..

2013
02/09

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:









COMMENTS:
2 Comments »

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.

2013
02/02

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:





COMMENTS:
5 Comments »

By George, he’s got it!

Or perhaps that should be By Andrew, he’s got it.

Other than the lone voice of Christopher Booker, this is the first piece I can recall seeing in the MSM that believes Cameron’s “renegotiation tactics” are based on a false premise, while mentioning Article 50 as the route of choice. From the piece by Andrew Stuttaford in the weekly Standard:

“There is a credible way for the U.K. to exit the EU (it involves Article 50 of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty; I’ll spare you the technicalities), but Cameron’s “negotiations” are not it. Anything involving the repatriation of enough powers to impress enough euroskeptics would need a new treaty to be agreed on by each EU country, a tall order for reasons that are both practical (there are currently 27 member states) and philosophical. The EU is driven by the idea of “ever closer union,” a process that only moves in one direction. Once a competence has been transferred from the national level to the EU it cannot​—​must not​—​be handed back. Were Britain to win an exception to this principle, it would make a shambles of what the EU is meant to be. “Europe,” warned the EU’s prominenti, is not “à la carte.” Britain was either in or, well, the rest was left unsaid by just about everyone other than the French.”

There we have the situation in regard to this “renegotiation meme” spelt out in plain, simple English that even Cameron should be able to understand. However, I won’t be holding my breath……..

2013
01/16

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:







COMMENTS:
7 Comments »

And yet another voice on Article 50

“The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.”
Winston Churchill

In a recent post on matters EU, Richard North EUReferendum linked to the fact that Charles Crawford – an ex-Ambassador of this country – had stated that the only way out was through Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

We now have another voice saying the same thing:

“This Friday, the mainstream media must focus on exposing the feeble foundations of his EU policy. If David Cameron is serious about renegotiation, he must first notify the EU that Britain will leave.”

We have all seen that David Cameron was not the dog’s “important bits” where the truth was concerned on his “government-by-fax” accusation in respect of Norway – as he will be shown not to be over his renegotiation meme.

Just watch……….

2012
12/28

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:










COMMENTS:
2 Comments »

Liar, liar, pants on fire

“Liar Liar Pants On Fire” is a phrase that children like to scream at each other whenever they think the other is lying. They also like to scream it at adults who tell them fairy tales. The fact that adults do not copy their children is the reason that that yet more and more politicians and their sycophants are still able to ‘ply their trade’ – which is yet another reason this country is in the state it is where our democracy is concerned.

Richard North, EU Referendum, has posted on some articles that have appeared in the Guardian, all based on the “fear meme” that for the UK to leave the European Union would be to our country’s detriment. I would go further than Richard North and state that Mats Persson is not only a liar but a fool, one who knows not about that which he writes.

For example, Persson writes that in respect of Switzerland and that country’s bi-lateral arrangements and were we to follow, it would leave the UK at the mercy of the EU in that we would basically have no influence over EU laws but would be subject to all of them; and that that, by inference, would also be the case were we to follow the Norway option of becoming a member of EFTA. Neither is true, as will be shown later. It is of course more than possible that Persson is confusing that which happens once Article 50 is invoked and in particular the fact that under section 4 of that Article the Member State in question is excluded from having any input to proposed legislation during the 2-year-period. To achieve either option would involve invoking Article 50 of the TEU which, for the avoidance of doubt, states:

“1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. 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.EN 30.3.2010 Official Journal of the European Union C 83.

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 Member 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.” (Emphasis mine)

For Persson to maintain the myth that were the UK to become a member of EFTA it would literally not be in the EU but run by it is utter tosh as has been admirably demonstrated by this post from Richard North. That one such as Persson is allowed to occupy the position he does without criticism in the MSM beggars belief – that Cameron allows Persson (and Leadsom) to continue their propoganda does not beggar belief!

What Persson also fails to mention is the point that Richard North makes in his latest article, namely that were the UK to leave the EU then other nations such as Denmark, Sweden and Finland may well follow in our wake which must increase the probability that the implosion of the EU is hastened.

The article in the Guardian by Mats Persson – a non-persson as far as I am concerned – to which Richard North links, is but part of the PR exercise being conducted by the left and those Europhiles (same animal?) that wish the EU membership status quo to prevail. Yet another article in this series is this one, again published in the Guardian and one that features such luminaries as Mandelson, Heseltine and Leon Brittan.

