Fishermen Scorn Theresa May’s Spin As Britain To Be Trapped In Transition

Theresa May says Britain will leave the CFP

Fishermen say that’s political spin and stating the legally obvious

There’s a distinct difference between officially leaving and maintaining “regulatory alignment”

Pursuit of “Transition” period where UK must obey ALL EU laws means we will run mirror policy.

Mrs May told MPs: “We will be leaving the Common Fisheries Policy on March 29, 2019 and the Common Agricultural Policy as I indicated”.

However, the mask slipped to the truth when the PM continued that; “Leaving the CFP and leaving the CAP” wouldn’t give the opportunity until “post that implementation (transition) period – to actually introduce arrangements that work for the United Kingdom.”

 “The arrangement that pertains the fisheries during that implementation period will, of course, be part of the negotiations for that implementation period”.

Fishing for Leave has scorned Theresa Mays political spin as either being mendacious or naive to the reality of the position the government is digging itself into with pursuit of a Transition deal.

Alan Hastings of FFL said
“It is a legal matter of fact that we will officially leave the EU and with that the disastrous Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) at the end of the Article 50 period.  It’s not a question of do we leave, it is a question of what we do thereafter that is of grave concern and that fishing will be part of negotiations for that transition period”

“A “transition” period where we re-agree to obeying ALL EU law and will maintain “full regulatory alignment” is truly terrifying – we may have officially “left the CFP” but we’ll be locked into running a mirror image when we could walk away under Article 50 and automatically regain all control under international law– the Prime Minister is politically spinning with a forked tongue”

At last week’s Council of minister’s the EU reiterated what the EU Commission has clearly stated that agreeing to a “transition” period will mean obeying ALL EU law, including new ones after Britain officially leaves the EU under the Article 50 procedure.

Michel Barnier – Speech Rome – 21st Sept. ‘17
“On the 29 March 2019, the UK will leave the EU and will become a third country…without a withdrawal agreement, there is no transition – this is a point of law.
If we are to extend for a limited period the Acquis of the EU, then logically
this would require existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory, judiciary and enforcement instruments and structures to apply.       The UK would have to comply to all EU courts and… refer questions related to interpretation of rights deriving from European law to the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ). The Court of Justice would remain the ultimate guarantor of the agreement.”

If this wasn’t clear enough to HM Government President of the European Council Mr Tusk reiterated the same words again at the conclusion of Phase 1 talks on 8th December

 Donald Tusk – Phase 1 talks – 8th Dec. ‘17
“As you know the UK has asked for a transition of about 2 years while remaining part of the single market and customs union…during this period the UK will respect the whole of EU law including new law”.           “It will respect budgetary commitments, it will respect judicial oversight and of course all related obligations. Existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory, judiciary and enforcement instruments and structures will also apply”.

Fishing for Leave highlight that Article 50 clearly says “the treaties (all EU law) shall cease to apply” at the end of the Article 50 period at 11pm on 29th March ’19.  This means Britain is out the entire EU including the disastrous CFP.

To add further weight to this international law under Article 70 of the Vienna Convention says;

“the termination of a treaty does not affect any rights, obligations or legal situations created through the treaty…. unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree”.

Quite clearly the EU has otherwise provided through Article 50, Section 3 of the TEU.

This means that by the EU 27 agreeing to end the treaties there is no recourse under international law for them to have any sway over Britain in terms of laws, courts, money or fishing policy.

However, as a “transition” period is part of the deal once we have left the EU under the provisions of Article 50 it is only in the EU’s gift to grant.

Alan Hastings continued;
“Therefore, as the EU has clearly stated, it is on their terms and to get a “transition” the UK will have to capitulate to obeying all EU law to cancel out the provision of Article 50.

The only way to do this is as part of a new deal after we legally leave on 29th of March – such an agreement would have to be ratified by a new Withdrawal treaty.

This means we will have re-joined the EU in all but name having to obey its laws and directives with no control or say in some sort of legal purgatory.

In effect the UK breaks the treaties and leaves under Article 50 of TEU and Article 70 Vienna Convention. Thereafter, the UK agrees under our own steam (in a new treaty) to continue to recognise EU laws and authority under this new agreement.

Conveniently all EU law will be hibernating on the UK statute book having been adopted with the EU Withdrawal Bill.

We officially “legally” Leave the CFP but under the governments current strategy we will have capitulated to being trapped in a transition in some sort of legal purgatory where we will be running a mirror of the CFP as some sort of vassal state”.

