Why The Pro-EU Telegraph Uses The Term 'Norway Model'

A recent Telegraph editorial, which is an unashamedly pro-EU paper, not unsurprisingly includes information from the recently outed pro-EU think tank Open Europe:

At first blush, then, today’s report by the think tank Open Europe on the costs of EU regulations to Britain should push the prime minister to head for the exit. The burden of the costliest 100 regulations to our economy is £33 billion, it says. And while the apparent benefits total more than £58 billion, some £46 billion of this derives from three items “which are vastly over-stated”. Financially, it seems, we are losing out.

By reducing the argument down to cost and economics means that it becomes divisive for the eurosceptic movement to its detriment as Richard North notes:

The trouble is that EU regulation, and how much money we may or may not save from leaving the EU, constitute the type of "biff-bam" arguments that the media love to report. But the two sides getting bogged down in such arcane details is precisely the wholesale turn-off for the general public that we need to avoid. If we are going to make any progress, the economic issues should be neutralised and "parked", not endlessly chewed over by a bunch of hyperactive think-tank wonks and ill-briefed politicians.

What we are seeing, therefore, is incompetent campaigning from both sides – although the need to overcome the status quo effect imposes greater demands on the "out" campaign. Equal incompetence means we lose. Either way, though, the anti-EU movement is being poorly served. And if we can't even trash the OE nonsense, we deserve everything we get.

Similarly arguing that the EU can be reformed has the same effect when trying to win a referendum. No wonder the pro-EU Telegraph is so enthusiastic in adopting such tactics.

Interestingly, and far more dangerously, Business for Britain whose Chief Executive is Mathew Elliot who is very keen to be the official out candidate for a referendum uses precisely the same arguments and terminology as pro-EU Open Europe and the Telegraph. Business for Britain's daily email briefings are virtually identical to Open Europe's.

No doubt Tory central office will be over the moon if Elliot would be the official candidate for the out campaign in a referendum.

Any genuine euroscepetic knows that the EU hides in plain sight that its raison d'etre is all about political union and has been from the outset. To ignore that as a eurosecptic movement could be described as dishonest. Thus by neutralising the economic arguments it allows us to concentrate on the fundamental principle that the EU is all about political union by its own admission.

Neutralising the economic arguments involves invoking the Norway Option, and more specifically Flexcit, by adopting the off the shelf EEA solution as a temporary measure allows us to negate the inevitable FUD threat in a referendum.

And it is a threat that the pro-EU press such as the Guardian and City AM fully recognise. If they didn't they wouldn't spend so much time in trying to undermine the argument.

With this mind, it is interesting that the Telegraph uses the phrase "Norway model" rather than the usual term "Norway Option";

The so-called “Norway” model – leave the EU but remain part of the European Economic Area.

A quick internet search suggests why; a search for the term 'Norway Model' is likely to result in links to copious pretty Norwegian women:

Conversely a search for the 'Norway Option' results in this and this:

This is cynicism by the Telegraph of the highest order, and this is an example of the dirty tricks we face. The eurosceptic movement as a whole needs to wise up...otherwise we will lose.

Snatching Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory

There's no question that an "out" campaign in any referendum faces a significant challenge when it is against a very powerful EU movement which has the means and money to outgun us. There is also no doubt that unfair tactics will be used in abundance. In addition we mustn't forget that the "in" campaign in terms of argument and narrative only has to draw (to maintain the status quo) while the "out" campaign has to make the case for winning.

In many ways therefore we are disadvantaged - we are fighting against formidable odds yet as I have noted previously we do have advantages on our side. However with a referendum it's actually our own side, perhaps surprisingly, which is more likely to contribute to our potential defeat.

Earlier this week I had a very fine lunch with passionate anti-EU campaigners White Wednesday and Jason Kent - who is a local Oxfordshire UKIP member and general election agent. Among the many issues discussed there was one which expressed a sense of frustration that the "out" side is less than unified in coming together to adopt a winning strategy to leave. It's a frustration I fully share.

