How UK officials are trying to shackle us to EU military structures – despite Brexit

Brexit must mean military independence, or it will be no real Brexit at all. But with the focus on trade issues, the public and even MPs have been blindsided by UK officials’ attempts to shackle us to the EU’s military structures post-Brexit, writes former CIB Operations Manager John Petley.

Supporters of Brexit have disagreed with each other – sometimes quite vehemently – when it comes to trade issues. Which model shall we go for? WTO? Canada? Norway? Take your pick, but you’ll find someone equally committed to Brexit who will tell you that you’re wrong.

The focus of the Brexit debate has been trade, and no one would deny that our future trading arrangements with the EU and the rest of the world are an important consideration when it comes to life after 29 March 2019.

There are, however, other important issues related to Brexit which have received much less coverage. Our relation to the EU’s military structures is one of the most critical. On this subject, Brexiteers ought to be united – our Brexit should be a very, very hard one indeed.

As a member of the EU, the UK has rightly been highly sceptical about EU plans for closer military integration – at least, that is, until after the 2016 referendum.

You would have thought that, following the Brexit vote, the EU would have done two things. Firstly, stepped up its plans for closer military integration now the that member most likely to drag its heels is leaving. And secondly, frozen the UK of the discussion.

What has actually happened is rather different. The EU has indeed pushed ahead with closer military integration. But not only was the UK included in the discussion, but UK officials have been happy to sign us up to closer military cooperation with the EU. This has been done without most MPs even being aware of what was going on.

They are not alone. MPs from other member states have been equally shocked on discovering what their representatives have signed up to.

WHAT OUR GOVERNMENT HAS SIGNED US UP TO

So, what have we signed up to? We did not sign up to PESCO, the EU’s PErmanent Structured COoperation (note the word ‘permanent’). But we did sign up to five separate EU Council agreements between 14 November 2016 and 22 June 2017, relating to Federica Mogherini’s Security and Defence Implementation Plan and Jean-Claude Juncker’s European Defence Action Plan.

Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty makes our signatures to the current arrangements null and void on 29 March 2019. But both the EU and its supporters in the UK are keen for us to sign a new treaty which includes a commitment to involvement in the EU’s military ambitions. This must be avoided at all costs, or else our military independence will be compromised.

The EU will increasingly make decisions about defence, and the process of gradual integration into the EU military machine will affect a number of areas – ownership of assets, defence procurement, intelligence, asset development, budgeting and research, to name but a few.

BUT WHAT ABOUT BREXIT?

So why did we sign up to anything after June 2016, considering we are going to leave?

It appears that some civil servants were not only happy to sign on the dotted line, but actually want to keep us tethered to the EU after Brexit.

What about government ministers? They, including Prime Minister Theresa May, clearly have some very serious questions to answer.

When it became known that the UK had signed up to a number of structures within the EU Defence Union, the explanation given was that it was only a formality. We were leaving anyway, and so it was best not to show dissent. Once we left, anything to which we had signed up would cease to apply anyway.

This, however, is being economical with the truth. Let us be in no doubt. Senior figures in both Whitehall and Westminster wish to see us shackled militarily to the EU after 29 March 2019.

It is not too late to achieve the clean break which is an essential part of a genuine Brexit – indeed, it is vital that we do so. Cooperation with EU member states under the auspices of NATO is, by and large, very desirable. However, independence from the EU’s Defence Union is another matter altogether. Why should we be involved with the EU’s empire building?

The EU has claimed that if the UK pulls away from the EU’s defence programme, we would be isolated militarily. This is utter nonsense. Not only are we members of NATO but, free from the EU, we could conduct cooperative defence research and development projects with any partners we chose.

What is more, we still have an excellent military – although parts of it are seriously underfunded – and we are of course a nuclear power. The idea that by withdrawing from the EU’s defence programme we would be left weak and vulnerable is laughable.

FIGHTING FOR OUR MILITARY SOVEREIGNTY

Thankfully, these dangers are being highlighted by Veterans for Britain, a grassroots organisation set up to highlight the risks to the UK militarily if Brexit is compromised. Thanks to their campaigning, MPs are being made aware of the concerns expressed in this article. Many, sadly, are still unaware, particularly of the agreements signed since the Brexit vote and their implications for our future military independence.

