GP-RN: EU Referendum: campaign watershed

.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins – Greg_L-W.

Guest Post – Dr. Richard A.E. North
EU Referendum:
campaign watershed

Hi,

EU Referendum: campaign watershed

Friday 24 July 2015  

 

As time progresses, it becomes more and more clear how the bulk of the media commentariat misread the Greek crisis.

We can see this from the delicious way German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble puts down Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, who then goes on to admit that there was never any prospect of Greece leaving the eurozone. Needless to say, there are still those caught up in the theatre and others who miss the point, not understanding that Greece was the classic beneficial crisis.

But there are others. There is, for instance, Anatole Kaletsky who has popped up from obscurity to say that the Greek deal is not that bad after all. One might suggest that one factor that makes it not so bad is that, in addition to the bailout, the EU is giving Greece straight grants of €35 billion – a fact scarcely if at all mentioned by the commentariat.

As was always going to be the case, though, the Greek situation is contained, the country having served its purpose in bringing all the other states into line, ready for the next round of treaty-making.

If anyone has a problem, therefore, it is our “no” campaign – given that the analysis in my previous post is anywhere near correct. That tells us that, at some time during campaign, there will be an announcement that the EU intends to seek a new treaty, following which there will be treaty convention.

The logical timing for this announcement – or declaration – is the autumn of 2017, putting it just ahead of the referendum. And at the point, Mr Cameron will have the task of explaining how he intends to handle this development, the outcome of which may be that the UK is offered “associate member” status.

In one possible scenario, the Prime Minister may pretend that the development is of his own making – that he has prevailed upon the “colleagues” to include associate member status in their treaty deliberations, giving the UK the opportunity to redefine its relationship with the EU and thus fulfilling his promise to the nation.

Doubtless, the idea of this new status will be heavily spun, although there will be few details. The Bertelsmann Fundamental Law itself does not go in to detail, allowing that “each associate state would negotiate its own arrangement with the core states”.

That would permit Mr Cameron to present a “yes” vote in the coming referendum as a mandate for him to negotiate the details and bring back the optimum arrangement for the UK. And, in such a scenario, the new treaty goes through the convention process and then the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC), coming out the other end for ratification in 2021 or 2022.

That process will trigger the “treaty lock” referendum, which will allow Mr Cameron to ask approval of a treaty which will open the way to the UK applying for associate status, with a “no” vote cast as the first step towards leaving the EU.

Effectively, in what could now be a two-referendum contest, the first referendum is converted from a straight “yes-no” on whether we leave the EU, to request for a mandate for change. The second then becomes a request to approve the change, with a “sudden death” option of leaving the EU if it is rejected.

This, of course, is speculation, but not wholly so. As I remarked yesterday, there is too much activity for the discussion on a new treaty to be random “noise”. The only uncertainty in my mind is the timing, and that is hardly speculative, having been set out in the Five Presidents’ report.

The idea of Kerneuropa (core Europe) is now so firmly embedded in the process, with the concomitant associate membership, that the only real question can be how Mr Cameron will handle the news when it becomes official. On the other side, of course, is the question of how the putative “no” campaign will deal with the associate membership scenario.

If, as we see from the Bertelsmann Fundamental Law, associate membership is also to be offered to the EFTA States, with a possible ending of the EEA agreement, then the “no” campaign is left without two of its planks – the “Norway” and “Swiss” options. At the same time, it will be having to confront what is superficially a very attractive alternative.

A danger, in my view, is that we decide to do nothing until a new treaty process is announced, and associate membership is formally on the agenda. That might leave us with only a very short time to counter an entirely new scenario, having been robbed of some of our major campaigning tools.

My first thinking on this is that we should pre-empt the possibility of Mr Cameron reshaping the campaign, by attacking the concept of associate membership and by offering a better alternative.

Historically, I recall that earlier British governments rejected the possibility of associate membership instead of full membership of the EEC. It would be interesting and potentially useful to know the grounds on which the idea was rejected, and whether those arguments could be used today.

As to better alternatives, I am minded to go for a “partnership of equals” scenario, similar to that which was originally offered by Delors when the EEA was first mooted. We need to push for a genuine, Europe-wide single market rather than the Brussels-centric model of a Europe of concentric circles.

Certainly, if the idea of associate membership is introduced and dominates the debate, many of the arguments currently deployed by “no” campaigners may be rendered obsolete. By way of an insurance policy, there is every reason to be focused on what is needed to defeat what looks to be a very real possibility.

