The anger about that Government leaflet

I have attempted a detailed rebuttal of three of the claims in the Government’s leaflet, namely:

1) ‘we will not join the euro’
2) ‘We control our own borders’
3) ‘8% of UK exports come to the UK’

I hope you don’t mind if I give the link: http://doortofreedom.uk (posts from April 9-11)

Andrew

I’m ready to receive the government’s costly leaflet and fire it right back, but where do I send it, and can I send it freepost? If every infuriated Brexit person could send it back easily and without cost, we’d make our views felt.

I have been given the info that the Gvt propaganda leaflet can be returned to
Freepost RSBB-XRZT-ZTXE, The Conservative Party Foundation, 30 Millbank, LONDON, SW1P 4DP

I am sending my copy unstamped to David Cameron at 10 Downing Street. If everyone did this number 10 would be ovewhelmed with useless (and lying) paperwork.

I’m waiting for the ultimate signs of desperation from the Government: “Household Refuse not being collected and piling up along the streets”; “Undertakers not collecting the bodies of the deceased”; “Power for only a 3-day working week”.
Those of a certain age certainly remember the headlines………………….

Please send your ‘amended’ leaflet, direct to: 10 Downing Street, London, SW1A 2AA. Attention of David Cameron. I’m hoping that, like me anybody who does send their leaflet to Cameron, will have crossed out the lies and spin and inserted the true costs and the truth about our so-called opt outs, none of which Cameron has actually won for the country in his laughable ‘renegotiation’ which was just an exercise in futility, carried out by a man whose heart and destiny lie firmly in Brussels, and not in the well-being of the UK.
However, if we stay in this undemocratic union of infighting and Eurovision style back stabbing and block voting, after 2025 opt outs and vetos will be irrelevant when everything written in “The Five Presidents Report”, (a comical but deeply ominous work by 5 ‘world-class’ political pipsqueaks, headed by our old friend, nonentity and often drunk Jean-Claude Drjuncker) comes to pass. By 2025, it is written in that report that there will be full fiscal and political union, without exception. This of course will all headed as now by a central unelected cabal of people, unanswerable to the electorate, and leading a huge army of highly paid, and lightly taxed bureaucrats unrivalled anywhere in the world.
Happy voting.

‘Withdrawal from the EU can be risk-free with the EEA/EFTA option’ is going much too far, in my opinion. The risks include:

1) adverse effects of not being able to restrict immigration from EU countries (there is admittedly a degree of extra protection in EFTA-EEA, but I think it is fairly limited. I know Liechtenstein has made use of it, but I think they may be considered a special case with their population of 30,000 or so. Robert Oulds makes the case for this to have the potential to be effective and quotes Article 112(1) of the EEA Agreement (https://campaignforanindependentbritain.org.uk/freedom-of-movement-between-eea-european-economic-area-states-and-the-eu/). But what about Article 112(2): ‘Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation.’ And Article 113(5): ‘The safeguard measures taken shall be the subject of consultations in the EEA Joint Committee every three months from the date of their adoption with a view to their abolition before the date of expiry envisaged, or to the limitation of their scope of application.’ It is being made fairly clear that not much deviation from the norm will be tolerated, or so it seems to me.)

2) New Regulations and Directives from the EU, which we are required to adopt (and now with no vote in the Council or the Parliament), and which may be harmful to us. The scope is anything relevant to the Single Market, and even beyond into the areas for which the agreement provided for ‘closer cooperation’ – including research and development, the environment, education and social policy. (Article 1(2).f) I have the impression that there has been ‘competence creep’ into these areas, in which participation was intended to be voluntary in principle, but becomes less voluntary when a precedent is set, as far as I have been able to make out so far. See http://bit.ly/1qFNXJK pp 13-15.

3) Not so much a risk as a certainty: The whole purpose of the EEA Agreement is to create ‘a homogenous European Economic Area’ (Article 1(1)). Especially if it is administered by elites who would rather be in the EU in the first place, it is liable to take us down a similar path to the EU, if more slowly. I for one don’t want to be homogenised.

Sorry if this is rather long,

Andrew

I am absolutly disgusted that the Government could spend money on this pro-european leaflet. tI is produced under the guise of providing facts for the population to decide which way to vote in the referendum. It is however a blatent attempt bu the pro-europeans and our so called Government to persuade us how they wish us to vote.
I would have thought much more of David Cameron if the leaflet had shown an unbiaised approach and stuck to both sides of the argument. As it is our Government should never have wasted taxpayers money in this way.

A simple Cost Benefit Analysis of how much we have paid in contributions, fines for failing to hit EU set targets, bailouts to failed Eurozone countries in breach of the Lisbon Treaty, damage to our main industries, damage caused by EU Directives designed to protect German Corporates, set against the normal trade we could have expected if we had stayed out is enough to suggest that it was a disastrous mistake.

FACTS .If we leave EU we will have around £20billion in Cash & Will be able to deport Criminals &Undesirables who wish to do UK harm.
We would be able to Provide ‘Stabilising’ payments to Farmers who are worried by CAP ending,stop Euseless
wind farms.Help Steel & Manufacturing.
Continue with Growing Exports 60% outside Sclerotic EuroZone.
Share information with Interpol,stop inept Europol.
Stop payments to EuroArmy give primacy to NATO like on Greece’s shores.
Make Westminster MPs accountable,they wont be able to hide behind excuses ”Its Brussels directive”
Stop mass importing of Cheap Labour from southern Europe depressing Wages.