We are heading for a turbulent period as Mrs May’s Chequers proposal comes under attack from her own MPs. We are thus still a long way from any final sign-off agreement, and there is everything to play for. But with trade issues still dominating the press coverage of Brexit, it is vital that these other areas are not swept under the carpet.

Brexit must mean military independence, or it will be no real Brexit at all.

…………………………

Comment from CIB: John Petley’s informed expose is yet another illustration of why our long fight for UK sovereignty is far from over, even assuming a satisfactory Brexit in March 2019 (something which itself looks in great doubt). It is not only EU membership itself that poses a threat to our sovereignty, but our own Europhile politicians’ and officials’ willingness to surrender our independence by stealth to the European project in the guise of ‘co-operation’ and ‘partnerships’. This is precisely why CIB has no plans to wind down post-Brexit. We have been fighting for UK sovereignty since 1969, and we will continue to do so as long as threats like those highlighted in this article remain.

Photo credit: European External Action Service

The long march to Brexit – a personal view

Edward Spalton – Chairman , Campaign for an independent Britain.

July 2018

Having been opposed to our membership of the European project under its various names and guises since 1972, I am mindful that others were there before me. The Campaign for an Independent Britain, often known as CIB for short, was formed in 1969 before Britain joined the then European Economic Community and included earlier independence groups as well as individual MPs and others from all parties and none. I think we are the longest established, pro independence group which has functioned continuously since then.

Being drawn from across the mainstream political spectrum, we are not a political party with members tied to a particular line of policy but our objective is clearly set out in our constitution and on that we are all united.

“To campaign for the restoration of full national sovereignty to the United Kingdom by its withdrawal from the obligations of the Treaties of European Union and the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 as amended so that Parliament may legislate freely and the United Kingdom may co-operate with other nations, as it thinks fit” .

So we are indebted to a long line of dedicated, doughty, undaunted campaigners who have gone before us and who started in a very different world from that of today. Considering the odds stacked against them and us by successive British governments and official institutions, I am reminded of John Newton’s splendid hymn “Amazing Grace”

“Through many dangers, toils and snares,

We have already come.

’twas grace that brought us safe thus far,

And grace will lead us home”.

The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

We have come an amazingly long way but the journey did not end with the referendum victory. In some ways the subsequent years have been the most dispiriting, disappointing experience of all as it became apparent that there were such divisions within government, within parties and within Parliament as to make a swift achievement of our cause impossible, in spite of Parliament having voted by a large majority to respect the referendum result and carry out the people’s instruction to leave the EU.

The government has managed to pass the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill which transfers EU law to the UK statute book so that we are not left in a legal vacuum. It also gives the government certain powers to modify the laws.

This may seem a strange proceeding to committed Leavers but it is very necessary that there should not be a legal vacuum – as would have happened, for instance, with food safety legislation and much else, if the Bill had not passed. In fact, such a Bill is normal procedure in countries which are becoming independent. The second Act of the newly independent Irish Parliament did just the same in 1922, transferring all the Westminster legislation to the Dublin statute book.

The odious aspect of the passage of this Bill was that people who had never had the slightest qualm about transferring massive powers to the EU suddenly displayed an entirely hypocritical attachment to the status of Parliament, claiming that the Bill gave the government “Henry VIII” powers. Parliament can always sack the government – something which it could not do with either Henry VIII or, until now, the EU Commission!

The “Transition” or “Implementation” Period – A Vassal State?

So we are on our way out of the EU on 29th March 2019 but the government’s negotiating methodology has left so much work undone that a “transition” period will be necessary until they have sorted things out.

The proposed period runs from 30 March 2019 until 31 December 2020 but can be extended.

The terms of this transition are so penal and humiliating that some MPs have described it as a “Vassal State”. All EU law continues to apply, plus anything they dream up in the meantime and “ the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall not be considered to be a national parliament” during its currency. Neither will the Bank of England be considered to be a national central bank. (Article X + 2 Institutional Arrangements, items 2 and 3).

A Strange Negotiating Stance.