Fishing for Leave says they have doubts that under a transition the UK will ever escape.

As re-obeying ALL EU law in a “transition” will be enshrined under a new treaty then “unless the treaty otherwise provides” Article 70 of the Vienna Convention says; “the termination of a treaty does not affect any rights, obligations or legal situations created through the treaty”.

This will allow the EU to claim continuity of rights along with Article 30 of the Vienna Convention, it’s a grey area & therefore could nail the UK governments feet to the floor in a protracted legal fight.

By the time the UK escapes being trapped in a transition there will be very little industry left. This is what is terrifying for two reasons.

1) By having to obey All EU law including new law whilst not being a member state means the EU can move the goal posts to finish off what is left of the British industry.

2) The EU quota system causes discards as fishermen have to catch and discard fish to find what they can keep to match their quota. In all its wisdom the EU enacted a ban on the symptom (discards) rather than address the cause (quotas). This means as of 2019 when vessels exhaust their lowest quota to avoid discarding it must stop fishing. These “choke species” will decimate 60% of the UK fleet according to Seafish statistics. http://www.seafish.org/media/Publications/Seafish_landing_obligation_-_FINAL_REPORT_2_seafish.pdf

Alan Hastings concluded;
“It is an impossible contradiction for the UK to be free of the EU and the CFP and have a transition.
Adopting all EU law and then agreeing to a transition whilst we obey that law flies in the face of ‘taking back control’ and exposes this country to huge risk legally.

The governments remain biased doddling and ineptitude is leading not only fishing but the country into a seriously dangerous position and putting us at the EUs mercy. It would seem that the government is still trying to play at ‘being in Europe but not run by Europe’.

Trying to carve out a “deep and special partnership” that is just not on offer to reframe some sort of half in half out relationship – Mr Hague couldn’t get it, Mr Cameron couldn’t get it and the EU is clearly saying Mrs May isn’t getting it either.

We therefore call on the government to walk away from the punitive terms the EU is demanding to allow the government to fulfil what it says it will do – properly and fully regain our sovereignty and independence provided by Article 50 not trap us in transition as a vassal state to finish off our industry when Brexit should be our salvation”.

Brexit still on course – a statement from Anthony Coughlan (Dublin)

BREXIT STILL ON THE WAY AS THE EU/UK NEGOTIATION MOVES FROM PHASE 1 TO PHASE 2

Genuine democrats and EU-critics everywhere will welcome the news that Brexit is still on the way following the decision of the European Council of Prime Ministers and Presidents to move to the next stage of the EU/UK negotiation, i.e. on the two-year withdrawal period and the post-withdrawal trade agreement between the UK and the EU.

If there had been a failure to move the negotiation to Phase 2, ultra-Europhiles and Eurofanatics everywhere would have been delighted.

The European Council decision of the other day means that the hopes of such people that they can stop Brexit are significantly diminished, although they will continue to hope on and still do all they can to  attempt to derail the process.

The less EU-besotted amongst Irish policy-makers and media commentators will now have to start thinking for the first time whether it is really a good idea for this State to attempt to remain in an increasingly federalizing EU when 1.8 million of our fellow-countrymen and women  in Northern Ireland will be leaving it.

They will need to ask themselves do they want to be responsible for a new Partition of Ireland!

If the EU/UK negotiation leads to a meaningful Brexit, which means that the UK as a whole will leave the EU single market and customs union at the end of the UK Government’s proposed two-year transition/implementation period, as now looks probable, ONE CAN BE CONFIDENT THAT THE REPUBLIC WILL FOLLOW THE UK OUT OF THE EU IN TIME  because the drawbacks of the Irish State seeking to stay in the EU when the UK leaves will become so obvious and be so painful that the Irish public will come to demand nothing less.

However, wishful thinking is still likely to prevail widely in the Republic for some tine and among those “Remain” supporters everywhere who seek to overthrow last year’s democratic UK referendum result  –  in particular the hope that Brexit can still be frustrated in the Westminster Parliament or by a change of UK Government during the negotiations; or that at the end of the day the softest of “soft” Brexits will mean that the UK will effectively remain under EU supranational  jurisdiction.

Genuine democrats everywhere will  now wish UK Prime Minister Theresa May and her Government every success as they move to implement a meaningful Brexit that gives citizens of the UK democratic control of their own law-making once again and removes them from the EU single market and customs union.

A request for help from the Australian Monarchist League

Visitors to our 2017 rally may remember the speech by Philip Benwell MBE of the Australian Monarchists League. Mr Benwell has asked for CIB’s support regarding his organisation’s You Tube channel. He writes:-

The Australian Monarchist League has a new YouTube channel which can be accessed here.