An intriguing problem is that the "out" side has long consisted of strong-willed individuals. But while the individuality and diversity of the "out" camp in many ways should be celebrated - a trait which is the antithesis of the borg-like EU - it's that very trait which often means we are usually nothing more than an 'unorganised rabble' unable to unify behind a coherent positive message or campaign; each with their own egos, own agendas and petty squabbles. Thus when we face a very formidable enemy such diversity will count against us.

The very informative 1975 referendum book by Butler and Kitzinger documents a little nugget which neatly and vividly illustrates this 'herding cats' problem back in 1975:

The main elements in the National Referendum Campaign (the anti-marketeers) were the Common Market Safeguards Campaign and Get Britain Out (GBO)...

There was considerable hostility between these two bodies; following the failure of either the Anti-Common Market League or Safeguards to fulfill an alleged promise to contribute to the cost of a bookstall at Blackpool for the Conservative Conference in 1973.

[GBO's] Christopher Frere-Smith and Richard Body had withdrawn from Safeguards...and Ron Leighton was recruited as full-time Director bringing with him all his Safeguards experience and contacts...

The 1975 referendum campaign could claim to have excuses for such failings though; they had no experience to draw upon and they had little time to prepare. In contrast we have no such excuses yet in many ways we seem determined to repeat many of the same mistakes that were made in 1975.

The crucial aspect of any campaign is to appeal to the waverers - the 'soft middle' - which is mostly decidedly undecided. Thus any "out" campaign which tries to appeal to the likes of Nick Clegg is a waste of time as indeed it would be to the readers of this blog and others. A situation we could consider was aptly summed up by the actress Julia Roberts who played a prostitute in the film Pretty Woman:

I appreciate the whole seduction thing you've got going on here, but let me give you a tip: I'm a sure thing.

Yet we get the sense that the eurosceptic movement in general cannot move outside a comfort zone - failing to try to appeal to those who are not a 'sure thing'. Instead they continually try to seduce those who have already made up their minds.

And this is where Flexcit comes in; by removing the uncertainty of exit, by negating the status quo effect and by circumventing big business self-interest who believe that the EU and the Single Market are the same thing we have a genuine chance of appealing to the soft important middle and winning a referendum.

But sadly we still see that the diversity of the eurosceptic movement means that many arguments have not changed in many years - it is a reflection of the lack of ability to move on; in stark contrast to the EU which has done so with subsequent treaties. Lisbon being the obvious latest one.

Thus it leaves us with old tired canards such as how many laws are made by the EU. This has been an obsession within the eurosceptic movement for as long as it has been about. Does it really matter if 64.6% of laws are made in the EU? And if so is that better than 64.5% or 55.8%. Is 9.8% acceptable? More importantly does it appeal to the public. Since the banking collapse in 2008 and the likes of Starbucks aggressively avoiding tax, the public mood could be said to be in favour of more regulation.

All a 'Westminster village' type campaign to try to determine the percentage of EU laws amounts to, quite bluntly, is a penis measuring competition within the eurosceptic movement as to who can come up with the most 'accurate' figure. Naturally this then leads to arguments within the movement over the exact figure inhibiting us from turning our fire onto the opposition. No wonder that Europhile campaigners are willing to engage in such a discussion; it helps divide us.

Yet not only does an uncoordinated rabble make for a incoherent message but its inherent weakness means it essentially vacates the territory leaving it vulnerable to be infiltrated by someone else with less than honest intentions.

When a referendum campaign starts, there has to be an official bid to the Electoral Commission to represent the "out" campaign where a very substantial amount of funding will be available. We saw the process of this with Scotland; Better Together whose official Campaign Director was Blair McDougall and Yes Scotland whose chief executive was Blair Jenkins.

It's here the weakness of the diversity of the "out" campaign can be exploited by the pro-EU establishment which can install and control the opposition general. Already we can see indications of this happening with Business for Britain and in particular Matthew Elliott.

