EU Referendum: EEA Ruled by Fax? Iceland Said No

It does seem rather revealing that, David Cameron has opted to make his case against UK membership of the European Economic Area (EEA) - the so-called Norway option - in Iceland, which is also a member of the EEA.

The EEA would allow us to have access to the Single Market without "ever closer union, but crucially as Flexcit demonstrates membership would not be the end game but merely part of a six stage process to facilitate an orderly exit and allow the UK to rejoin the global community without EU constraints or baggage.

That neither the Vote Leave campaign nor the Leave.EU campaign (nor indeed UKIP), thus far the only two candidates for official designation, have officially adopted such a position of the Norway option leaves us wondering why the Prime Minister would go to such lengths to discredit the option.

It can only leave us with the conclusion that the option posses a significant threat to the pro-EU movement. It negates the economic argument, leaving only politics and "ever closer union" which leaves them vulnerably exposed. And with this it does indicate that the ideas behind Flexcit, the only definitive exit plan on the table which helps us leave the EU, is gaining traction.

It appears rather ironic that Cameron will attempt to argue against EEA membership in Iceland, which has a population of around 313,000 people; a country which boasts fewer people than the London Borough of Croydon (363,000). A country which has, as we have noted before, said no to the EU.

Iceland was involved with one of biggest rejections of the EU there has ever been by an EEA member over the collapse of Icesave.

Yet as has been typical of our membership of the EU, it has been based from the outset on deception and quite frankly lies, a deception necessary as the true nature of the project cannot be conveyed candidly by politicians to the British people as they would rightly reject it. The true nature of which the EU itself readily acknowledges.

And so it proves with the Norway option which allows us a "stepping stone" out. Inaccurately dismissed as "ruled by fax" (perhaps the use of the term fax is an indication of the backward looking nature of EU supporters - the world's moved on) Norway has in reality more say than the UK over Single Market rules, particularly via global regulatory bodies such as UNECE. Not forgetting also that EEA members have a veto over EU single market rules as per the video above.

Here we see that Mr Brexit does a comprehensive job of demolishing the "Norway has no say meme", for example:

Norway and the other EFTA countries have more influence over the rules and regulations that are turned into laws. In fact, they actually get two bites of the cherry in influencing their shape. As a non-EU country, Norway represents itself on the world stage. Unlike every EU member state, Norway has seats on the international bodies where rules are developed and decided, before being handed down to the EU to implement. EU member states are not allowed to represent themselves, the insists on having a single position for all 28 member states, which is a generally a diluted, compromise position.

But then as members of the EEA (single market) the EU consults Norway and the other EFTA countries on the measures to be implemented, giving them an opportunity to influence the shape of the implementation. So Norway has more than just a say, it also gets to shape the rules from the outset and again at implementation. This gives Norway far more influence than any EU member state.

With the deception of associate membership now out in the open, and the danger which Cameron et al faces over the Norway Option combined with Flexcit, it's only our own side that can stop us now.

Government By Fax? Norway Has A Veto

Cameron: "I think it is worth understanding what leaving would involve – there is the Norway option. You can be like Norway – and you can have full access to the single market but you have absolutely no say over the rules of that market. In Norway they sometimes call it ‘Government by fax’ because you are simply taking the instructions about every rule in the single market from Brussels without any say on what those rules are."

It was Witterings from Witney that alerted me via email to this Newsnight programme on Wednesday (copy going on youtube later today) in particular this comment (32:12) from Helle Hagenau, who worked as Secretary General in Norway's No to EU in 2001:

“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.”

In one simple sentence one of the long running and best known EU arguments for remaining members has been nailed for the lie that it is, yet the comment, dynamite as it is, seems hitherto have passed by unnoticed by a large number of euroscpetics.

Witterings has the details which is worth reading in full, the key one is this from the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (6.1.4) - the right of veto:

“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.”

In short if Norway doesn't like the fax it receives it can simply file it in the bin. Cameron has been exposed as a liar, and his key argument against a 'Norway solution' has been comprehensively holed below the waterline.

"Government by fax" is a wholly inaccurate yet powerful soundbite, but now we have powerful soundbite in response - "that's a lie, Norway has a veto".

The importance of this cannot be overstated.

Edit: I've uploaded the relevant clip here:

Misleading

Following on from the Leveson Report, Newsflash from the UK has nicely spotted this from the European Commission political officer Marie-Madeleine Kanellopoulou, based in the EU's office in Westminster (ex Tory HQ) reported as saying,:

"We are following the Leveson inquiry to see the outcome. In the UK we have to deal with a very euro-sceptical British public and that's not helped by the hostile audience in the British press.

We want to engage with the media, with stakeholders and non governmental organisations.... but repeated mis-representation in the media was making communication of the true facts about EU policy difficult...

We are trying to rebut EU myths in the press but it is not easy because the Press Complaints Commission has a limited remit".

Apparently it's all the newspaper's fault we're Eurosceptic, if only they could make the media more compliant, we'll all be happy Europeans. Funny thing also about so-called Euro myths is the EU's rebuttal of them are ironically myths, we've been here before.

But then this has never been about establishing the truth.

The EU. What's In It For Me?

From Muffled Vociferation, my attention is drawn to this new EU website promising:

A No-Nonsense Guide for UK Citizens to what the European Union Delivers.

