William Hague’s political schizophrenia

I cannot believe that an organisation such as the CIB that has campaigned for freedom for the UK for so many years is considering Richard North’s Flexcit plan. I( cannot believe that after all that campaigning until what is desired is finally in sight that the CIB is ready to capitulate and recommend to the British People that instead of taking our place in World Trade again as a Free Market member, the CIB is asking us to vote to rejoin EFTA with the nebulous promise that, eventually, we will go for full independence from the EU. Why? You, Roger, have admitted to me that you do not believe that it will be easy to persuade the British People to go through yet another referendum at some unannounced time in the future let alone persuade the politicians to actually providing the opportunity for such a second referendum to leave. It has taken more than 40 years to get to this point and the CIB appears to be ready to throw it all away simply because some ‘intellectuals’ believe that they are the key to swinging the vote towards leaving the EU. They are NOT the key. Everyone who votes in the referendum will have an equal say and, by far, the ordinary person in the street are a far bigger group than the self styled intellectuals and are far more amenable to a wish for the return of sovereignty and democracy.

Their are some benefits of rejoining EFTA but the EEA/EFTA have to comply with more than 500 parts of the EU Acquis in order to trade. That number continues to grow with each new edict and each new trade deal. Indeed, Helle Hagenau of Norway reported during her speech at the UKIP Conference that on recent deals made, they (Norway7) were required to accept conditions which were OUTSIDE of the EEA Agreement. How can the CIB countenance ever staying within the EU in any form when it does not recognise even the Agreements already made? It is inevitably going to bring us more or less back into the EU via the back door. Like it or not, the biggest concern for Britain and much of the Continent is the massive immigration problem. To enter into an EFTA/EEA agreement with the EU will still leave us vulnerable to immigration and an escalation of the problems associated with it as is happening over much of Europe.

I cannot even understand the economic reasoning behind such a recommendation. It is known to all that the EU is a rapidly diminishing market. Our exports to the EU, even despite the obscenity of the Rotterdam/Antwerp effect are continuously reducing whilst our imports from the EU are getting bigger. Only the uninformed (or lied to) would ever consider that should we leave the EU that there will be a tariff war. How could that possibly be so when we are the EU’s single largest market? Would they even consider making their exports to Britain more expensive? Of course not. Even Vietnam has recently concluded a deal with the EU which allows a 99% tariff free trade agreement.

Richard North has mooted that cross border road transport would be made more difficult should we leave the Customs Union. That is absolute nonsense. Most of Europe, including the EU are signatories to the Transports Internationaux Routiers (TIR) Treaty which was re-ratified as late as 1975 which allows for customs sealed loads to be delivered across Europe without inspection until it reaches its end-user destination even if the EU should be so crass as to attempt to make it more difficult for us.

For the CIB to split the ‘Out’ vote would be a betrayal of the worst kind. Even more so than the treason of the politicians who took us in and keep us within the EU because this time, the British People have the opportunity within their grasp to rid ourselves of the EU altogether. It is the craven thoughts of those that deny that Britain can regain its standing in the World in a Free Trade agreement that allows them to even contemplate such a weak compromise that will never come to fruition simply because we are extremely unlikely to be given the same opportunity of freedom ever again.

The EU is moribund and likely to stay that way until it goes down the inevitable path of implosion caused by its own ineptness. When it does, it will cause untold misery to any Country foolish enough to be involved in it.

I sincerely hope that the CIB and any other group will cease from this pseudo-intellectual exercise and come out into the real World once again.

John,
All things are a process. What matters is whether that process achieves desirable progress. I would argue that there has been 4o years of collaboration rather than integration. Certainly in Britain, and probably a substantial part of the EU, most Citizens see themselves primarily a Citizen of the Nation State rather than as a ‘European’ Citizen.

It is true that much of our legislation is intertwined but it is generally considered by even the most ardent of us that wish to leave that the disentanglement will take many years irrespective of whether we are in the EU or not. It is very likely that much of EU Law we would have enacted in any case as some of it is productive. Other Laws can be repealed at any time as desired by Act of Parliament as and when required. Why would we desire to rid ourselves of one undesired ‘Master’ to replace it with a lesser (for now) kind? There is no specific advantage in rejoining a moribund economy such as the EU. Especially so we would be required to comply with so much of the EU Acquis for the privilege.