BfB gives a "voice" to Roger Bootle who stitched up the IEA prize, and a platform to other supporters such as Alan Halsall, Neville Baxter and Robert Hiscox to name but three who have supported the recently publicly outed pro-EU think tank Open Europe.

More than a few in the eurosceptic movement are unimpressed with Elliott's ill-disguised ambitions to further his own career, as a potential MP, on the back of a referendum campaign, nor are they impressed with his sycophantic nature towards Tory politicians...obviously with his career in mind.

With Cameron exerting undue influence over Elliott, his abysmal record with NOtoAV where he had to be bailed out by senior members of the Tory party such was the nature of the poor campaign, nothing should worry the eurosceptics more than for Elliott to win the bid for the official "out".

By 'deliberately' losing the referendum he can be assured of Tory gratitude with rewards to match. If Elliott takes control in an EU referendum we would have lost before we started.

Thus elements of the eurosceptic movement has to grow up, accept the Boolean nature of a referendum and start preparing for a dirty fight if we are to win.

It's Only Comment...?

Lord Leveson once remarked that there was an important difference between mainstream journalists with "a powerful reputation for accuracy" and bloggers and tweeters who were "no more than electronic versions of pub gossip". This from the same man who produced a report, following a public inquiry, on newspaper standards by copying and pasting inaccurate information from Wikipedia.

With this in mind I can reveal I have now received a decision regarding my ongoing complaint with the Press Complaints Commission over an article in the Telegraph by Mats Persson regarding Norway's relationship with the EU.

As I noted at the time I was under no illusions of a positive outcome, largely because I suspected that the PCC would be acutely aware that to uphold my complaint would go against the position of every newspaper, all three main parties and the Prime Minister. This despite that even Norway itself acknowledges its influence and representation as a member of the EEA. I was more intrigued on how the PCC would attempt to wriggle out of upholding it.

Thus it comes as no surprise that the PCC found no breach - I reproduce the judgement in full below (my emphasis throughout):

The complainant raised concerns about an article discussing the potential difficulties should the UK leave the European Union. He said that the newspaper had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The complainant stated that it was inaccurate to refer to Norway’s relationship with the EU as “regulation without representation” and subsequently to draw the conclusion that there was “no good off-the-peg model”. He also said that it was misleading for the article to suggest that, under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, EU member states and institutions would be able to block the UK’s market access, as this would contravene international law.

The Commission wished first to note that the article in question was clearly signposted as a comment piece. Clause 1 (i) of the Editors’ Code of Practice states that “the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.” Clause 1 (iii) makes clear however, that the press are free to report comment and conjecture, provided that it is clearly distinguished from fact. The Commission first considered the complainant’s objection to the description of Norway’s model of European involvement as “regulation without representation”. The complainant acknowledged that this term had been used to characterise the situation in 2012, by Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Eide. The Commission noted that the complainant did not agree with this assessment and considered that it did not address the complexity of the Norwegian model. However, the article was representative of the columnist’s views on how the UK could maintain a relationship with Europe after leaving the Union.  The reference to the lack of a good “off-the-peg” model was clearly the journalist’s own personal opinion.  Readers would not have been led to believe that the article presented an in depth factual analysis of post-EU options for the UK, or of Norway’s relationship with the EU. As such, the Commission did not consider the use of this quotation to be inaccurate under the terms of Clause 1.

The complainant was further concerned by the article’s suggestion that if  Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty were to be invoked to facilitate Britain’s exit from the EU, other member states and institutions “could block market access” for the UK. The Commission noted the complainant’s position that such a course of action would not be compatible with international law. In this case, the statement was clearly a matter of conjecture on the part of the journalist, which, under the terms of Clause 1 (iii), newspapers are free to publish, as long as it is clearly distinguished from fact. The article made clear that the effects of Article 50 were “so far untested”, and the Commission was satisfied that any discussion of them was clearly speculation. As such, there was no breach of the Code.