Looking back at the press and broadcast reports of the last two years, one could have thought that the negotiation was being conducted entirely between members of the British cabinet and Parliament rather than between the government and the EU!

A reasonable person would have thought that the five months between the referendum and the Prime Minister’s announcement of her policy in January 2017 was adequate for the government to agree a firm general negotiating position, to build sufficient consensus within the Conservative party and open discussions with the EU on a reasonably stable basis with united cabinet backing. But according to reports, Mrs. May would not allow cabinet discussions on Brexit and established a strangely divided command with David Davis at DexEU, the senior civil servant Oliver Robbins, moved in September 2017 to where she could keep an eye on him in Downing Street, Boris Johnson as something of a loose cannon at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office and Dr. Liam Fox travelling the world to discuss trade agreements which the UK is not allowed to make whilst a member of the EU.

Having our cake and eating it”

Mrs. May announced her policy of leaving the EU, the European Economic Area (EEA) and Customs Union in January 2017 and it was widely publicised from a note photographed by a sharp-eyed cameraman in Downing Street that ministers expected to be able to “have our cake and eat it. Put into crude terms, they would say to Johnny Foreigner in a boorish Bullingdon Club sort of manner “Now look here. We’re leaving this club. Going to make our own rules, you know. But you’re to keep on taking our stuff as if we are still members. We’ll take yours too. Now be a good chap and cut along” . Needless to say, it did not work. This approach was quickly dubbed “cakeism” on the continent. This arrogant attitude had to be modified to get negotiations going constructively.

A Hugely Laborious Approach to Negotiation.

From the very beginning the EU side made it clear that it would not compromise the status of its external border and we, by Mrs May’s own choice, would be outside it – what is called a “third country” . Every single existing treaty arrangement with the EU would come to an end on29 March 2019 unless it was replaced by a new agreement. This is an immensely laborious way of dealing with a complex relationship which has been built up for over forty years – to tear it all down and rebuild from scratch in a very short time. Mrs. May said she wanted to have a “deep and special” agreement but has only just specified, in July 2018, what she thinks that might be in her recent controversial Chequers white paper. Many people think it will not meet the EU’s known procedures for its external border. Others think it is far too large a concession to the EU.

Not Customs Tariffs but Border Health & Technical Controls the main problem.

Goods circulate freely between the EU countries because the authorities in each member state keep them up to the required standards and are themselves supervised by the EU authorities to make sure they are enforcing the rules. So there is no need for checks at the internal borders. Once we are outside the EU – what is called a “Third Country” – that no longer applies and the authorities in the EU state receiving our goods have to satisfy themselves at the external EU border that the products are up to standard.

As we are an EU country at present, HMRC and the British Port Health Officers carry out technical and health inspections on goods coming to us from outside the EU. Failing any new agreement, the EU coastal states will apply exactly the same standards to our goods after Brexit. I have printed out the first few pages of a relevant HMRC manual on food and feedingstuffs which will apply. This is bound to create choke points and traffic jams at the busiest transit ports like Calais and Dover and will have adverse effects on delivering perishable goods or items in other “Just In Time” supply chains.

The Return of Sovereignty

But whilst trade will affected, it was never the main point of our campaign which always was the return of national democratic self government.

Theoretically that means that we make all our own laws about absolutely everything., but as I mentioned, we are in a different world to that which our founders experienced. For instance, they did not have mobile phones.

I expect everyone here has one . If you have been on holiday with it, you will know that it continues to work across national borders. That does not happen by chance but by a massively detailed system of international regulation. It comes to us through an EU regulation at present because we are EU members. But it was not made by the EU. It is GLOBAL. Similarly, if you take electronic gadgets with you on holiday, you can buy batteries at corner shops from Tooting to Timbuktu and they will fit. That did not happen by accident either!

I have yet to hear even the most extreme Brexiteer insist that we must make our own laws for mobile phones and batteries. It is so convenient that they are standardised internationally. The fact that they are regulated in very great detail by international treaties actually increases our freedom in practical terms.

The same thing is even true of passports. I loathed my EU passport when I received it and put a cover on it, so that it looked like a proper British one. So I am glad that we will be returning to real British passports – like a sort of union jack in our pocket.

