I have enough experience to know that a certain section of the population throw their toys out of the pram over everything.

Keep calm and get on with your life man. Half the problem will be people casting doubt on Britain's future with no actual reason to do so. The dip in the markets is caused by stupid panicking and before you know it some of you Remainers will have talked us into a depression.
Grow some balls for god's sake.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (09 Jul 2016 8.22pm)

Some bloke who has lost his contact lens?

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Or indeed certain sections. Left and right. People underplay the comedy value of cpfc for how 'lefty' it is and HOL in the opposite direction. As soon as people understand that, they might have a claim to being worldly and rounded and not just endlessly drinking in their own mantra.

Edited by blackpalacefan (09 Jul 2016 10.38pm)

[Link]

VOTING OUT - Brexit will allow Britain to embrace the Commonwealth and be GREAT again

Anyone who has had any dealings with the study of Law knows that it is always important to attempt to read the ‘intent’ of the writers of legislation, not just the letter of the law itself. However, the more Law that has been passed, and the more complex the issues that law addresses, then the more difficult that has become. Not only that, our political system seems to have become less able to draft legislation clearly and with the correct view of the unintended consequences it might have.

Part of this difficulty comes with the contortions the state must now go through to make sure it’s legislation runs in line with Supranational law – because domestic law can be struck down if it conflicts with treaty obligations – see the famous Factortame cases. It’s all very dry, but is instructive in the way that EU legislation butts up against the need for countries to protect their own interests.

So it’s clear that legislation can be complex, have unintentional consequences. But that complexity can be used for another purpose – it can appear to be political signal in one direction while having ultimately a very different purpose.

I believe that Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, the establishment of a formal process to leave the EU, is one of these occasions. Here it is in full:

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.

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.

Now to the untrained eye that looks fairly straightforward. And so it should, it was designed to be so by some of the finest minds the commission has on offer. But looking into the mechanism itself, there is a deadly trap laid. And it’s in Section 3:

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.

It’s the guillotine. The two year period. Two years is a very short amount of time to totally rework a country’s foreign affairs, trade treaties and repatriate huge sections of Law. (And if you’re in the Euro, rebuild your own currency!) When you consider (for example) the Doha round of the WTO started in 2001 and there is no end in sight, or that TTIP has been more than a two year process alone, then it can be seen that building trade treaties opens up huge numbers of complex and difficult subjects. But more than that, it opens up an opportunity to inbuild advantages. And that’s what really slows the process down, as one country sees the deal as advantageous to a rival and tries to even the balance in their own favour, often for domestic political consumption. Look also, at how controversial TTIP has become, with Unions now putting leaflets through the doors of some London Boroughs urging people to protest against it.

Then the final nail is that to extend this period, there has to be unanimous agreement. If the two years pass without it, that’s it, the country is outside the EU. So it would be seen as a very large barrel to hold the leaving country over. There’s no chance of realistically negotiating totally fresh trade deals with the EU in 2 years, and government which tried to do this would find themselves at the whim of every EU state as the end point drew near, the fear that one state (which didn’t do too much trade directly with the leaver), might use the guillotine as a political lever to extract a desired goal.

So Article 50 is not really a process designed to facilitate the exit of a nation state from the EU – it is an attempt to build a process that is so risky, politically and economically, that no country would dare invoke it.

In the terms of article 50 itself there is no apparent ability to be able to rescind the article 50 request to leave. There is the ability to request an extension to the period, but not withdraw from the process. At the end of the two years, the applicant is removed – the only route back to the EU from that point at which article 50 is invoked is via an article 49 application. In other words, if you apply to leave, but fail to agree terms, you are still out in 2 years, and the route back will be on new terms, not the ones currently enjoyed. So no opt outs from now compulsory areas such as Justice and Home Affairs or the Eurozone, or Ever Closer Union.

So it’s quite clear that Article 50 is not designed to facilitate leaving, but to create a set of handcuffs. And it’s why I believe, as do many others, that to beat this deliberate attempt to keep member nations from leaving the EU, we need that ‘soft landing’ route of EEA/EFTA to remove the uncertainty. These off the shelf agreements would not require negotiation – we would simply have to swallow them whole – but at a stroke we would regain a great deal of self governance, and we would join a growing group of economies in EFTA that would suddenly have real weight in the wider world.

The EU have sensed the mood of the British, and will try to discredit this exit route. Already our PM has talked this down and fellow Conservatives in the LeaveEU and Vote Leave campaigns have followed his lead. There has been a concerted effort over the last week to spread false information regarding EEA/EFTA. This comes as no surprise to any of us who have been involved in the behind the scenes campaign for some years. We know that this route is clearly the best option, and that the establishment’s best chance of winning the referendum is to set the fight up as a false choice between the WTO option (where we rely on the the WTO trade rules alone with no distinct treaty with the EU/Single Market) and full EU membership.

This is, and will always be a false choice. We should not allow the Remain side to push us into that corner – and for our part, those who have read and agree with the conclusions of Dr Richard North’s FLEXCIT plan will continue to fight to prevent the EFTA/EEA option being ignored.

However, there is one more fly in the ointment. The Fundamental Law document, presumed to be the stalking horse for the next treaty sets out a route to a two tier EU, along with the 5 Presidents Report. Norway’s political establishment has long wanted to join the EU. This would almost certainly collapse EFTA, and render the EEA agreement obsolete. However, the other EFTA members are not keen, and nor are the Norwegian people who have consistently polled in favour of remaining outside the EU.

But timing is on our side here – our referendum will come before the next treaty is ready. It is the negotiating process for this treaty that Cameron is trying to sell to us as Britain ‘negotiating a better deal’. It’s no such thing, in practice it’s the process of negotiating the details on the next treaty for ‘Associate Membership’. This is why the question of a second referendum has emerged, to ratify the new treaty. IF we can secure a vote to leave, the Norwegian establishment might think twice about trying to accept Associate Membership, as their position outside the EU would be strengthened. Any situation where Norway, Iceland and Switzerland failed to accept associate status would surely dent the plans for removing the EEA agreement as a route to access the single market. Replacing the EEA could then be negotiated with the enlarged EFTA, on much better terms.

So it is important that we really extol the positive virtues of not only leaving the EU, but of the potential in the EFTA. We must court our Norwegian colleagues, not denigrate their current position. It is not some poor second choice, forced on us through necessity (the EEA agreement is the imperfect part of the solution, but that is the forced necessity of phased withdrawal while retaining Single Market Access). EFTA however, could be the starting point of a true Free Trade Europe – a Europe of Intergovernmental Co-operation and Trade rather than Supranational control. Enlarging EFTA with our membership makes it an area with the 4th largest GDP, behind the USA, EU & China only. That is a factor which could be used to drive towards a truly ‘Free Trade’, intergovernmental Europe of trading Nations and away from our current supranational folly.

That is surely something that should be universally desirable to all clear thinking Europeans?

Edited by DivingIsNotGood (09 Jul 2016 11.55pm)

VOTING OUT - Brexit will allow Britain to embrace the Commonwealth and be GREAT again

He can't his speak and spell is broken

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"