I do like the term "as long as it is clearly distinguished from fact" - I'm not quite sure if that's a Freudian slip.

What's interesting is the PCC has not attempted to dispute my points and indeed has ignored some of them from my subsequent clarification email which it requested. One such point was regarding Persson's argument that:

“Under Article 50 [of the Lisbon Treaty] and in continuity deals, France, the European Parliament and others could consistently block market access for the UK’s exporters of IT, insurance, banking and other services." 

Yet if the UK invoked Article 50 it still remains a fully fledged European Union member state until either exit negotiations have been concluded or after two years when the EU treaties cease to take effect automatically. Therefore while negotiations are ongoing with regard to a UK exit, for the EU to take such an action against an EU member state would be in fundamental breach of its own treaties and the basic four freedoms of the Single Market. Mats Persson's assertion is just plain wrong - and the PCC ignored it.

And the PCC ignored it by hiding behind the "comment" clause highlighted in bold above. Clearly in their conclusion any lies can be written in a newspaper as long as it is defined as comment.

Strangely then we learn that this principle doesn't always seem to apply to others. Christopher Booker's article in the Sunday Telegraph is listed under comment. This can been seen quite clearly in the screen grab below (and even just by the URL itself):

 

Yet Mr Booker who has written extensively about the EU, climate change and family courts has long been subjected to PCC complaints and rulings. To give but two random examples:

Mr Bob Ward of the LSE's Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment complained to the Press Complaints Commission that an article headlined "Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told'" published in The Sunday Telegraph on 29 March 2009 was inaccurate and misleading in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors' Code of Practice.

The PCC's adjuication began:

Newspapers are obliged, under the terms of Clause 1, to take care not to publish inaccurate information, and this applies as much to scientific matters as any other. Indeed, the PCC often considers, resolves and adjudicates on complaints about science reporting.

Yet this clause below quoted to me is nowhere to be seen in Booker's adjudication, despite his column clearly listed as comment:

Clause 1 (iii) makes clear however, that the press are free to report comment and conjecture, provided that it is clearly distinguished from fact. 

Another example:

Sir Nicolas Bratza, a former President of the European Court of Human Rights, complained to the Press Complaints Commission that a column by Christopher Booker had inaccurately reported details of his involvement with a conference at the Council of Europe, in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors' Code of Practice.

And a PCC resolution despite it being "comment":

The complaint was resolved after the PCC negotiated the following correction and apology, published in Mr Booker's column:

Although my complaint wasn't upheld at least we have further confirmation of another "above the line" organisation eager to maintain the establishment status quo regardless of the facts. The PCC's reluctance to dispute the detail of my complaint however does mean we may have potential should a newspaper attempt to report Norway's "democracy by fax" in an article that is not comment...

But then what do I know? I'm only an electronic version of pub gossip.

Openly Lying Europe (2)

Being a polite gentleman of an English persuasion I would never dream of accusing Mats Persson from Open Europe of being an insidious, dishonest, and deceitful liar.

However, despite that Persson has been corrected many times over the issue that Norway does have a say -indeed more than the UK - over EU Single Market rules, Persson persists in the Daily Telegraph with his inaccuracies. With this in mind I complained to the Press Complaints Commission. Obviously I'm under no illusions that little will change but a marker has to be put down. I reproduce my complaint below in full:

Dear Sirs

I’m writing to you wishing to draw your attention to an article on the Daily Telegraph website by Mats Persson Director of the think tank Open Europe. He writes about the important issue of the UK’s membership of the European Union - more specifically in this case the possible method of leaving. The website URL in question is below:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/matspersson/100026967/leaving-the-eu-how-article-50-could-make-the-divorce-very-tricky-for-britain/

My reason for contacting the Press Complaints Commission is that I have deep concerns that much of the article is incorrect and factually wrong. In particular I wish to highlight this paragraph regarding the debate about the UK’s role in the EU:

"If only it was that simple. There’s no good off-the-peg model that the UK can simply adopt should it leave the EU. The Norwegian (“regulation without representation)…"