Yet the design of passports has been regulated by international treaty since the 1920s and today’s passports – apart from the colour , the country’s name on the cover and the first page – are totally standardised across all countries by international treaty to be machine-readable and biometric at airports across the world. That actually increases our freedom to travel. We could insist on having our own different, special British passport but it would not get us very far!

Many years ago Boris Johnson was Brussels correspondent for the Daily Telegraph and started a series of articles on the bonkers bureaucrats of Brussels and their potty regulations. They were very entertaining but not always truthful, as his former boss Max Hastings testifies.

UKIP jumped into that groove and wore it ever deeper. Just in the run up to the referendum, they were still stuck in it. You may remember their concern about “Mild Green Fairy Liquid” which was to be made to carry a warning – a red diamond frame with a white ground inside and a blackexclamation mark. That is actually an internationally agreed symbol for a skin and eye irritant – which the product certainly is. Just try it in your eye!

This was not an EU initiative but part of a world-wide standardisation of such symbols to make life easier for customs and safety inspectors. The EU was merely the local administrator of a scheme which was making free trade easier.

I got in touch with a UKIP friend to tell him what an ass he was making of himself and his party but it made no difference.

Of the 5,900 or so regulations which apply to the European Economic Area (EEA),( the “Common Market” part of the EU), most are of this technical sort and most do not come from the EU but from international bodies which the EU obeys, such as UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission Europe) Codex Alimentarius ( food), ISO (International Standards Organisation) and so on. They even define for the EU the acceptable curvature of marketable cucumbers!

Does anybody here feel that our constitutional rights or country’s freedom are threatened by observing accepted international standards in such matters? Must we establish our own British standards in all these things? Will the world want to know if we do? I rather doubt it.

Sovereignty is important in things which really are important but I, for one, would not go to the barricades or to the scaffold over the internationally accepted standard for the sugar content of jam!

Of course, it is a scandal that we had no part in the decisions of the global organisations which decide these things for the EU and the world. As an EU member, we were bound to support the line which the EU Commission decides for us. As a free country, we will get our voice back in the higher councils of the world.

The EU as Rule Taker not Rule Maker

The United Nations Economic Commission Europe was one of the bodies advocated by Winston Churchill, as a regional branch of the United Nations.

Hardly anybody has heard of it, yet in many economic areas it tells the EU what to do. In or out of the EU we will be following the regulations of its World Forum for Harmonisation of Vehicle Regulations ( W.P.29), as does most of the world, apart from the United States. It covers all aspects of vehicle safety. So manufacturers which want to trade in the EU (and EFTA states) must comply with its regulations to gain the “type approval” for their vehicles to be saleable there.

So it’s not just to do with marks on bottles of Fairy Liquid! I tried to explain this to a UKIP MEP and he looked at me blankly. “I am not campaigning against the United Nations” he said. The management at Toyota was telling its workers that we must stay in the EU so that the UK would be at the “top table” in Brussels where regulations are decided. Yet I had shown him that the top table was not with the EU but with UNECE in Geneva. Could he not go and explain this to the Toyota management? They might then stop telling their workers to vote remain. “I don’t see how I could use this in campaigning”, he said. “You don’t have to, if Toyota start telling their employees the real situation” I said. But he was not convinced.

So there is not a great big unregulated free world market out there, waiting for buccaneering British manufacturers liberated from EU regulation to sell cut price, sub standard goods to grateful natives. As the world grows more prosperous, so people insist on safe motor cars, aeroplanes which don’t fall out of the sky, medicines which actually make them better and so on. Looking into this I was amused to find that the programme series “Only Fools & Horses” is a very successful export in countries which share the sense of humour. But the very unregulated firm “Trotters’ Independent Trading” is not a template for a successful world trading economy!

The Hard Brexiteers

Having fought our membership of the EU for over forty years, I can well understand my fellow campaigners who want as little to do with the EU as possible, as soon as possible. I was talking to one such lady, a tremendous campaigner, the sort of person without whom we would never have got to a referendum, and explaining that we would have to be on some sort of terms with our European neighbours afterwards. “We can’t just haul up the anchor and sail away” I said.