There is another advantage in going early, anticipating an official announcement with a high profile campaign against associate membership. It prevents Mr Cameron pretending it was his idea, or something he had negotiated. A UK prime minister responding to an EU initiative has an altogether different feel, and the threat is somewhat defused.

On the other hand, there will always be those who hold different views and who will make a virtue out of ignoring analyses from outside the bubble. Others, especially those in the “yes” camp, simply don’t have the first idea of what is going on.

For the eurosceptic “community”, though, the ultimate question becomes – as always – one of whether they want to win this referendum or whether players are more interested in debating a limited number of propositions while remaining firmly within their comfort zones.

Bizarrely, we see from Hansard in 1968 debates that would not look out of place if they were held today on virtually identical terms, so little have the basic arguments changed. We can do them all over again, spreading tedium throughout the land, or we can win the referendum. But it is unlikely that we can do both.

To view the original article CLICK HERE

.

Regards,

Greg_L-W. .

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337 – number witheld calls are blocked & calls are recorded.

of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE

Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS, >SEARCH< & >Side Bars< & The Top Bar >PAGES< Also:

Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com

UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE General ‘Stuff’ archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com

General ‘Stuff’ ongoing: http://gl-w.com

Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: Greg_LW

.

 Please Be Sure To .. Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide of OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN & To Leave-The-EU  

 

GP-RN: EU Referendum: a treaty hiding in plain sight

.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins – Greg_L-W.

Guest Post – Dr. Richard North
EU Referendum:
a treaty hiding in plain sight

Hi,

EU Referendum: a treaty hiding in plain sight

Richard North, 23/07/2015  
 

Although the Hollande and Schäuble calls for a new treaty that we reported on Monday got only scant coverage in the legacy media, the signs are that the EU is driving inexorably towards a “core Europe”.

The last time we saw anything serious on a “multi-speed Europe” from Hollande was in 2012, when there were strong expectations of developments in the aftermath of the 2014 European elections. But now, after the plans were put temporarily on hold by Chancellor Merkel, there are unmistakable indications that plans are firmly back on the agenda.

Not least, we saw on 2 June in Die Zeit a report of a “secret Franco-German plan” for closer integration of the eurozone, with Angela Merkel said to be in favour of it. The plan is authored jointly by Merkel and Hollande and will be “obligatory” for eurozone members, while those outside the zone will have loosened ties (the so-called associate membership). 

We were also told that the details are based on the Schäuble/Lamers plan of 1994, and studies are under way to determine if the approach is legally possible. That this was a “scoop” was confirmed by the Italian political magazine Formiche, which noted that Kerneuropa (core Europe) could be just what Chancellor Merkel needs to keep her word on Germany being willing to lead Europe.

Such developments, though, always leave traces. Once an idea is abroad, the fingerprints are there to see if you know where to look, as in Euractiv a week ago, which had Jan Techau, director of Carnegie Europe, pick up on the consequences of a core group.

The Italian Repubblica has also picked up the vibes, and Berliner Zeitung has political scientist Herfried Münkler affirming that a core Europe is needed. Even the Guardian recently had Enrico Letta, former Italian prime minister, telling us that the UK must move into the slow lane as part of a “two-speed Europe”. And that was on 15 May, only days after the general election.

The US Council on Foreign Relations is now talking of the “Merkel method”, while Frankfurter Allgemeine is lauding Schäuble as hero of the hour (alternating as the hate figure), acknowledging that there is a plan behind the recent treatment of Greece.

Süddeutsche Zeitung tells us that Vice-Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel is “pleased that President Hollande also supports the call for a deepening of the Union”. Gabriel, we learn, actually presented the plan in June to French Minister for Economic Affairs Emmanuel Macron, linking in with the Five Presidents’ report.

In parallel, SPD deputy party leader Axel Schäfer has announced a “Franco-German parliamentary initiative” to drive the proposals “from the bottom up”. Europe and the eurozone are “not just a matter for governments, but also of parliaments”, he says. A working group is ready to start work at the beginning of September.

Also buying the line is Tageblatt which contrasts the “concrete” Merkel with the “man of great principle” Jacques Delors, and Die Welt notes that “Paris and Berlin have a common work basis to lead Europe out of the Euro-agony”, thus adding more weight to the evidence that something is afoot.

