...he would invoke
article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to leave the EU
I've never seen anything more in Cameron's renegotiation and referendum line than a damage limitation exercise for a GE he knows is lost. It's all strictly for the suckers. He's clearly determined that the UK will not leave the EU, whatever he finds it useful to say or hint at.I'm slightly surprised that The Colleagues aren't prepared to pretend to go along with it a bit and cut him some slack. However, as Richard North pointed out a few weeks back, when Wilson got his bogus concessions things were decided by a meeting of representatives from the members states, these days, the EP and the European Council have to agree, everything is more formal and there are more members.It's good that Farage is talking about Art 50 exit.
"It's good that Farage is talking about Art 50 exit." Yes spot on...it's progress on what's gone on before - the message is getting out there.
There has obviously been some discussion going on in UKIP with regard to Article 50 for Gerard Batten to produce this leaflet arguing against as humiliating.http://www.gerardbattenmep.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/The-Road-to-Freedom_WEB.pdf
Thank you very much for your link...I hadn't spotted that. I see he is using the same language of "a trap" not realising that A50 does allow unilateral exit which he argues for.Sometimes I want to give up.
Nevertheless, I can understand his point about A50 being humiliating, as we would no doubt have to appeal to the colleagues better nature, although I don't understand how it could be considered dishonourable. I'm not an expert on international law so would have to take his word for it that there is a sound legal basis for his exit strategy, but am dismayed that he doesn't even attempt to justify it economically.
Personally I don't agree that it is humiliating...it is fulfilling our international obligations which are part of a treaty that was agreed by a "democratically" elected Parliament.Leaving aside the semantics, not to abide by the t's & c's of an international treaty, which we willing signed up to, would be devastating to Britain's reputation.More importantly, we must bear in mind the author. Batten is an MEP and his position relies on Nigel to retain that in the 2014 EU elections. By quite a few accounts Batten is worried about losing his position - al la Marta Andreasen - because he is at odds with Nigelhttp://juniusonukip.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/marta-andreasen-and-gerard-batten-on.htmlThat Nigel seems to be converting to the Article 50 option puts Batten's contrary arguments into context.
There are obvious dangers with withdrawing via Art 50. The process could be derailed, and it doesn't have to end in exit. The dangers in declaring UDI are much greater. We'd have to live with the EU after withdrawal. There would have to be a process of negotiating with it over all sorts of areas; trade, fishing, air traffic control; there are hundreds of things. Inevitably this would take time. Simply declaring UDI and then finding that all sorts of things no longer worked would be an obvious recipe for chaos. People don't like chaos, it makes leaving the EU a step in the dark and it makes it likely that we'd be going back cap in hand. Having no clear plan about how we manage the process of exit and what comes next gives a clear point of leverage for those who want to keep us in.There's no big red reset button which we can press and then emerge in an alternative version of history, in which Heath never dragged us into the EEC.
Just finished saying, think it was at Old Rightie, that he can do this if he wishes. He doesn't wish.
"I'm slightly surprised that The Colleagues aren't prepared to pretend to go along with it a bit and cut him some slack" - I think that a lot of what happens also has to be accounted for by logic; if A then B, etc. If at a fork in the road, whichever option is chosen, then the consequences of that choice also have to be accepted. To be a good EU apparatchik, one cannot countenance going against the rules; or even appearing to be going against the rules. And that, perhaps in the end, will be the weakness of the EU experiment that brings about its demise. I can only hope.
I agree that the whole thing is becoming more rigid, as we have seen with the Euro.In any case, the likelihood of Cameron being in office to do any of this is slim. Then he'd be executing a policy which he's only set out grudgingly and in vague terms. We've seen him pointing out the small print before.Then there are the practicalities of repatriating some powers when the EU's competences are a tangle of interdependencies.It's all moonshine. I think it sounds pretty good to those Conservatives still determined to have faith in the party, but not to anyone who's even slightly critical.
That David Cameron is such a lier and takes us all for fools, just like Blair.
TBF You are quite right that Britain could not afford to be seen as a country which tears up its treaties and Article 50 is the method provided in the Treaty.What matters is the political determination of theeventual British negotiators, not the route they apparently take.I would favour a "belt and braces approach" with strong domestic legislation (with highly disuasive penalties) to ensure there can be no backsliding, as all sorts of official bodies are so thoroughly europeanised. Something like the Henry VIII Act of Supremacy and Act in Restraint of Appeals, so no British Europhile ccould run off to a European court during the negotiations.Since the formation of the ESM, we are , in fact, dealing with 17 euro countries which have decided to become one anti-democratic state with the EU voting power of a permanent majority. The Foreign Office will need a profound culture change. It is used to dealing with all sorts of nasty, anti-democratic governments. It will just need to get used to the idea that this foreign government is no longer part of ours. A few senior heads may have to roll to ensure that the Mandarins know that the move to independence is irreversible.
The political will to carry this through is paramount.I'd say there was more to it than running off to European courts, more of a background of sustained obstruction from all those Europeanised official and semi-official bodies seeing the umbilical cord about to be severed.I agree that strong domestic legislation including oaths of alegion would be necessary.
For more info on what we might do over the practicalities of withdrawal and negotiating a new relationship outside the EU, see the following links.www.newalliance.org.uk/mar2013.pdf (scenario)www.newalliance.org.uk/intlaw.htm (international law Q&A)www.newalliance.org.uk/noway.htm also covers the futility of trying to bring powers back from within the EU, and how it increases its control over us.