“Oh, I do so wish we could” said the lady in a deeply heartfelt way with which I could heartily sympathise. But, of course, we can’t. Whilst there is much wrong with out economic relationship with the EU, it is far too important just to “walk away” from. Whilst I expect that our economy will develop closer ties with other countries, particularly the Commonwealth, that will not happen instantly. In the meantime some 30% of our food comes from the EU and we export quite a bit to them. Those are not the sort of supply chains you can replace overnight. In terms of overall exports, it is some 10% of our economy and, of course, many British people’s jobs depend on handling the imports we receive from the EU.

Some people of this “Hard Brexit” opinion have told me that they think that “a few years” of economic hardship would be “worth it” to be definitively rid of the EU. I had to ask “Worth it to whom?” Well, changes of this sort do have consequences for businesses – not always intended. If you Google “Edward Spalton the Miller’s Tale” and go to Episode 4, you will see how Mr. Wilson’s “fundamental renegotiation” of 1975 affected our family business and quite unintentionally destroyed the trade for our best product. I know because it was my job to sell it! That was just one effect of a high level treaty agreement on one small business. Mr Wilson certainly did not intend it! Perhaps I am being unfair to good people , often long serving campaigners, who seem to welcome the prospect of economic disruption and hardship as virtuous. “Like 1940” one of them said to me. They are personally honourable people.

Those I know are mostly nearer my age than my children’s. They have raised their families, bought their houses and often have a bit put by or a pension. Just a little bit, they remind me of the caricature of First World War Generals in their comfortable Chateau, planning the next “Big Push”. The expendable Poor Bloody Infantry in their grand scheme are the younger folk with jobs dependent on our trade with the European countries. I doubt whether they would relish their conscript role in such a “Big Push”. If any significant number of jobs were lost, they would be very unlikely to feel much enthusiasm for independence but especially not for the government which made a botch of it. And we have an example which ought to be remembered by the Conservative party forever. Any good General avoids unnecessary casualties. Being cautious and planning thoroughly is not being cowardly.

What Happened When HMG Made a Real Botch of Things Last Time.

Much against her will, Mrs Thatcher was persuaded to join the ERM – The Exchange Rate Mechanism. The UK promised to keep the exchange rate of the pound Sterling closely aligned with EU currencies, particularly the Deutsche Mark. It was, in fact, a sort of antechamber to the euro currency although the government did not say that. When Mr. Major came to power in 1992, it all went horribly wrong. The government spent billions of pounds propping up the exchange rate in vain. The arrangement collapsed and Mr. Soros made a great deal of money. To keep the exchange rate high, the government increased interest rates to try to keep its bargain.

In the first 9 months of 1992 there were

  • 36,000 bankruptcies
  • 25,000 businesses insolvent/liquidated
  • 68,000 homes repossessed and
  • 205,000 families forced into mortgage arrears

simply because they could not afford the interest rates which the government desperately increased to try to keep up the value of the pound.

Eventually they had to renege on their agreement with the EU countries and crash out of the system. Interest rates came down sharply and things improved.

Although both Labour and Conservative parties had backed the ERM and its EU motivation, it was the Conservatives who rightly got the blame. Their reputation for financial competence was destroyed. So the Labour election landslide of 1997 was not just due to that nice Mr Blair’s fresh new face but to people’s memory of Conservative incompetence which destroyed jobs, businesses and family homes. They did not attain a majority again for 18 years.

Before the referendum Professor Vernon Bogdanor gave a very interesting lecture on the consequences of the ERM fiasco and said how he thought the memory and effects of it would decide people’s votes 24 year later. The crucial part is from about 50 minutes onward in the youtube recording. Just Google “Professor Vernon Bogdanor ERM Youtube”

A botched Brexit would have far more serious and long-lasting consequences than the ERM fiasco and could not be put right by reducing interest rates.

For good or ill the effects of Brexit will last for at least a generation. Mr Rees Mogg says fifty years. So we have to be careful. That’s not being cowardly. We are playing for keeps and not just for ourselves but on behalf of those who come after us.

It seems we may well be out of the EU in the hard Brexit which some desire by March 30th next year. So far, the government has made no preparations for this and given absolutely no guidance to businesses. So one has to ask how serious they are or ever were and whether they are simply play-acting in a Parliament which lost real power so many years ago that it cannot even put in place the basic preparations for the consequences of its actions.