It is important to make the point and in this instance to repeat it, namely that were a referendum to be called, the ‘No’ campaign cannot – and must not – be left in the control of people like Mats Persson and Open Europe, nor Matthew Elliot. It becomes even more important that the Harrogate Agenda becomes involved and – in the best of all worlds – becomes the ‘lead’ of that campaign. It is also vitally important that a coalition of voices to combat the present PR ‘Pro-EU Campaign’ that the Guardian, along with Open Europe, appears to be spearheading, is promptly ‘nipped in the bud’. Unfortunately, in view of the New Year Message issued by Nigel Farage – and the ‘tosh’ contained therein, especially in Farage’s interpretation of Article 50 of the TEU – there is not much chance, nor point, in allowing Ukip to take the lead

Just saying……….

 

 

 

2012
12/27

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:






COMMENTS:
6 Comments »

Back to Switzerland and ‘democracy’

Two snippets of news that seemed to escape the British media – as far as I can see – is, first, the hint by Finance Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf about Switzerland’s willingness to discuss possible forms of an information exchange with the European Union over banking data which has prompted a heated reaction at home. What we have, in this article, is the view of the right that further subjugation by Switzerland to the European Union is ‘verboten’, while those on the left, who wish for Switzerland to become a full member of the European Union, are all for the idea.

The other was the news that the European Union is attempting to put pressure on Switzerland by stating that it feels Switzerland’s practice of negotiating sector-by-sector accords is a policy which has, in the words of the EU, ‘reached its limits’ and is in need of ‘review’.

Where the EU’s aims hit the ‘proverbial brick wall’ is the Swiss method of democracy, namely one which incorporates the principle of direct democracy, wherein the people possess the ability to have the ‘final say’ on any intentions their political class may wish to implement.

There are, I know, some among us who feel that membership of EFTA is the ‘way to go’ once we are no longer a member of the EU and thus no longer subject to its political ‘control’ and maintain that to agree sector-by-sector accords, as has Switzerland, would take far too long to negotiate. At this moment it is unclear whether those proposing membership of EFTA consider that a ‘halfway house’ in order to reach an arrangement similar to Switzerland, or consider it the only viable alternative to full membership. I did suggest in a post, a few days ago, that this is a matter for those far more knowledgeable than I to discuss; and I do feel it is a question that should be ‘discussed’ in far greater detail – especially in view of any possible referendum and the question of ‘what after’. It is worth noting, in fairness, that these bilateral agreements have taken time to come to fruition.

As with the UK, the EU needs Switzerland far more than either country needs the EU where the matter of trade is concerned, consequently in any negotiations of future access to the Single Market does not Switzerland and the UK – were the UK to invoke Article 50 in attempting to negotiate a new ‘relationship’ – not hold the ‘whip-hand’ in any such future arrangement?

Just asking………

 

2012
12/18

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:









COMMENTS:
5 Comments »

What’s in a name

In respect of Open Europe it is becoming increasingly obvious that one of their spokesmen, Mats, will shortly become a non-Persson if he continues to write the rubbish that he does – and just has.

“But, most significantly, it illustrated that what both “outists” and Europhiles tell us – that the UK is faced with an “all or nothing” choice in Europe with no path in between – is too simplistic. Indeed, last week’s deal represented that “third way” that we’re told doesn’t exist.”

Did not that chap in France warn Cameron that clawing back powers was not possible as a power ceded was ceded for life? Just what is it that Mats Persson does not understand of a subject on which he presents himself as an expert?

In order for some of us to be ‘educated’ perhaps Mats – or some other idiot – will explain to us the ‘mechanics’ of this “third way”; how it can be conducted; the outcome they hope to achieve and the time-frame in which they envisage it happening.

Yup, sure Britain can renegotiate their terms of membership – but it will necessitate invoking Article 50 of the TEU to do it.

 

2012
12/14

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:






COMMENTS:
16 Comments »

Government by fax – really?

On Wednesday the Newsnight programme, chaired by Jeremy Paxman, was devoted entirely to the question of this country’s membership of the European Union (note this link is ‘time-limited’ where availability is concerned). During the course of this programme a statement was made by Helle Hagenau – who is actually from Denmark and worked as Secretary General in Norway’s “No to EU” in 2001 – that caused not one ripple of interest among the panelists among the anti-EU side while all Jeremy Paxman could do was make what could be considered a sneering remark. It should be noted that while this programme was hailed as ‘tv not to be missed” by those on twitter, there were some among us, besides me, that were not that impressed – but I digress.