Persson's dismissal of the Norway option (“regulation without representation”) has been repeated before despite being corrected personally to Persson himself and in the comments (url below)

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/matspersson/100022087/brixit-why-the-norwegian-model-simply-wouldnt-work-for-the-uk/

Mats Persson's argument relies heavily on the false doctrine that Norway has "no influence" in making EU law. However this is simply factually untrue, Norway has more influence than the UK regarding Single Market rules as illustrated below:

A) Many of Single Market laws are made at an international level for example the WTO – Norway gets to represent itself while the UK has only 8% influence with the EU which represents us on our behalf.

B) Norway is also on over 200 EEA (Single Market) committees which influence EU law from the outset –Anne Tvinnereim, former State Secretary for the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development in Norway for example said this: “we do get to influence the position".

C) Norway can then contest that laws don’t apply to their EEA agreement – currently they have over 1,200 in dispute.

D) Ultimately Norway can veto any EU legislation, as they did with the 3rd EU Postal Directive while the UK had no choice but to implement it by the 2011 Postal Services Act.

Another inaccurate assertion by Mats Persson in the same article is:

“Under Article 50 [of the Lisbon Treaty] and in continuity deals, France, the European Parliament and others could consistently block market access for the UK’s exporters of IT, insurance, banking and other services."

The Lisbon Treaty and Article 50 is covered by international law, notably by Article 54 of the Vienna Convention on the Law on Treaties, for the EU – an international organisation - to block market access would be in fundamental breach of international law. The EU would be obliged to adhere by its international Treaty agreements.

The UK’s membership of the EU is clearly a very important topic of debate and regardless of various views of our membership rigorous but accurate debate in our media is essential. The Press Complaints Commission confirms on its website it considers that accuracy of the press is of upmost importance:

1 Accuracy

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published. In cases involving the Commission, prominence should be agreed with the PCC in advance.

iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

iv) A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.

The issue of the UK’s membership of the EU has clearly taken a more prominent role in UK politics, signified by David Cameron’s promise of a referendum in 2017 (if he were to win the 2015 election) and the current debates between Nigel Farage and Nick Clegg. Thus it’s imperative that the public are accurately informed. In this spirit we note the Press Complaint Commission’s conclusion with an untrue story about EU rules on eggs in 2010:

http://www.pcc.org.uk/case/resolved.html?article=NjU5OQ==

With this in mind I wish to formally complain that Mats Persson’s article breaches the code of conduct of accuracy – it is misleading and is an attempt to severely distract readers of a very popular newspaper from forming a proper and considered opinion.

Yours faithfully

TBF

Radio Silence

I've just noticed that I've been blogging now for just over four years. Blimey, it only seems like yesterday since I started.

However this is really a post to inform my readers that blogging is likely to be rather light until the new year for a number of reasons, the usual busy run up to Christmas and also that I'm helping Richard North with research regarding the Brexit submssion to the IEA, a submission which appears to be coming along nicely. Thus a period of radio silence is likely to ensure here in the interim and I thank readers for their patience.

On the Brexit I note Openingly Lying Europe had their "war games" yesterday noticeably though they have failed to be shortlisted for the IEA prize - if they entered at all. The Spectator reports:

John Bruton, the former Irish Taoiseach and EU ambassador to the US who was playing the part of the European Commission, was explicit that the British could not be allowed too good a deal for fear that this would encourage others member states to walk away.

While Mats Persson says:

The UK may have activated Article 50 of the EU treaties, triggering a two year period in which to negotiate a successor agreement which could take the form of a free trade deal. Remember, contrary to what some may believe, just like renegotiation, this too will require the approval of EU partners. For example, what terms could be secured for UK goods and services exporters into the EU?

Weasel words they all are, implying heavily that UK will be screwed over to prevent them from leaving. Yet Article 50 makes it very clear that:

"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."