I started with a verse from a hymn and will finish with one because I am sure that the cause of independence will proceed and that people will not forever tolerate incompetence and deceit in their government and public office holders.

The verse is

“Through the night of doubt and sorrow,

Onward goes the pilgrim band.

Singing songs of expectation,

Marching to the promised land” .

EU Turns Up The Heat: Threatens to ‘Punish’ British Fishermen

Press release from Fishing for Leave

Fishing for Leave lambasted comments made in the Danish Media following the visit of EU Chief negotiator Michel Barnier to Denmark’s main fishing port Thyboron, saying; “You can keep your “Harshness!! – International law confers Britain full sovereignty and control over all our waters and resources!”

– EU Fishermen say; “Brexit has incredibly big impact on our company and all of Denmark’s fisheries. We rely on getting into British waters, he says, saying that 85 percent of the catch of the species of sand eel caught in Thyborøn takes place in British waters”.

Fishing for Leave spokesman Alan Hastings said; “As much as no British fishermen wishes personal ill on other fishermen, where were the EU tears when our resources robbed and communities decimated?”

“Does no one in the EU feel guilty that you built a future for the EU industry on robbing UK coastal communities of theirs?”

“Time for Michael Gove robustly to defend UK interests so we can rejuvenate our communities that were sacrificed with a detrimental deal that benefited the EU”.

Britain has the formal opportunity under international law to stop fishermen from Denmark and other EU countries fishing in British waters post-Brexit.

But fishermen in the EU, along with Michel Barnier, say such a decision could also have a negative impact on British fishing.

They say the EU would look to close EU markets to force Britain to continue current shares and access that see’s EU vessels catch EIGHT times more fish in UK waters as UK vessels do in EU waters 780,000 tons vs 90,000 tons.

“When it comes to fishing, we will talk about the topics that are directly related. Our access to British waters and their access to our market”, said the EU’s Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier aboard the fisherman Meilsø when he visited fishermen in Thyborøn today (3rd March 18).

 “Monsier Barnier made it clear that there will be a negotiation with EU fishermen’s access to fishing in British waters and allowing British fishermen to sell their products on the EU’s internal market” says DR’s correspondent Ole Ryborg.

At this point, according to Ryborg’s Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen the Danish government; “will help Barnier to be harsh in negotiations with Britain in the fishing industry”.

Fishing for Leave responded to the threat by pointing out that the EU markets dependency on UK fish exports combined with EU losing the ability to catch 60% of the fish in UK waters would only increase EU markets necessity on UK fish.

Alan Hastings from FFL said “What the EU thinks is a position of strength is actually a weakness and that is their dependency on our resources as a critical part of their food supply”.

“This is no different from the cod wars when British vessels lost access to Norwegian and Icelandic grounds but almost immediately UK processors on Humberside started to import fish direct from Norway”.

“Remainers and the EU cite tariffs but when the cost of tariffs is weighed against the £3-4bn worth of resources which we can repatriate this offsets tariffs by a huge margin as UK fishermen will be able to land more of what they are otherwise forced to discard”

Alan concluded “Michel Barnier’s comments are a shot across the bow and the battle to restore our sovereignty & governance of UK waters is very much alive!

“Will the government capitulate to EU demands or stand up for British coastal communities and not use them as an ‘expendable’ bargaining chip for 2nd time in the face of EU belligerence?

“The big question for Michel Barnier is, why should the EU get continued access? The UK provides 50% of waters but EU relative stability only gives us 25% of our fish”.

“Fishing is massively important to UK communities too and the CFP has been an economic, social & environmental disaster. Brexit also allows environmentally and economically decent UK policy where we become equal of Norway & Iceland.”

“Taking back control is an “acid test” Michael Gove for this government in coastal constituencies. Will the government hold fast or face electoral oblivion in areas like Cornwall, Kent, East Anglia, Yorkshire and the NE of Scotland?”