In answer to the accusation that Norway suffered from ‘government by fax’ from Brussels, Hagenau said (starts 32:12):

“No, we are not governed by fax because the European agreement, the single market agreement, that has a clause when we can veto a directive if we don’t like it; and we have done that.”

This promptly set the bloodhound in me off in full pursuit, nose to the ground. With the aid of Richard North, The Boiling Frog and further sifting of the internet by me, some interesting results were found.

First, from Richard North, comes the EFTA Bulletin “The European Economic Area and the Single Market 20 years on”, September 2012 and from pages 13-14 we read:

“Despite the equality of the EU and EEA EFTA in the formal institutional framework of the EEA Agreement, it has always been clear that the EU is the leading partner. As a result, the automatic implementation of EU legislation is rarely discussed in the Icelandic parliament. According to many legal scholars, however, this harmonised legal framework is in violation of the Icelandic constitution. When Iceland does try to deviate from the EU rules, the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) intervenes. More than a dozen times, the Authority has taken direct action or issued formal infringement procedures against Iceland before the EFTA Court for being in violation of EU law. The number of cases against Iceland increased substantially after the 2008 economic crash. Even though EEA legislation needs to be passed through the Icelandic Parliament, it has increasingly become evident that the EEA EFTA Member States cannot refuse EU legislation without threatening the
whole arrangement. If this were to happen, it would go against the overall aim of the EEA Agreement, which is to ensure legal homogeneity in the Single Market, and it would be in the hands of the European Commission to decide whether or not to suspend the part of the EEA Agreement that refers to vetoed legislation. Vetoing EU legislation could lead to withdrawal from the EEA Agreement, not only for the individual Member State, but also for its two other EEA EFTA partners. Often referred to as the “thermonuclear clause”, the formal veto right could be effective, but it might not be to anyone’s benefit if it was used. On a few occasions, however, EU directives (the directives on electricity providers and sewers and, most recently, the service directive) have, however, been disputed to the extent that they have prompted a general political debate over the veto right.
Recently the Norwegian Parliament refused to implement the amended directive on postal services. The Icelandic Government is of course following that process with interest.” (Emphasis mine)

This fact is confirmed by the UNI Post and Logistics Global Union who state (page 12):

“As a result of an extensive campaign run by the union and supported by UNI Post & Logistics, history was made in April 2011 when the Norwegian Government decided it would not implement the Directive.”

Courtesy of The Boiling Frog we then find this from the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the pertinent section is 6.1.4. The right of veto, from which:

“According to the principle of unanimity applied in the EEA Joint Committee, all the EFTA states must agree in order for new EU legislation to be integrated into the EEA Agreement and for it to apply to cooperation between the EFTA states and the EU. If one EFTA state opposes integration, this also affects the other EFTA states in that the rules will not apply to them either, neither in the individual states nor between the EFTA states themselves nor in their relations with the EU. This possibility that each EFTA state has to object to new rules that lie within the scope of the EEA Agreement becoming applicable to the EFTA pillar is often referred to as these parties’ right of veto.”

Bearing in mind this section of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs information document appears to have been written before April 2011, it goes on to state that the importance of the EFTA pillar as a market for the EU and as a common market for the EFTA states has been significantly reduced. If problems should arise between Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein on the one hand and the EU on the other in connection with the integration of new EU legislation into the EEA Agreement, the natural balance will therefore have shifted in the EFTA pillar’s disfavour and makes the point that this trend will be exacerbated by future enlargements of the EU to include new member states.

Again courtesy of Richard North (and Google), we find this, from which:

“The most direct means the Storting has for influencing EU legislation is through Art. 103 of the EEA Agreement which gives the national parliaments veto power over the decisions of the EEA Committee. This Article was introduced to accommodate constitutional requirements in the EFTA states, and reflects the fact that formally the agreement is only an ordinary international treaty. Under Art. 26 of the Norwegian Constitution, new international obligations of particular importance must be accepted by the Storting before they can be ratified.”

What the foregoing shows is that there are a number of points that need to be made and made quite forcibly.