Putting all this together, these are not so much fingerprints as size-12 boot prints, with mud all over the living room carpet. Speculation is fast turning into certainty that there will be a new treaty, and the implications for the EU referendum are profound.

Whatever else, the announcement of a treaty convention, probably to start in the spring of 2018, destroys any chance that Mr Cameron might nurture of getting “reform”. The “colleagues” are looking to a massive leap in integration, and they will not be in the market for ideas from the UK.

The prospect of associate membership, therefore, begins to be the only item on the agenda. When this breaks cover, it will transform the referendum campaign. For the moment, though, the UK media remains oblivious to the implications, even though the continental press is all over the idea of a two-speed Europe.

One wonders which newspaper, and which star source, will be the first to “discover” it, and how long it will take – and how much time will be wasted before there is a more general realisation that EU politics are poised for irrevocable change.

When our media do wake up, doubtless they will get it wrong – as they so often do – although eventually, the truth must percolate the brains even of British journalists. In the meantime, though, the “derivative blogs” have it. 

But, since nothing exists until the legacy media “discover” it, we may have to wait a while to be told what we already know – that treaty change is hiding in plain sight and the game is changing under our very noses.

To view the original article CLICK HERE

.

Regards,

Greg_L-W. .

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337 – number witheld calls are blocked & calls are recorded.

of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE

Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS, >SEARCH< & >Side Bars< & The Top Bar >PAGES< Also:

Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com

UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE General ‘Stuff’ archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com

General ‘Stuff’ ongoing: http://gl-w.com

Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: Greg_LW

.

 Please Be Sure To .. Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide of OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN & To Leave-The-EU  

 

The EU Waugh Zone & Cameron’s Acceptance of Bouncing Cheques

The EU Waugh Zone & Cameron’s Acceptance of Bouncing Cheques
.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins – Greg_L-W.

Hi,

here is an interesting reflection on what is clearly David Cameron’s failure to achieve any plausible or meaningful treaty changes on which to found his referendum, leaving him with his only hope, despite exploiting and abusing HMtQ to prop up his failing stance, he must now add Fudge to the efforts to swing the vote his way to the dishonest use of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt).
.

Friday June 26, 2015…

THE LONG AND WINDING ROAD

“It’s been a long night,” David Cameron said as the fraught EU summit dinner broke up just before 3am our time. But unlike other previous long nights (I remember when he emerged bleary eyed from his ‘veto moment’ in 2011), the PM was a mere palette cleanser amid the multi-course row over the Med migrant crisis.

So Cameron’s long-awaited EU renegotiation statement started not with a bang but with a breather. When Donald Tusk turned to him to say a few words, one Brussels source said it was seen by other EU leaders as a ‘commercial break’ from the fractious row over migrant burden-sharing. After the asparagus, sea bream and strawberries, the PM made a ‘relatively brief’ intervention that gave some relief to colleagues exhausted by the exchanges. Cameron was greeted with silence, both during and after his short speech.

At one point Italian PM Matteo Renzi yelled at Eastern European leaders refusing to take some of his migrants: “If you don’t agree with 40k, don’t deserve to be called Europe”. He later added: “If you want a voluntary agreement, you can cancel the whole thing, we’ll do it by ourselves.” One problem for Cameron is that the UK’s opt-out on the migrant deal doesn’t exactly endear him to a potential ally like Renzi on his renegotiation.

And the wounds over the EU’s refusal to accept compulsory quotas are also a blow to Jean-Claude Juncker. After the plates were cleared, the PM said he was ‘delighted’ he’d started the process of his renegotiation, but Brits will worry that Juncker, not our best friend at the best of times, lacks the authority to sort a good deal on anything.

The news from the summit that will irritate Eurosceptics most, of course, is No.10’s admission that there won’t be any Treaty change before the EU referendum. FCO sources have for some time warned that the most practical solution is to secure ‘binding’ protocols that will amend the Lisbon treaty at a later date.

Nigel Farage and Hilary Benn today both used a line that Dan Hannan deployed weeks ago: that Cameron’s promised renegotiation will now amount to ‘post-dated cheques’ that could bounce. No10 insists that it can still get ‘legally binding and irreversible’ protocols. But the Guardian has perhaps the most worrying line for backbench Tories: senior UK officials say that some member states have said they cannot be expected to amend the Lisbon treaty on behalf of the UK, only to see it vote to leave the EU.

