Vocal Voices

A quote from an EU politician on whether or not Blair's view of an EU exit turnaround would be feasible.

Actually that bus has not gone, legally, until 2 years after A50 is triggered. I did go to the Treaty of the European Union and read Article 50. It states that it requires a unanimous decision from the state which requested to leave and all other states. No opt outs, no QMV.

So whilst the politician is technically incorrect, s/he is politically correct. Once the reality of the UK leaving set in; the doors of protectionism (which they are so good at), started to close.

They are all so consistent though. Bleating about the UK rebate and other "special status" that we, the UK, held.

So let's see.

The UK joined the EEC at a time when the UK was suffering badly economically and needed somewhere to trade without closed borders, or to totally re-visit the UK manufacturing and industrial base, something the Unions were fighting tooth and nail. So we accepted punitive terms. However once the UK had gone through the painful re-organisation, it was time to re-negotiate the relationship from the inside. Especially the CAP.

What was the answer? Nein, No, NON. So the UK gave them two choices for continued membership of the EEC. 1. Open the CAP for negotiation. 2. give a rebate to the value of that renegotiated policy. The EEC, note, NOT the UK, chose the rebate.

Then came the Maastricht treaty. Maggie absolutely refused to sign it, let alone ratify it. They did not take any interest in what the UK wanted in that treaty so she showed no interest in signing it. Neither, for that matter, did Denmark. The UK led the process of negotiating op out's for Maastricht along with Denmark and then it was agreed. Again, the EU had a choice. Write another treaty or accept the opt outs, which several countries took.

Over time this has happened more and more. It's called negotiation. Something the EU says the UK has no ability at.

Then we got to the referendum. Again the EU had a choice. Accept Cameron's terms and give the UK what it wanted, which was essentially opt out's from the Lisbon Treaty, or face a referendum. This time, however, the treaty was signed by that idiot brown and ratified by the fawning idiots in parliament. So the EU, with the upper hand for once, gave Cameron scant support for his idea and sent him away like a little boy asking for _more_. So, once again, the EU had made it's choice and faced the consequences.

The EU, fully eating it's own dog food, believed that _nobody_, in their right senses, could possibly vote to leave such a wonderful "thing". Once again the EU faces the consequences of their actions.

So, now, today, the jealous states who fawn at the might of the EU institutions, for the scraps from the top table, mutter about the UK and it's "concessions". After all who the hell are the UK, says the tiny little Eastern European countries who could not stand on their own for 50 years without falling. These same countries who blocked negotiations with Cameron to keep the UK in the EU.

Now, all offended all over again because the UK has "dared" to do something against the EU, they will enact self harm over and over again to confirm their "power" in the EU.

Now I just hope that the UK has the guts to do, in the world, what it needs to do. After all, the USSR became the Russian Federation and all those countries which were within it suddenly got seats on the UN. Now the EU is ever more rapidly moving towards the reality that was the USSR and all those individual countries, which have given up their sovereignty and become member states, should have no more say in the world than, say, California. The sooner the better as far as I'm concerned. Because nothing is more sure to create the breakup of the EU than that.

Actually the legal position of reversing A50 is not resolved. Lord Kerr, its author, has said many times that the process could be reversed and that there were no legal means to stop it or force a country to leave. He has his supporters in this, but he was mindful that legal opinions differed on the matter and that all sides agreed that it would need a test case to resolve it.

All it would take, in his interpretation, is for the UK to inform the EU that is had changed its mind an was sticking with the status quo. There would be no vote, no negotiations, no veto and no changes. The issue then is that we would be in a club that did not trust us and did not want us but could not kick us out.

It is precisely because of all this uncertainty that people like Blair can call for the country to 'rise up' and also why we are getting all these different 'opinions' from across Europe.

It is also why mendacious Mandelson wants the Lords to try to 'amend' the Bill rather than them 'throwing in the towel'. If they want to sign their own death warrants (figuratively speaking) then vote away.

Only a solicitor could take this

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.EN 26.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union C 326/43
3. 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 referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

And make it indeterminate.

Paragraph 3 is very explicit. Also it does not talk about Reversing the decision to leave. It talks about extending the time if everyone is agreeable. It does not have any condition, anywhere, to reverse the process; once begun.

It's quite interesting that we could be out in just a few months if we really wanted. Simply by saying " we want nothing and we are giving you nothing, sign to that and get on with it". Or we could keep saying no, no, no for 2 years and bang out. Or we could spend 18 months trying to hammer out a deal which we put to parliament and then all the "little men" screw it up and say NO.

In order to reverse the process, the Entire 28, not 27, would have to agree to a treaty change which allowed that. The treaty change would have to be in effect and functioning before the end of the time granted to complete the A50 exit and then that treaty change would allow the UK to rescind it's application to leave.

The chances of that are far less than 0.

What the administration of the EU understand and Blair and many others do not; is that A50 is not a negotiating stance. It is a lifestyle choice.

Suff wrote:Only a solicitor could take this....And make it indeterminate.

-------

In order to reverse the process, the Entire 28, not 27, would have to agree to a treaty change which allowed that.

And that is where greater legal minds than ours disagree.

A50 brings into play Article 218(3) of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union, but there is not one word or phrase, anywhere, in any treaty, to explicitly say that A50 cannot be stopped at any time even if A213(3) is begun or in progress, never mind completed.

It is not cut and dried, hence the confusion. Hence Blair and Miller and all the rest.

Had the idiot Cameron made the referendum result legally binding on the UK we would not have any of this carp (sp).

Workingman wrote:Had the idiot Cameron made the referendum result legally binding on the UK we would not have any of this carp (sp).

True to a degree. Even if he'd made it binding slime like Blair would still be saying that those who really didn't want to leave could subvert the will of the people.

BTW, Article 218(3) is about QMV. It is one step below A50 and only controls how A50 is managed at the fine level, not the upper level main conditions.

We just need to get out and stop all this political BS.