If the terms are onerous we refuse to agree...simple as. Treaties cease to apply after 2 years regardless. The EU will be desperate to make our exit as smooth as possible - they have a fragile Eurozone to prop up so there is absolutely no way they would provoke a fight with a very important trading partner, to do so would be to bring the Eurozone and the EU project crashing around its ears.

However radio silence there may be on this blog but the fight still continues, albeit quietly for the time being.

Falken's Maze

Witterings from Witney highlights a blog from Openingly Lying Europe which promises:

"...a date with the future: what can the UK achieve in talks over its EU membership terms?"

It proclaims...

Open Europe is offering you a front row seat at a simulation of what will arguably be the biggest negotiation round of them all: Will the UK will stay in the EU or negotiate a new relationship from the outside?

Interestingly 'Openingly Lying Europe' was not shortlisted for the IEA Brexit (if it submitted one at all) - but then that would mean submitting a paper which demonstrated the mechanism and means by which we can leave. Its absence confirms once again that it has no wish to do so.

Yet they are "very excited by this date with the future":

Such simulations are commonly referred to as 'war-games', and our event will take place in our specially customised 'war room' in Westminster on 11 December, featuring leading European politicians and experts - many of whom are themselves involved in EU talks.

Such 'war games' consist of what deal will David Cameron be able to strike in Europe?

"Will EU partners grant Cameron any meaningful concessions?"
"Will there be an EU treaty change?"
"What areas can Cameron devolve back to member states?"
"What can he do on issues like free movement of workers or the UK's budget contribution?"

None of this can be achieved. Once again Openingly Lying Europe supporting our membership while masquerading as a eurosceptic think tank.

So given that it refers to 'war games' and 'simulation' one is tempted to reference a classic 1980's film of the same name particularly the famous scene on the futility of nuclear war as demonstrated by the flawed game 'noughts and crosses':



The computer concludes:

"Greetings, Professor Falken. A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess"

The only difference is Joshua, the computer in the film, learnt  - something Openingly Lying Europe is unwilling to do.

Iceland And The EEA

It's been quite heartening and uplifting in the last few days that a handful of bloggers, and committed commenters, have rattled Open Europe's cage to the extent that they now acknowledge, albeit very very grudgingly, far from having no influence Norway does in fact have a say within the EEA Agreement. Given the tone of Mats Persson's Telegraph article, one suspects that Open Europe is not used to having its 'eurosceptic' credentials questioned, particularly with simple things like facts. This is especially important given that our esteemed Prime Minister reads blog comments.

Autonomous Mind has another example of Norway saying no to the EU regarding EU plans for harmonisation of environmental policy relating to oil and gas energy:

The Norwegian government has taken the view that the proposed regulation by the European Commission falls outside the geographic and substantive scope of the EEA agreement.

As AM notes:

Oh dear, David Cameron and Open Europe caught out lying again. You would think the media would be all over this, unless of course they have vested interests or are getting pressure from their owner barons to exercise bias by omission and ignore this important story…

Open Europe also seem oblivious that the EEA is not just Norway, but also Iceland and Liechtenstein. And it is to Iceland we turn our attention as it is involved with one of biggest rejections of the EU there has ever been by an EEA member. The dispute relates to the collapse of the Icesave online savings account in 2008 which infamously prompted the UK to invoke terrorist legislation against it. Crucially, when Icesave collapsed, EU countries, notably the UK and the Netherlands, attempted to force Iceland to fulfill its EU obligations. The arguments centered around two legal arguments:

1. ...that the Icelandic government is obliged to guarantee at least the first €20,000 in Icesave accounts;
   
   
2. ...that Iceland's actions surrounding the collapse of Landsbanki are discriminatory against non-Icelandic creditors.

The first challenge comes under EU Directive 94/19/EC, which was incorporated into Icelandic law in 1999, the second is that Iceland is in breach of its obligations under Article 4 of the EEA Agreement which says:

Within the scope of application of this Agreement, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.