Michael Gove’s cabinet fishing battle

After the recent Brexit cabinet meetings it has been disclosed that Secretary of State Michael Gove had to “battle” to ensure cabinet agreement that Britain would control setting of fishing limits when Britain’s membership terminates on the 29th March 2019.

 Fishing for Leave welcomed Mr Gove’s attempts but said it is “shameful” that there had to be a “battle” with cabinet Remainers over fishing, given it is widely perceived as not only symbolic, but also an issue where the Conservatives have to exorcise the actions of Ted heath.

 Fishing for Leave’s Alan Hastings said; “We give a cautionary “Well Done” to Michael Gove! This now needs to be seen through if he and other parliamentarians want to be heroes instead of hounded!”

“We will irrefutably be independent state as of March 2019 with an automatic return of sovereignty over OUR waters & resources as we leave the CFP. Therefore, there is no need and fishing shouldn’t be given away again to be part of any type of ‘transition’ or ‘3rd party’ deal that see’s us bound into the CFP in anyway shape nor form”.

“Some arrangement where Britain is allowed to meekly speak from the back of a room in Brussels could only be a sell-out not a victory”.

 “Avoiding such a situation by not having a “transition” where we are a vassal state, will see Britain in the same position as Norway, Iceland and Faroe and the EU will have to seek arrangements to be allowed to continue to fish our waters and resources on an equal barter basis”.

Fishing for Leave said they are concerned that there is now a concerted elitist establishment campaign to thwart Brexit to name only.

Alan Concluded “It’s about time Brexiteers “take back control” to make sure we do really crack on an prepare to leave the EU properly – fishing is a key symbolic battle with a huge prize to be won for coastal communities and constituencies – a ‘transition’ would snatch this which is in touching distance as a beacon of success for all concerned”.

See also this article.

A pertinent letter

Enoch Powell was a consistent opponent of our membership of the European Union and one of our supporters has drawn our attention to an excellent  – indeed, prophetic  – letter sent to the Daily Telegraph over a quarter of a century ago, which we felt was worth reproducing

Daily Telegraph, June 20, 1991
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Britain has lived ‘lie’ since 1972

SIR – I am sorry that Edward Heath appears to have caught the epidemic disease of using the words “lie” and “liar” in political debate (report, June 19). His tussle with Margaret Thatcher came home to me personally because, in a sense, Britain, since 1972 has been “living a lie” – a phrase which I happened to use over the weekend when addressing a meeting of the Stafford Constituency Conservative Association.

   It was in 1971 that I took it upon myself to tour the principal member states of the EC to warn anyone who would listen, and in their own languages, that the British could not possibly intend what was involved in legislating themselves into the Common Market. “They don’t mean it.” I said, “because they can’t mean it.”

   However, in 1972, albeit by a majority of as little as eight votes, the Commons divested itself of every essential part of its own sovereignty – legislation, taxation, control of expenditure, jurisdiction, the lot. The public was assured, both then and when it came to the referendum in 1975, that the sovereignty of Parliament would be unimpaired.

   That is the context for the word “lie”, if one must use it. The facts have turned out otherwise. The laws of the Community now override the law made by Parliament; the courts of the Community overrule the courts of this country. What may have been on the part of some a sincere expectation in 1972 has turned out to be false, and from this false position, now clear for all to see, the Government has to extricate itself and the United Kingdom.

   The issue ought to be placed again, without prejudice, prevarication or pressure, before the electorate at the next general election.

   They want to opportunity to vote for a party which promises to give back to them their former right to decide the laws, the taxes and the policies of the country through their own Parliament.

   The Act of 1972 must be amended to restrict its operation to these areas which are defined by British courts as indispensable to freedom of trade.

   That is what the British people were led to expect 19 years ago. They have a right now to fair, sincere and open dealing, at least from the Tory party.

ENOCH POWELL             London SW1

 

 

Photo by HonestReporting.com

The man who could blow up the EU

On 22nd April 1966, Jean Rey, the Belgian lawyer who succeeded Walter Hallstein as president of the European Commission, delivered a speech in Brussels full of optimism about  the future of the European project.  At this time, the Community had just emerged from the “Empty Chair Crisis” where France’s General de Gaulle, concerned about the increasing power of the Commission and erosion of national sovereignty, recalled France’s representatives, resulting in six months of virtual paralysis within the European institutions.