I think we've already worked that out for ourselves, thanks.

This website is firmly in the "we haven't got our message across" camp, the default position of every deeply unpopular government who's unable to comprehend why. Labour were masters of this before the last election.

The website even has it's own EU Myths page. Pro EU loving types simply adore these, as if dispelling a few silly tabloid articles somehow justifies its existence. It doesn't.

Funnily enough, that the EU is a fundamentally corrupt, undemocratic, self-serving bureaucracy which won't take 'no' for an answer doesn't appear under EU Myths. I wonder why?

Update: Reading the myths, they don't even give an original source as to where the story came from. And quite often, as I posted here they are result of assuming a paper has said something which it hasn't.

When Is A Myth Not A Myth

From EU Weekly, I spot this website listing all the so-called EuroMyths. Adopting a tone of 'aren't you Brits funny' it's a shame EU Weekly didn't take the time to read them properly because some of them turned out to be true and some of them weren't myths from the start. Take this one for instance:

Euromyth: Car lights must be used during day
There is a commitment by EU member states to equip new vehicles with ecologically friendly daytime lights , though having such lights would not, of course, force people to use them.

So let's see the article the EU refers to:

Motorists must switch on lights during day, EU says.
MOTORISTS may be forced to switch on their headlights when driving in daylight under European proposals aimed at improving road safety.

'May' is not the Times stating a fact, just a supposition

It is also proposing that all new cars be fitted with lights that turn on automatically whenever the engine is started.

And guess what happened in 2008? Directive 2008/89/EC (my emphasis):

(2) In order to increase road safety by improving the conspicuity of motor vehicles the obligation for fitting dedicated daytime running lights on these vehicles should be introduced into Directive 76/756/EEC.

Hmm dedicated lights designed to come on...wait for it...in the daytime! DRLs by their very design come on when the engine is started:

Where fitted, dedicated daytime running lights will switch on automatically when the engine is started.

And I have experience of DRLs. I have a new car with them fitted - in time for EU 2011 deadline - and they come on as soon as I start the engine. Is there a button to turn them off? No. Is there any practical way of turning them off? No. Can I stop them working in any way? No, not without causing significant damage to the front of my car with a hammer. So I am being forced to use lights during the day. So not a myth then.

Let's try another 'myth':

The European parliament votes today on whether or not your romantic text messages and phone calls should be stored - all in the interest of fighting terrorism.

Several new pieces of legislation have been put forward to gain greater control over electronic communications in a bid to curb terrorist activity. The new proposed laws would keep records of your electronic conversations for a number of years.

Information collected from mobile phones, landline phones and internet traffic would be stored so it could possibly be used to trace criminals.

The EU's response:

In March 2006 the European Parliament and the Council adopted a directive aimed at storing so-called ‘traffic data’ - details about the time and place of a communication, as well as the numbers dialled.

The directive does not relate to the content of the information communicated.

But the Swedish paper does not actually say the content is stored; it heavily implies it sure but the substance of what it says is true as the EU acknowledged in its response. Again not a myth.

Here's another:

A European Corporate Income Tax ?

"Chancellor Gordon Brown is heading for a bruising clash in Europe … He will veto plans for harmonisation of corporation tax … Among the proposals that will be blocked is a single 'European Corporate Income Tax', some of the proceeds of which would go straight to the Commission ..."

EU response:

The Commission has not proposed EU tax harmonisation and does not believe it is necessary to fix a minimum corporate tax rate. Member States are free to choose the tax systems they consider most appropriate, provided they respect EU rules. The level of taxation in the EU is a matter for individual Member States to decide. However, the Commission considers that the reform of company taxation in the EU is crucial to achieving the goal of making the Union the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010. In the longer term, companies must be allowed a consolidated corporate tax base for their EU-wide activities to avoid the current costly inefficiencies of 15 separate sets of tax rules.

Read that carefully and you'll see that it doesn't specifically reject the original report and no wonder:

Since the foundation of the EU, the European Commission has started several initiatives to coordinate corporate taxation. In 1975, 1984 and 1992 it has also submitted proposals for directives that would provide some harmonisation of corporate tax rates and bases, but most Member States were very reluctant to give up some of their sovereignty in the field of corporate taxation, so the Commission eventually decided to withdraw its proposals.

The original report therefore is not a myth but the desire of some EU countries:

...French Economy Minister, Christine Lagarde...confirmed that France and Germany strongly want to move towards fiscal convergence. However, she said that “the main difference is that Germany wants only corporate tax convergence, whilst France wishes to harmonize both people and corporate income taxes”.

And I finish (for now) with this one:

A saucy clip has been published by the EU on You Tube. The clip features couples copulating in a number of different places. Brussels is using taxpayers’ money to get across the message “Europe is hot”. The success of the video that has already been viewed more than 100 000 times proves it yet again - sex sells.

Not once in its reply does the EU state that it's a myth. In fact when you try to view the relevant clip on YouTube this message flags up:

This video or group may contain content that is inappropriate for some users, as flagged by YouTube's user community.

Make up your own mind here (warning NSFW)

All of which goes to show that the Euromyth loving EU supporters are guilty of the same crime they accuse others of; namely a liberal use of the facts.