Visitors Now:
Total Visits:
Total Stories:
Profile image
Story Views

Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

Article 50 is irrelevant to our EU departure

Friday, October 21, 2016 15:32
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

Article 50 neither starts Britain’s withdrawal process from the EU and nor is it particularly important when it is triggered, argues George Bathurst.

In a classic example of the false narratives described by John Redwood a fortnight ago, almost every day the Telegraph reprints falsehoods, claiming that before Article 50 was created there was no legal way to leave the EU. The BBC chimes in saying, “For the UK to leave the EU it has to invoke an agreement called Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.” You’ll note, however, that our legacy media organisations don’t cite sources for their supposedly factual articles.  This is because they’ve got it exactly backwards.

Article 50 is in fact what happens after we tell the EU we are leaving.

imgres

What starts the process is Britain ‘denouncing’ the EU treaties.  Denounce is an ugly word in modern English but in this context, it simply means to proclaim, with no need to be rude about it, that you no longer agree to the terms of a treaty.  Nations are free to make such a statement at any time. Without this freedom, rulers would bind their successors and make meaningful national democracy impossible.

Britain’s right to leave the EU in this way was confirmed in 1993 when William Rees-Mogg challenged the Maastricht Treaty, claiming it was unconstitutional and made the Queen a subject of the EU.  The High Court rejected the claim but in doing so relied upon the point that the Crown was free to denounce the treaty at any time.

When a country denounces a treaty, however, it is not usually open to it to denounce it in part.  You either reject it or you don’t.  Exactly as M Junker has said, you can’t have an EU a la carte.

To extend Junker’s metaphor then, leaving the EU is like leaving a restaurant.  You inform the waiter of your intention to leave; he brings you a final bill which you pay. And that’s it.  You don’t get into esoteric arguments about having and eating cake or whether you should pay the management’s pensions.

Article 50 then neither starts the withdrawal process nor is it particularly important when it is triggered. What is important is our relationship with the EU after we have left.  Recognising this would have a transformative effect on the discussion – instead of a grumpy divorce argument, it becomes forward-looking and positive.

It would also have a beneficial effect on our own mindset. Many people in UK politics, being too young to remember anything else, have grown up with a captive’s mindset, a sort of Stockholm Syndrome, which is why they seek comfort in the entanglement of regulations like Article 50.  Exercising our unilateral rights makes it easier to think like an independent country again.

Post denouncement, we won’t need the EU’s permission to decide how the EU trades with us.  We could use this unilateral power to erect trade barriers but we could also use it to dismantle them.  We could start by declaring that not only will all EU nationals here legally be able to stay indefinitely but also their countries will pay no tariffs or face any new obstacles for selling goods and services here.  We could also declare – unilaterally – that we will assume unless otherwise informed that our reciprocal rights will be continued.

At a stroke this would resolve much of the ‘uncertainty’ Remainers are complaining about and dash their hopes of making Brexit so complicated it never happens. It preserves the status quo for trade and puts us on the moral high ground.  It effectively dares the likes of M Holland to carry out his threat to ‘punish’ us, which then becomes very unlikely.  As members of the EU our only recourse for such bullying was to seek the EU Commission’s help, which France was often much better at influencing (which is why the EU does not have a free market in services, for example).  Once Holland et al realise that we’ve woken up to the fact that we no longer need the EU’s permission to act, that we are no longer captive and can reciprocate any obstacles that they put up to trade, and that they have more to lose than us, then it all becomes much easier.

October 21, 2016

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Report abuse

Comments

Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Total 1 comment
  • DK

    The problem in claiming the moral high ground is you get to be a EU victim forever, we are the EU trash bin for all the migrants it no longer wants, it asset strips the best companies and dumps its surplus on the UK market with a £50 billion + trade deficit with Germany alone. Not negotiating, not trading, voiding the laws, giving notice to the migrants and illegals that they have to leave because they are not citizens works wonders for diplomacy with a trans European upper class who think no means yes please and more of it. :roll:

Top Stories
Recent Stories

Register

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.