Rey expressed great confidence about the Community’s ability to bounce back form the crisis and move forward towards closer integration:- “There is no reason for the leaders of the Community to show the any hint of pessimism, of discouragement; the slightest doubt about the eventual success of their efforts.”  Europe had a great future, he claimed, but only if it integrated. Indeed, in so doing, Europe could lead the world:- “The times when nations could live in isolation is over….After several centuries when the nation state represented the final word in political wisdom, see how the world is organising itself in continents and it’s the Europeans who are leading by their example.”

Overt federalists like Rey are a rare breed nowadays. True, the EU has expanded from its original six members to 28 (soon to be 27) but the optimistic, almost visionary quality of Rey’s utterances are a thing of the past. No better proof of can be found by comparing Rey’s words with a speech by Martin Schulz, the leader of the German Socialist Party, the SPD, at his party’s  conference on 7th December.  The substance may be similar but the tone is completely different.

“I want there to be constitutional treaty to create a federal Europe” he said. Fine, that has always been the goal of the EU. He then went on to say that once drafted, it would “be presented to the member states, and those who are against it will simply leave the EU.”

This is the big difference. It would never have occurred to Jean Rey to talk of expulsion from the EU and Schulz’s harsh language is an implicit admission that the European Project is faltering. We addressed some of the reasons a couple of months ago and in spite of the promising headline data on the Eurozone economy, the political divisions are as deep as ever.

Far from encouraging unity around common ideals, Schulz’s words will only inflame these divisions. His vision of “Europe” is the Western European multicultural variant which is being so fiercely resisted in countries like Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic.  Furthermore, as a German, his words will be interpreted in Southern Europe as a threat to their fiscal independence.  The most extreme reaction may well come from his own countrymen, however. The federal Europe to which he aspires can only come about if his countrymen are prepared to foot the bill and subsidise the poorer countries. The lack of enthusiasm for such generosity lay behind the success of Alternative für Deutschland in the recent Federal Election. Perhaps Herr Schulz might care to reflect that his own party recently registered its worst performance – and under his leadership – in almost seventy years.

True, there was a certain amount of grandstanding in the speech. The SPD is setting out its stall for renewing its coalition with Mrs Merkel’s CDU party but its overt federalism was given short shrift by the German Chancellor, who said ““I believe the ability to act now is the priority, not setting long-term goals,” In reality, while Schulz (and Jean-Claude Juncker, for that matter) are wanting to put their foot on the accelerator, Merkel actually wants to go more slowly but in exactly the same direction – and it’s not a direction that commands as great a degree of support as it once did.  There may not be anyone of the calibre of Charles de Gaulle in a position of authority in an EU member state, but the issues are the same as those which provoked the “empty chair crisis” – increasing centralisation and a loss of sovereignty by the member states.

In a very thought-provoking article, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard said that we must not forget why we are leaving the EU. “It is not a whimsical choice. The decision was forced upon us because the EU began to assert ‘totalitarian’ reach, using Hannah Arendt’s term advisedly to mean a systematic assault on prior traditions and institutions in order to create an entirely new order,” he said. The article begins, however, by quoting someone from the very heart of Europe who is claiming that the EU is becoming  an “imperial construction”. In other words, it’s not just the UK which has lots of unhappy people. “Life in Europe in 2017 is resembling more and more what it was like under colonial administration. We are subjected to an invisible administration that shapes our destiny down to the tiniest details. Should we really be surprised that it is leading to revolts?” asks the Belgian David van Reybrouck, a prolific writer and historian.

The EU expended a huge amount of energy (and, no doubt, money) to try to contain Brexit and prevent a domino effect. It breathed a huge sigh of relief when  Neither Geert wilders nor Marine le Pen achieved the breakthrough they had hoped for. The volatility of many European voters and the fault lines between the EU-27 have not gone away, however, and if Schulz becomes Germany’s vice-chancellor and fancies joining forces with Jean-Claude Juncker and Emmanuel Macron to push ahead with the federal Europe to which they fervently aspire, the net result may well be the opposite – that they end up blowing the whole project to pieces.

 

Photo by opposition24.de