Since 2008, we have enjoyed greater trade at more profit on an average annual basis with the rest of the World and even more so of late when we have more trade for fifteen consecutive months. The EU is in terminal economic decline unless they can pull off their desire of a Federal State. You and I both know that to be the ultimate objective of the EU and with the advent of the Spinelli Group’s proposal of a ‘Fundamental Law’ to replace all existing treaties with a single document that is likely to bring that event even closer. It is unlikely to be accepted with unanimity but will be passed under QMV as the EU has continuously done with its alterations to existing treaties.

The EU may have been conceived with an ideological purpose but has since declined into a plutocratic oligarchy controlled by Commerce. We have seen so much Law passed over the years which have been only to the benefit of large Corporations but to the detriment of competition to them. Do you honestly believe that an EEA Country could compete in such an environment? To cite just one example of the attitude, in the past few weeks; it has become illegal for a sea angler to land a single Cod fish but the Spaniards are allowed to continue to rape the seas as much as they have ever done. Please do not try to convince me that being an EEA Country will allow us to protect our own waters. That cannot be done unless we build and operate a substantially larger Fishery Protection fleet than when we had the ‘Iclelandic’ fishing wars. I know that we will have to anyway but it would be far more difficult to operate such a policy when we would still be far too close to the EU in political terms.

If we should in anyway retain political association with the EU whether directly or in the EEA rather than as a Free Trading nation, we would still be required to pay hundreds of millions of Pounds in contributions and, although reduced, would still have to comply with far too much political cooperation with the EU. All World trade has to comply to a greater or lesser extent with others in regard to the Customs regulations in order for that trade to continue. We are already aware of those pertaining to the EU and it would be much less of a hardship to comply with them as they must with us. The EEA on the other hand is automatically faced with a Fait Accompli in that they MUST comply with so much of the EU Aquis and according to Norway’s Helle Hagenau, Norway is being forced to comply with more of the Acquis being arbitrarily applied which is outside of the EEA Agreement in order to broker new deals. How can any sane person voluntarily rejoin an organisation that routinely overrides their own Law for the sake of expediency? Especially as the majority of the EEA States are far more dependent on trade with the EU than we are. In fact, as the EU’s largest single customer, the EU may be construed as being far more dependent on retaining trade with us. Do you seriously believe that the EU plutocrats will allow the Commission to jeopardise their trade with Britain for the sake of any remaining politically idealistic reasons? There is absolutely no reason why Britain should not continue to trade with the EU but as an independent Country once again.

You mention Robert Oulds’ “Everything you wanted to know about the EU but were too afraid to ask”. I have not read the book but I would wager that so much that I would like the answers to are not even mentioned in the book. Instead of pandering to a very small minority of the population (intellectuals), it would be far more productive to inform the vast majority of the undecided made up from the ordinary people of Britain who may not read ‘serious’ newspapers or watch the television news. I used to assist in several of the bye-elections in the North of England and was impressed that though many on the surface were concerned with class war against the Tories, so many of them were deeply patriotic. It is to them that we should be concentrating our efforts. They would be appalled at some of the more insidious legislation coming from the EU but nobody, especially politicians, will tell them because of the politicians own self-centered agenda. Although I hold no illusions to be being an author, some of the things that ought to be told to the people are contained in an ebook that I have compiled and is available on my website (theunituk.org.uk) such as the amendments to Article 2 of the Charter for Fundamental Rights which were presented to the EU Parliament for ratification with the wording contained in a footnote to another footnote. The amendments were ratified without Parliament even seeing the wording of it: The formation of the EuroGenFor of over 3000 fully equipped para-military police whose sole reason for existing is to put down riot and insurrection among the population and are equipped with tanks and military helicopters with which to accomplish it. Nor is there any mention of the Spinelli ‘Fundamental Law’ document that proposes that all European Citizens may vote and stand for Parliament in any EU Country; that all National Parliaments become ‘European’ Parliaments with no status other than Cardiff, Stormont or Holyrood enjoy within the UK and also, that the unelected Commission become the Parliament of this European State. That would complete the transformation of Europe into the plutocratic oligarchy that would completely over-shadow the excesses of the old Soviet Union.

