“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