The second is in accordance of Article 7 of the Treaty of Rome. Iceland's reluctance to reimburse foreign countries for money lost in its banks prompted, at the time, the following conversation between Alistair Darling and the Icelandic Finance Minister Árni Mathiesen (now hidden behind the Times firewall):

(AD) Do I understand that you guarantee the deposits of Icelandic depositors?

(AM)Yes, we guarantee the deposits in the banks and branches here in Iceland.

(AD) But not the branches outside Iceland?

(AM) No, not outside of what was already in the letter that we sent.

(AD) But is that not in breach of the EEA Treaty?

(AM) No, we don’t think so and think this is actually in line with what other countries have been doing over recent days.

Curiously, Alistair Darling in his book, Back from the Brink doesn't mention this conversation nor indeed any reference whatsoever to the EEA. Yet Iceland wasn't for backing down - a resolution of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of the EEA (opens as a Word Document) adopted unanimously on 28 October 2009 emphasised:

...the Directive’s lack of clarity over the legal obligations of governments if national guarantee funds, which are funded by contributions from relevant credit institutions, do not suffice for payments following a banking crisis, and more importantly if an entire banking system of a country collapses;

And:

...underlines that the shortcomings of the Directive became apparent in October 2008 when the banking crisis in Iceland spilled over to the economies of other EEA States;

In other words Iceland, via the EEA, is contesting both charges, charges that are still ongoing amid complex legal arguments after four years and two referendums later. A judgement that rather than be passed by an EU court will be ruled on by the EFTA court instead, and is due on 28th of this month. Iceland's case for the defence can be found here.

And that is the point, Iceland is a small country with a population of circa 313,000; a country with fewer people than the London Borough of Croydon which has 363,000, yet here it is with resilience, influence and the ability to say no. One can only look on in envy.

Iceland's main problem is unfortunately its size. That it may have to capitulate is less to do with flaws in the EEA/EFTA agreement but instead that it is being bullied, shamefully by, as the Icesave episode demonstrates, the UK. Being a member of the EU will not resolve that, ask Ireland, Czech Republic or Luxemburg

However, that Iceland can stand up for itself, while the UK will have no choice, but to adopt the attributes of a nodding dog within the EEA, is quite frankly absurd.

More to follow...

Comitology

Wow, for the first time I can recall, the Telegraph has a piece about the EU process of Comitology, not only that it is written by a UKIP member called Alexandra Swann. She writes:

With the best will in the world the UK government has no idea what is going on, nor does it have any idea on how to influence the process. Most specifically because the nation states are excluded from the process; the system is designed to ensure that accountability has no purchase and transparency is near impossible.

For these reasons, any attempt to rewrite our relationship with the EU, which includes the UK remaining subject to single market rules, means that we are left entirely devoid of control of our laws.

She concludes:

The distressing truth is that the legislation inflicted upon member states is all about mastery of detail; and the masters of the numbing detail do not sit in Whitehall, but on the Rue de la Loi.

My flabber is ghasted. That the Telegragh is even publishing such an article must be seen as progress, and must surely add to the pressure on Cameron for his 'much vaunted' speech on 15th  January.

And to Open Europe it's more proof that our influence as members of the EU is tantamount to...absolutely nothing.

"It Serves Us Well"

From Norwegian Prime Minster Jens Stoltenberg in 2011:

“We have no plans to study alternatives to the EØS agreement [the EEA], the agreement serves us well.”

Someone might want to let Open Europe know...

Openingly Lying Europe

I've noted before on this blog, just over a week ago in fact, that Mats Perssen of Open Europe was deliberately, or at least appearing to confuse the EU, EFTA and the EEA to get in his favourite argument of 'government by fax'.

Witterings from Witney has picked up on another example, and it truly is mind boggling in its inaccuracy. Writing in the Guardian, Mats Perssen assesses the options if we left the EU, naturally he disagrees with all of them primarily because of the so-called government by fax, however following the Switzerland model he writes:

It could potentially work, but because the Swiss option is so complicated – subject to a cobweb of bilateral agreements – it would be extremely tricky. In that two-year framework Britain has under the Lisbon treaty's leaving clause, Britain would basically have no influence over EU laws but would be subject to all of them.