With the standing of your organisation, that is what you should be informing the far greater numbers of people who are undecided and even many that have already decided to vote to stay in the EU.

Finally, though I don’t normally make personal observations on any people in my writings, since you have made the point, I shall do so in this case. I do not personally know either ‘Robert or Richard’, I have had some dealings with Richard North in various ‘blogs’ and I, as do many others, find him acerbic and intolerant of other people’s point of view if it does not agree with his own. He has a penchant for accusing dissenters as ‘Ukippers’ (irrespective of whether they are or not) and will simply not allow them to post any further comment. His acerbic language is recognised even by some that follow his ideas. Even if it was considered that his ideas were viable, his attitude would certainly put so many people off from following them. I honestly believe that such a long standing and respected organisation such as your own should not drift off on a tangent that would dilute the ‘out’ campaign and concentrate instead on collecting the far greater number of votes from the ordinary people of Britain.

As an afterthought John, it has been mentioned before, but please have your IT Guy look at your ‘Capcha’ programme again as it requires many attempts to submit.

It is a fallacy to hope that we can shape the single market. The EU will be shaped by the Eurozone majority, and we will be dragged along in its wake. The Eurozone needs more centralisation of financial control, and their Five Presidents’ Report sets out how they will get it. We want none of it, but that’s what we will get if we stay.

Interesting debate going on here. My own personal view is that if MCWhirter and Atkinson are right, and several our leading Jurists (Lord Judge and Lord Justice Law being two) then we are members of The European Union illegally. We were told we were joining a Common Market when Mr Heat new full well what the end result of membership was to be. I have attended more than one Negotiation Courses and had it made clear elsewhere, by an old Trade Union ma, that you negotiate from a position of strength and not submission. ‘Aim for the moon and you’ll get to the top of the tree, but aim for the top of the tree and you won’t get off the ground’ said old Jim. If their Lordships are right, then we can quickly reassert British Sovereignty by amending two laws. Then start arguing and negotiating.

@Gordon Webster.
The situation with Norris McWhirter and Rodney Atkinson perfectly exemplifies why Britain has to get as far away from the EU politically as we possibly can. Their attempt to have Douglas Hurd and Francis Maude indicted for Treason because they signed the Maastricht Treaty bringing Britain irrevocably into the EU (the Article 50 Route did not appear until the Lisbon Treaty) was a gross insult to our Sovereignty. Yet the Establishment including the Government and Judiciary conspired to have the suit neutered.

Interestingly, De Gaulle vetoed Britain joining because he did not believe that Britain was suited, nor be happy in the Economic Community. Why should we be, we had established democracy, a large standing on the World stage and much cheaper food that the Economic Community. It certainly was not that ‘Britain was Europe’s basketcase’ that we joined. At the time of joining, Britain had a growth rate of 7.4%, Germany was an occupied Country and France was recovering from two major Wars; in Vietnam and Algeria. The other members were of no real consequence.

It was the treason of McMillan and later, Heath that brought us in after De Gaulle’s death. McMillan was a close associate of Jeanne Monnet and all fervently believed in a World Government and they believed that the fledgling EU was the perfect place to start such a movement. It is widely believed that the inclusion of Article 50 in the Lisbon Treaty was to facilitate the secession of a troublesome Britain. It appears that De Gaulle was right all along. Britain is neither temperamentally nor ideologically suited to be joined with such a totally disparate group as the EU. Unfortunately for Britain, its commercial, hereditary and political elite saw the opportunity for personal advancement and have tried their very best to prevent a situation whereby the British People would have a say in our own determination. Unfortunately for McWhirter and Atkinson (and for the people), many of the British Judiciary were complicit in this treason.

Now, at last, we have an opportunity for the People of Britain to have their say and we must not have dissent among the groups that aspire to leave the EU. There are simply too many in opposition to it. We must all come together, not with high falluting ideas that appeal to a minority but to a concerted effort to educate the People as a whole of what the EU is now and what it is likely to become. In effect, a dictatorship controlled by the Corporations exclusively for their benefit.