You can view some of our new videos by clicking on ‘Playlists’ and then ‘Videos’

However, we need to apply for a shortened URL but need at least 100 subscribers to be able to do this.

We therefore urge those that are able to subscribe to our YouTube channel to do so and thus enable us to make application.

 

Thanking you

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Philip Benwell

National Chair

 

EU finally comes clean on future UK-EU military objectives, but risks remain

By David Banks. This piece first appeared on the Veterans for Britain website and is reproduced with permission.

In a speech in Berlin today, Michel Barnier (the EU’s Brexit negotiator) for the first time explicitly spells out some interpretations over future UK-EU military relations under Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), the new EU policy ambition in this field.  The text can be found here.

Some of these comments are welcome. In particular, in saying “Any voluntary participation of the United Kingdom in European defence will confer rights and obligations in proportion to the level of this participation,” Mr Barnier is indicating that UK participation on an ad hoc basis in missions can generate corresponding engagement at the political level. Clarity is needed on this point, but it does seem that the approach is heading towards a flexible structure rather than seeking to tie the UK down in fixed EU treaty obligations.

Again, Mr Barnier acknowledges that there are several existing models of cooperation and not just the Norway one, a model which is tied into membership of the Single Market. That requirement appears to have been dropped by the Commission. More widely, this may even be the first admission that a special FTA deal is achievable, since several such models do already exist lying between WTO Status and EEA membership.

However, there are also clear remaining issues. While UK membership of the European Defence Agency is ruled out, some sort of structured affiliation is not. Yet the EDA is core to future EU defence integration and formal UK adhesion beyond observer status carries budgetary obligations and political risks.

Also, the EU recognises the UK will continue to play a bilateral and multilateral role, especially through NATO. But PESCO has identified non-NATO multilaterals as targets to come increasingly under the PESCO banner. We also note the cheeky attempt to appropriate the St Mâlo agreement at the very end. The EU has wide eyes and a big appetite in agreements that are not part of the menu.

Tellingly, Barnier is tacitly admitting, in saying that “The British have never wanted to turn the Union into a military power”, that the EU now seeks to do just that.

Major-General Julian Thompson, chairman of Veterans for Britain, said:

“M. Barnier offers a backhanded compliment to the importance of the UK to European Defence – a term which of course is not the same thing as the EU’s precocious military appetite.

“It is not in the UK’s interest to institutionally weld itself to this ‘Security ERM’. Post Brexit, the UK should cooperate in missions and projects of clear joint interest. It is a positive sign that the Commission’s chief Brexit negotiator recognises this prospect.”

Colonel Richard Kemp also of Veterans for Britain said:

“EU defence integration clearly remains a threat to NATO, and to UK multilateralism inside Europe but outside the EU. EU ambitions are extensive and dangerous.”

Referring to the outrageous opening inference of the Brexit vote as a betrayal of the fight against terror, Col Kemp added:

“This is an insult to the electorate of the first order. But then, the European Commission has never understood either democracy or adverse votes.

“The EU has brought a lot of its terror-related problems on itself. In contrast, the UK has been the most capable in defence and security and has been the bulwark of anti-terrorism in Europe.”

Photo by DVIDSHUB

The Brexit vote – how we got there

This interesting speech about David Cameron was given by Sir Ivan Rogers, the former UK permanent Representative to the EU. at Hertford College, Oxford, on 25th November.

It is a long article, some 18 pages long, and even though the author is anything but an ardent Brexiteer, it is written in a dispassionate style. He claims that David Cameron believed that the best place for the UK was within an EU that would cement our “exceptionalism” into law and describes the trials and tribulations which the then Prime Minister faced in his renegotiations and the events leading up to them.

The speech brings back memories of those fascinating days leading up to the moment when the starting gun on the referendum vote was fired in February last year. It explains the steps that led to Camoern’s momentous decision and is well worth a read.

The divorce Bill to the electorate

This letter, written by CIB Committee member Michael McGough, appeared in the Daily Telegraph on 22nd November 2017.

SIR – I hope that the Prime Minister and her team will be able to justify any “divorce bill” paid to the EU.

Sums must not be plucked from the air, but fully justified and audited. Most of the information upon which to calculate this payment is readily available. Our share of EU assets must be fully accounted for at our exit.

This is not an auction, but an orderly departure. We will pay what is due, but no more.

Michael McGough