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!


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

5 Responses

  1. james Higham says:

    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.

    Do I detect less than wholehearted approval of iDave, David?

  2. Sean O'Hare says:

    ..then they will have to seek bilateral arrangements with all 26 member states and this will be on UK expenses

    On UK expenses? Would that also apply to negotiations under Art. 50? If so it makes that option far less attractive.

    • cosmic says:

      Sounds dubious because when we had these arrangements before the EU, it wasn’t entirely on UK expenses, the other party had an interest in negotiating as well and contributed to the costs. What exactly does she mean by “on UK expenses”?

      Anyway does Switzerland have to deal with all 27 separately on bilateral arrangements, or at least partly, deal with the EU as a whole? If an external state has to deal with all 27 separately, there doesn’t seem much point to the EU.

      This would be the same for any exit, via Art 50 or repealing the ECA, except the latter would be more chaotic.

      If anyone thought that exit wouldn’t have some costs and disadvantages, at least in the short term, they were kidding themselves.

      • david says:

        What you both have to realize is that the EU is going to do everything it can to make life difficult for any member state opting out or wanting to leave. My understanding is that CM is correct to a certain extent in that in the areas we opt out of and where overlap occurs then other arrangements would be required, but they would be negotiated with the EU and not individually with the other 26/27.

        Where any cost is concerned bear in mind also that if the EU were to play silly buggers on costs there is the 2 year time limit, after which they could be told ‘go whistle’. Remember also they need our trade far more than we need theirs – I can just see Germany accepting that their BMWs are no longer welcome in the UK and don’t forget they have a stake in our railways too.

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012