I have changed my mind on Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which specifically sets out the rights of a nation to leave the EU and a limited timetable for an exit. Prior to the Lisbon Treaty there was no such right – indeed it was far worse since The European Court of Justice had established (in 1964 before we joined and therefore accepted by our foolish Government) that EU treaties were permanently binding on Member States:
“The transfer by the States from their domestic legal system to the Community legal system of the rights and obligations arising under the Treaty carries with it a permanent limitation of their sovereign rights”
Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty states that any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements by notifying the European Council and concluding an agreement with the EU for its future relationship. That agreement is to be concluded “on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament”.
Those of us who were worried that Article 50 could be a trap are reassured by clause 4 of the Article which makes clear that, apart from the process of negotiation, when the leaving State is excluded from consultations among the remaining members (otherwise of course the UK for example would be effectively negotiating on both sides of the table!) we would be involved in all other decisions until we left, defending our interests, applying any veto etc.
(IT IS MORE THAN TYPICAL OF THE EU THAT THE OTHER 27 MEMBERS HAVE ALREADY BROKEN ARTICLE 50 BY MEETING IN BRATISLAVA WITHOUT THE UK – ONLY RETROSPECTIVELY TRYING TO CALL IT AN “INFORMAL GATHERING”!)
As Peter Lilley MP, the Former Trade and Industry Secretary, has pointed out there is no reason why negotiations should be drawn out or complex. Much of what the UK would want in free trade is available to other non EU members like China, the USA etc and if any tariffs were applied to our exports then we would apply the same to the EU exports to us. Since the latter exceed our exports to them by some considerable amount this would be a massive tax on the EU – in addition to the big rise in their export prices due to the fall in the Pound over recent weeks.
Passporting rights in the EU are important for UK based banks but while 5,500 UK-registered companies rely on “passports” to do business in other European countries, more than 8,000 financial services companies based in Europe rely on the passport to do business in the City. So a war on this front would be costly to the EU27 should they be so foolish as to jeopardise the almost 80 per cent of investment banking and capital market business in the EU27 which is managed and executed in London.
And of course regulatory regimes are important to business but the EU would not want to disadvantage their business in the UK and there are 3 million EU “citizens” in the UK, sending hundreds of millions of Pounds home to other member states! So there is plenty of room for mutual recognition and open trade!
As I have made clear in another article on Freenations, the whole relationship with the EU was concluded illegally and that could be used as an argument to leave immediately, then continuing to trade on standard World Trade Organisation rules. We could also argue under the Vienna Convention that 1. there had been corruption in respect of procuring our signature to the Treaties and 2. there had been material adverse change since the Treaties were signed – for example:
1. Edward Heath who signed the Accession Treaty in 1972 admitted in a subsequent interview that he had lied about national sovereignty. He also conspired to keep the devastating report of his Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir, covered up for 30 years. His Europe Minister also lied to the House of Commons. Heath was also rewarded by a Foreign Power (with £250,000 and the German Charlemagne Prize (founded by the Nazis – see Chapter 9 of my book “And into the Fire…..” available on Amazon or by emailing Freenations £12)
2. The European Union broke the “no bail out” rule in the Treaties. The no bail-out’ clause Article 125 of the Lisbon treaty makes it illegal for one member to assume the debts of another and the founding chief economist of the European Central Bank has said “The no bail out clause is violated every day”.
3. There has been massive material change in the UK position on trade with the EU with the refusal by the EU to complete the common market in financial services in which the UK is the leader.
4. The Annual adverse qualification of EU accounts – with continuing fraudulent use of UK contributions to the budget
5. Germany did not ratify the Maastricht Treaty (see my chapter on this in the book “Treason at Maastricht)
6. The Lisbon Treaty made it possible for new treaties to be signed without ratification by national parliaments – a blatant attack on democratic sovereignty and a contradiction of the original accession treaty.
But all this would involve drawn out litigation, a rancorous atmosphere with the remaining 27, a potential trade war and a waste of valuable time, preventing a swift transition to freedom and prosperity outside the EU.
Rodney Atkinson
20th September 2016