  • That are those supposed ‘eurosceptics’ fighting for withdrawal from the EU ‘up to the job’ and do they actually know what they are talking about? For a statement to be made, such as that by Hagenau, not to be immediately ‘picked up’ by a ‘leading light’ of the eurosceptic movement – Farage – (apologies for any hint of sarcasm) beggars belief.
  • For Cameron to repeat what is obviously a lie can only lay him open to the charge of misleading the British public and begs the question whether he has the right to continue to be addressed with a title which includes the word ‘Honourable’.
  • Were any referendum to be held in this country on membership of the EU, how can we be sure that we will be presented with all the facts when politicians, such as Cameron and others are, shall we say, “economical with the actualité”?
  • Why has our “informative” media not informed us of the fact that membership of the EEA provides a means of applying a veto to EU Directives? Why have the media not exposed Cameron and other politicians as not quite telling the truth and in so doing propagating what are lies about ‘government by fax’?
  • If and when (God forbid) Cameron does go to Brussels to ‘renegotiate a new agreement’, why does a sense of foreboding come over me? How can we trust one who is a proven liar where ‘matters EU’ are concerned and who obviously knows not of that on which he intends negotiating?
  • That we need a few clauses added to our non-existent written Constitution.
  • And that when we do redefine our arrangements with the EU we need a bloody good lawyer.

Just saying………………

Update: Courtesy of PurpleRevolution on twitter, who ‘feeds’ me info comes the latest Norwegian Committee’s review of Norway’s Arrangements with the EU.

2012
12/12

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:




COMMENTS:
4 Comments »

Has the penny ‘dropped’?

It would appear that for one member of Ukip it most certainly has where the matter of renegotiating our membership of the European Union is concerned.

“So let’s welcome the new realism on Europe from some senior Tories.  But let’s also demand that they make themselves a little clearer on what they really want.  And let’s remember that the only way to get there is by invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which will allow us to negotiate a new relationship with Brussels.  Cameron’s idea that he can just show up in the Berlaymont Building and jettison half of the acquis communautaire is so much pie in the sky.”

Either this chap is ‘off message’ or this is a public admission that Ukip are ‘re-thinking’ the presentation of their strategy…………

Just saying………….

2012
12/10

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:










COMMENTS:
5 Comments »

This year? Next year? Nope, this year – Oh, wait a mo

Richard North, EUReferendum, has posted about ‘matters Oslo’, Cameron’s future, ‘yesterdays men’ (Messrs. Davis and Fox) and the inability of Ukip to have any importance in ‘matters withdrawal’.

We had been led to believe that David Cameron would be making a major speech this year, setting out his ‘vision’ of the relationship twixt the European Union and the UK, but we then informed by some in the media that this would not happen until next year. We now see that it may be next week or that it might be after Christmas – although how long after Christmas the report does not specify.

This article in the FT by George Parker offers both ‘dream’ and ‘nightmare’ scenarios for both Cameron and MilibandE – on which I pass no comment. If Cameron still believes he can ‘cherry-pick’ those powers he wishes to repatriate – even assuming he would be able to get a ‘hearing’, which is extremely unlikely – then a portent of what would await him comes with the warning from Cecilia Malmström where the mass opt-out of more than 130 policies to tackle cross-border terrorism and crime, including the European arrest warrant, is concerned. Ms Malmström is quoted as stating that “If they [UK] do choose to opt out of – for instance, from the arrest warrant – then they will have to seek bilateral arrangements with all 26 member states and this will be on UK expenses”.

Where ‘matters renegotiate’ are concerned there are those who believe that Article 48 (TEU) can be used, whereas others  – headed by Richard North – have shown that the only method by which new terms of membership can be renegotiated is by invoking Article 50, whereby notice is given of withdrawal and then negotiations for new terms of membership are promptly commenced. It is therefore reasonable to assume that until Cameron recognizes and accepts the Article 50 route, whatever he is ‘cooking up’ in his pot is going to look and taste completely unpalatable, not only to the public but to his party. Watching this subject unfold, one which Cameron has more than once attempted to ‘park’ out of public and his party’s view, is going to present watchers with a ‘tragic comedy’ in that I can foresee both despair and humour in equal measure – despair at seeing one ill-equiped for the task in hand fail yet again; and humour in seeing once again Cameron falling flat on his face. Still, Cameron will be able to console himself with the knowledge that the sheep safely corralled in his Witney field would no doubt re-elect him with an increased majority.

We are presently inundated with opinion polls and in their lifespan now and then there appears a ‘rogue’ poll – and this would seem to be one such, although Smithson”s caveat regarding accuracy must be noted. What it does show though is 2 findings; (a) that of two parties, neither of whom appears to have the slightest idea about withdrawal from the European Union, one has managed a lead over the other of 10%; and (b) that (a) shows the superficial knowledge of those polled about ‘politics’ and the EU.

And therein lies the problem for the hopes of those who will be campaigning for a ‘No’ vote, come any referendum; unless that campaign is properly managed!

Older Entries

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012