Jake":21tjksg0 said:
RobinBHM":21tjksg0 said:
The economic case for exit is very tenuous at best. The sovereignty and immigration arguments are at least based in some fact (although massively exaggerated by playing on people's fears of German rule, and johnny-foreigner generally, respectively). I think the exit campaign would be a lot more honest if it accepted there would be an economic price, but argued that what they see as the benefits of leaving outweighed it.
I did some economics at university. I'm a convinced "Brexiteer" and have spent 20 years or so working hard for us to escape the EU. I have done a great deal of research on the EU in the past and have a bookshelf (well, one shelf!) full of EU-related topics. I believe there IS a strong economic case, but it is trumped by issues of democratic accountability and sovereignty.
Obviously nobody can predict the future - stupid to try in any detail - but certain things are very apparent. If we stay in the EU these things will badly affect our country.
First of all, Cameron got NOTHING from his 'negotiation' other than empty promises. He knows this, as does anyone who understands how the EU operates, whichever side of the issue they come down on.
This is not rhetoric on my part: almost everything he claims to have achieved actually requires either a majority in the Council of Ministers (very, very unlikely for most of it), or treaty change (absolutely impossible - there is complete certainty that this will NOT happen in the near future). Do not take my word for this, nor that of other pro-Brexit commentators. Read what the leaders of continental Europe and the EU have said, for example about treaty change after Lisbon: it ain't gonna happen.
Regarding the Council, things are less clear, it's true. But, simply by calling a referendum, Cameron has infuriated many of his European peers, and REALLY peesed-off the EU top brass (they have made that very clear). There will be consequences. There is ZERO chance that he can go to another IGC and in essence say, "I want you to approve these measures that are solely in Britain's interests." The next time there is an IGC, he is going to get a dressing-down and be hauled back into line, to support the Project.
. . .
Meanwhile, let's consider the existential threats to the EU, IRRESPECTIVE of our vote, and the effect they might or might not have on the UK.
I regret that I have to refer to and quote Amsterdam, but it's the only treaty I can quickly lay my hands on this morning. You'll have to dig out the relevant clauses in Lisbon yourself (yes it's all been
renumbered yet again <sigh>!).
Note the not-so-small matter that we have been signed-up to all this below since 1997 (nineteen years). It's not as if this stuff is particularly hidden nor dead, just that most of the pro-EU lot don't want to talk about it, or even in some cases admit these clauses exist. That's characteristic of the whole EU Project. Various European and EU leaders have even made mention (in somewhat louche speeches) of the need to conceal the true nature of the Project from the peoples of Europe (ere they reject it). Again don't take my word for it, but Google some speeches of the likes of Schumann, Monnet (at the start) and people as recent as Giscard D'Estaign (who masterminded the EU Const... er, the Lisbon treaty). And the Treaties matter as they are
the fundamental law underpinning everything that happens in the EU. Cameron can blather on about what has or has not been agreed, but it matters not a jot if it conflicts with them.
And no, I don't misunderstand these things. In the ninteen years, I have been in correspondence (and face-to-face conversation) with several QCs and barristers and at least two constutional lawyers, (one based in Rome): I've put these points to them, and had confirmed that the way the European Court works is that you DO (and should) leap from Treaty "lily pad" to lily pad as I am doing below. The treaties themselves contain huge numbers of cross references to other sections, for exactly this reason.
1.
The eurozone is collapsing and we ARE on the hook for this, no matter what Cameron and Osborne say about the matter. Anyway, let's start with the dreaded
Articles 98 & 99:
"
Member states shall conduct their economic policies with a view to contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Community, as defined in Article 2,..."
and,
"
Member states shall regard their economic policies as a matter of common concern and shall co-ordinate them within the Council."
Which raises the awkward bits of Article 2:
"
... the establishment of economic and monetary union... implementation of a common foreign and security policy... progressive framing of a common defence policy, which might lead to a common defence... to maintain in full the acquis communautaire... the objectives of the Union shall be achieved as provided in this Treaty...
So what are those objectives? That takes us back to good old Article 1:
"
... the process of creating an ever closer union..."
That's the bit that all the Remainers deny we need to worry about, but it IS at the very heart of all EU treaties, always had been and always will be.
But what about propping up the Euro? Surely we have exemptions because we're not in the eurozone?