What on earth has the final sentence regarding the Lisbon Treaty exit clause got to do with following the Swiss model thereafter? It is true under Article 50 (4) we are suspended from participation in EU institutions during the 2 year hiatus and we are still subject to EU laws (which we can ignore because by the time any breach reached the ECJ we would be long gone. We've managed to drag Prisoners' votes out for 7 years at least). But this has no bearing whatsoever on how we trade with the EU once we leave. So either the Director of a European Think Tank is really that stupid or the sentence was added deliberately to confuse.

What is clear is our relationship with the European Union is set to change dramatically in the next decade, likely in the form of a referendum and the Europhile movement are already marshalling their forces. One of those is going to be Open Europe, held up as the token Eurosceptic voice, its purpose is to be anything but. Witterings quite rightly says:

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

They come pretending to be our friends. To quote the film Goodfellas; "Murderers come with smiles".

Dark Forces

Open Europe is a so-called think tank that is often considered by the media as Europsceptic and as a consequence its reports and statements are treated accordingly. However anyone who considers facts more important than a 'narrative' can very quickly come to the conclusion that it is anything but - just read its 'about page'.

More proof is found in the latest Telegragh article by Mats Persson, his description being (my emphasis):

Mats Persson is Director of Open Europe, an independent think-tank with offices in London and Brussels campaigning for EU reform.

The article goes on to lavishly dollop praise onto Cameron as a Europsceptic, for example:

Cameron has therefore upped the game

That anyone could consider Cameron as a Eurosceptic, when the evidence is firmly the opposite, is someone who has attended too many Christmas parties. Mats Persson reveals his true colours. Yet, almost like Jimmy Savile, he hides his deception in plain sight. Thus he supports Cameron (my emphasis:

It's increasingly difficult for him not to frame the issue as a choice between "renegotiation or Brixit" (as opposed to the status quo and Brixit or status quo or renegotiation).

I can only assume by 'status quo and Brixit' he means leaving the EU but remaining part of the single market. How revealing that this is an option he clearly does not support. He goes onto say:

This is tricky territory.

Well yes it is when your game is to try to deceive people on your true intentions, but the key paragraph is this...

Fortunately for Cameron, the UK achieved a substantial victory last week in Europe, winning a safeguard against the 17 eurozone members writing the financial rules for all 27 EU members in the soon-to-be-established banking union. This is vital as Britain is home to 36 per cent of the EU’s wholesale finance market. Inbuilt discrimination against non-euro countries in the EU in this area would amount to “not in the euro but run by the euro” for the UK, meaning both the single market and the case for the UK’s continued EU membership would be severely undermined (as the UK would  be "governed by fax" – a la Norway – anyway).

Spot what he did?

The argument put forward is Cameron achieved 'a real victory' by winning safeguards, with the UK being in the EU. But Persson claims if Cameron didn't achieve that victory (as EU members), then Persson argues we would end up like Norway and its government by fax...even within the EU. But Norway aren't part of the EU. Persson has quite deliberately confused membership of the EU, EEA and a combination of the two, so in effect comparing oranges with apples, all to get his 'government by fax' point in.

These are (via very convoluted arguments) the dark forces we face...all in a desperate attempt to keep us in. That's why the Norway veto argument is so important.

One is tempted to think of a Scooby Doo ending, where we pull off Mats Persson's mask and proclaim in surprise; "why, it's Ted Heath!"

Come in 'agent Open Europe' your time is up.

hattip Witterings from Witney

Open Europe

For the first time in years I've been unable to attend an Open Europe event due to it being over-subscribed. The email I received is as follows:

We have had a very high response to this event, & consequently are fully booked at present. However, I will add your details to our reserve list

It's probably unwise to read too much into this, but I wonder if this is another example of not only Europe not going away but the issue gaining momentum.