I read with interest the post by Ian Holmes dated April 12th. Thank you for defining the legislation I knew existed – The Five Presidents Report. I have long believed that if we are stupid enough to stay in this corrupt club we will lose any bargaining power we have. By ten years time (2025) I believe they will force through the superstate, so that we lose our rights to make our own laws, run our own economy and I also believe that we will be forced into the Euro. Whatever Ca’moron’ thinks he achieved in February will mean nothing and will be struck off any documents Brussels holds. They made a point of telling him then that the treaty would not be altered ‘at this time’, indicating they are waiting to see which way the referendum goes.
Did we really sacrifice so many of our people in two world wars for this. What they failed to win by the sword they intend to achieve by the pen!!

Further to my three reservations, outlined above, about the EEA-EFTA option, I would like to draw attention also to the role of the EFTA Court. Professor Halvard Fredricksen, Faculty of Law, University of Bergen, wrote in 2010 that:

‘With respect to the legal effect of EEA Law at the national level, there is general consensus that the Agreement has developed in a “supranational” direction during the course of the past 15 years, and that this can be primarily attributed to dynamic interpretation by the EFTA Court.’

It’s worth noting that whereas the ECJ is based in Luxembourg, an EU state, the EFTA Court is based in – wait for it – Luxembourg, having moved from Geneva in 1996. (And the EFTA Surveillance Authority is based in – wait for it – Brussels.)

Basically, as I understand it, the key principles of EU law – primacy, direct effect (giving individuals rights against the nation state), and state liability – have been brought into the EEA Agreement through decisions of the EFTA Court. Only a semblance of national sovereignty is retained, so that academic commentators speak of quasi-primacy and quasi-direct effect.

But with real impact, since in the Sveinbjörnsdóttir case, the EFTA Court found that the Government of Iceland was liable to pay damages to Erla Sveinbjörnsdóttir, despite the fact that they had done nothing wrong according to Icelandic law, and that such a principle of state liability is not in the EEA Agreement. I have tried to outline the case, to the best of my ability, at http://bit.ly/1SuQMKg

Andrew

The point I must make in reply to Andrew’s comments is that no one is saying EEA/EFTA is perfect. A read through the Market Solution document (i.e., the short version of Flexcit) or anything else advocating this route makes it clear that it’s only a stepping stone to something better. It wll get us through the Brexit door and I cannot think of any other scenario that will. Its imperfections are well known but it’s better than membership., The Norwegians etc clearly prefer it, but in the longer term, it needs replacing with a simple free trade agreement.

John, I much appreciate you allowing me to put forward my point of view here. Can I press you a little on the stepping stone idea. Two questions: 1) If we make it clear that we see this as only a stepping stone, will they (all 31 nations) let us in? 2) How do we get out, once in? All the vested interests that say we must stay in the single market will raise their voices as they are doing now, it seems to me. The Norwegians seem to be deeply stuck in the EEA now, with little groundswell of support for an exit from it.

Andrew

Andrew, To answer question (1), EEA/EFTA provides the solid framework for the argument that the EU will continue to want to trade with us as there is too much to lose. Quite a few supporters of withdrawal have used that argument without any considerations as to the basis under which trade can continue. No less a person than Jacques Delors has said . “If the British cannot support the trend towards more integration in Europe, we can nevertheless remain friends, but on a different basis. I could imagine a form such as a European Economic Area or a free-trade agreement.” Basically, the EU will do everything it can to keep us in, but once the reality of a “leave” vote dawns, it is incumbent on both parties to make for an amicable divorce. EFTA is happy to have us back. On 28th October, on the BBC’s World at One programme, Vidar Helgesen, the Norwegian minister for European Affairs grudgingly reaffirmed that we would be welcomed back into EFTA.

As for Question (2), the proposal in Flexcit is that we should seek a global Europe-wide trade deal, probably under the auspices of UNECE. Obviously, we can’t promise that this will happen, but given the way that global trade is developing, it is an eminently feasible scenario once it becomes apparent that the EU model won’t satisfy all of Europe. Once outside the EU, of course, we will give more clout to the grouping of non-EU countries in Europe and thus greater leverage.

Thanks a lot, John. I suspect you are right about gaining admission to EFTA, although two questions arise. a) Was Helgesen thinking of our membership of EFTA per se, on its own, or of our membership of both EFTA and the EEA? I would think that our membership of EFTA alone would be seen as beneficial and not too problematic. Our membership of the EEA on the other hand would at least get them thinking. Norway’s relationship with the EU seems to be based on being highly cooperative, and I think it’s fairly obvious that we might be expected to be rather more awkward, and might throw a spanner in the works of what has been working fairly well for them. b) This second factor would be even more marked if we were making it clear that this was just an interim arrangement for us – so we would be virtually promising to create disruption to this fairly smoothly running system in the future.

Accession to the EEA seems more doubtful to me. It requires the approval of all 30 states (Article 128(2), EEA Agreement). When we joined the EU, Heath promised to be a good and loyal and committed member, but we have turned out to be very awkward. Now we would be asking to join something that has been working quite smoothly, and even making it clear that we would be wanting to leave it in the future, or make it redundant through somehow bringing into being a new framework. So I wonder if some states might not think it would be better if we made a cleaner break, and let them get on with their affairs in relative peace.

Andrew