This causes us to skip daintily over to Title VII ("Economic and Monetary Policy"). First off there are two authorities involved in European financial matters, the ECB (European Central Bank), and the less-well-known ESCB (European System of Central Banks). You'd think the latter simply refers to a co-ordinating council of central banks in Europe, until we read Article 107: "
(2) the ECB shall have legal personality" and "
(3) The ESCB shall be governed by the decision-making bodies of the ECB..."
Now the nub of the matter -
Article 119. I'll skip quoting the whole thing, but basically it's about currency union (the Euro), and what happens when countries get into difficulties with their "balance of payments" (in this case an euphemism for "can't pay their creditors"):
119/2: "
The Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall grant such mutual assistance..."
That's the Council of Ministers, and the "mutual assistance" means loans or grants. And the QMV (emphasis mine) means we can't get out of it. So on this one, Osborne is simply lying - it's there in the treaties and has been for two decades*.
2. Migration and immigration. I won't bang on about this, suffice it to say:
The free movement of people and capital is so fundamental to the EU we can NEVER alter it. Merkel told Cameron this during his humilia- "negotiation", but he ignored her and refused to explain this to the British people (for obvious reasons).
Read Title 1, Article 2 of Amsterdam and note its language (its tone). Here's just an excerpt:
"
... maintain and develop the Union as an area of freedom, security and justice, in which the free movement of persons is assured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external borders, immigration, asylum and the combating of crime;... "
Shengen is irrelevant (it simply refers to the area where border checks have been physically removed). We have a treaty obligation to accept EU citizens wishing to live here. So when John Major said last week in a headline-grabbing BBC interview that we would never join Shengen it was as important as saying we'd never make Baseball our national game Major, of course, knew that. [Aside] I am sick and tired of people like him using conjurors' tricks (distraction) to try to convince people of a lie. Major became very wealthy after forcing Maastrict through the Commons, and his masters are calling in his markers.[/]
The point of the quote above is that the EU claims for itself the right to determine border policies for EU countries. It is NOT something we can opt out of. On the way, it also claims our lawmaking, our policing and our defence policy and actual assets. That's one "justification" for the putative EU army.
. . .
The devil is now, and always has been, in the detail.
If you want those things -- to give up the last vestiges of our self determination to qualified voting in a Council of 29 countries (including Romania, for example), and to accept any and all who wish to settle here as long as they are clutching an EU passport, and to bail out the eurozone even if we don't want to -- and you are comfortable with the direction of travel, e.g. British soldiers wearing EU uniforms (operating here to suppress anti-EU activity?), then there is nothing I can write that would persuade you. The treaties, incidentally, hint at the possibility of conscription too.
The real Federalists have always said openly what they intend. It hasn't been some dirty, obscure secret at all. It HAS been something that British federalist politicians, from Heath and Wilson onwards, have known would be unacceptable to the British people (more so in the 1960s, when the war generations were still around and knew personally what was at stake). They have always tried to downplay it, knowing they'd never succeed if they openly told the truth here.
Read Lord Kilmuir's advice to Heath from 1960. If I am wrong, given what it contains, why did Heath feel the need to lie about it to Parliament and the people a decade later? Kilmuir was writing as a government law officer, so Heath would not have taken his view as some after-dinner note scribbled on a napkin.
Kilmuir told him what he suspected but didn't want to hear, so he simply ignored the inconvenient truth.
. . .
It's not a question of the risks of us leaving, but the dangers inherent in us remaining.
Note how the Remain camp are NOT arguing about the projections for immigration numbers - they cannot. Do you really think we can cope with millions of immigrants in the next decade without fundamental changes to the way the country looks, behaves, and its quality of life? We can't feed them, house them, educate their children (nor teach them English even), provide medical services for them, nor water, nor power and light. Forget any "contribution to the economy"
we do not have the resources to accommodate them, yet we are treaty-bound to do so.
I have no idea how the euro will play out, except that it CANNOT succeed. Greece and the rest are killing it right now, as I type. The collapse will be horrible, and we can't stop it, only throw good (borrowed!) money after bad,
if we stay in.
We have to escape now, while we still can. That's not racism, nor xenophobia, nor anything else but PRACTICAL and ECONOMIC.
E.
PS: YES this is long, but it just scratches the surface. People who make TL;DR comments are the same type who find their insurance policies don't cover them or the warranty on the new TV doesn't mean a thing -- you have to do due diligence! I'm not going to engage either if someone pickes up on one particular phrase above and calls me out on it. Life is too short.
*Ratified and signed in 1997 but in existence for years prior to that.