Meanwhile, on the EU referendum front, it seems Farage didn’t take kindly to Her Majesty’s intervention on Wednesday. The UKIP leader says the Queen was ‘badly advised’ to warn against division in Europe. And new Defence Select chairman Julian Lewis has told The House magazine that further EU integration could even lead to war. No, really.

To view the original of this article CLICK HERE

It is unusual to see Nigel Farage making a moderated comment when a foolish outburst was such a potential, one can only assume his most recent series of crass of the cuff comments and brash out bursts, displaying not only a total lack of leadership skills but also that he is clearly losing control of his own feifdom and his dictatorial control of his Ukip cult as his party slides back to around 7% in the polls after a catastrophicly mismanaged election where although he garnered almost 4M votes by pandering to the known underbelly of racists voters he failed to make electoral gains – in fact losing one of his two MPs and clearly losing the support of his sole remaining MP and several of his MEPs.

Indubitably he was right to comment that Her Majesty was ill advised to speak of fractures in Europe when firstly she meant the EU and secondly it is not her role to openly take up a political position. That The Queen spoke privately and her confidence was betrayed regarding the Scottish Region’s referendum is one thing, however to openly seek to influence a democratic vote amongst her subjects was doubly ill advised, both in the fact that she is a Constitutional Monarch with no righty or authority to make political interventions but also that she did so where there was no right of reply at a State Banquet in a foreign and very alien location.

Regards,

Greg_L-W. .

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337 – number witheld calls are blocked & calls are recorded.

of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE

Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS, >SEARCH< & >Side Bars< & The Top Bar >PAGES< Also:

Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com

UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE General ‘Stuff’ archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com

General ‘Stuff’ ongoing: http://gl-w.com

Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: Greg_LW

.

 Please Be Sure To .. Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide of OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN & To Leave-The-EU  

 

GP>PG: A Tory View on Just Saying OUT

.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins – Greg_L-W.

GUEST POST by Paul Goodman:
A Tory View on Just Saying OUT

Hi,

Just say Out

 Last updated: June 22, 2015 at 10:15 am

The argument has a spurious appeal.  First, make a series of demands of other European countries and the EU institutions that would, in effect, take Britain out of the Union and return us to a Common Market.  Second, put pressure on David Cameron into making these demands his Government’s.  Third, wait for him to fail (which he would do, unless there is a major treaty revision in which those institutions and all those countries have a stake).  Fourth, turn to the British people and say: “You see – we told you that the EU is incapable of reform: the only way left is Out”.  Finally, win the referendum and then leave the Union.

On paper, this sequence reads well for those deeply dissatisfied with Britain’s EU membership. In practice, it is deeply problematic, for three main reasons.

First, that major treaty revision is very unlikely to happen before 2017, if at all.  The major European players – Germany, France, the Commission, the Parliament – think that to reconsider the treaty would be to open a Pandora’s Box (in which belief they are almost certainly correct).  The masters of the EU project will not willingly open up a pan-European negotiation that could result in its formal division into Eurozone and non-Eurozone blocks – the first united by full economic and political union; the second a looser arrangement with trade at its heart; both maintaining full access to the Single Market, but with the second block no longer bound by Single Market Rules.  Admittedly, one should never say never, a truth of which the Greek drama is a reminder.  But the odds against such a happy outcome are very long.

Second, there is no mandate for such a fundamental renegotiation in the manifesto on which David Cameron has just won a majority.  It unambiguously commits Britain to the single market – and the single market means single rules with a single EU-wide court to rule on them.  The Prime Minister wants no British participation in Eurozone bail-outs, lower EU spending, protection for the City of London and curbs on EU-wide benefit entitlement.  Certainly, he should put a bit of flesh on these negotiating bones before he flies off to the European Council meeting this week.  But this is a programme of cautious reform, not of fundamental change.

Finally, the inevitable consequence of such a plan is to muddle and delay the campaign for Out.  It would be unfair to suggest that all those demanding fundamental renegotiation are Out supporters: some of them believe that a fundamental renegotiation is practicable, hope and believe that the Prime Minister can achieve it, and would vote In were it won.  However, that is not the only view among those pressing for it publicly, or even the majority one.  Some Conservative MPs among this group are in a particular bind.  On the one hand, they believe that any deal which Cameron can cut will be inadequate. On the other, they scarcely like to say so.  The logic of their position leads to Out.  But they continue to press for the fundamental renegotiation for which there is no manifesto basis and which they believe the Prime Minister won’t deliver.  For them, Out is a love that dare not speak its name.

The weakness of this position is visible in the opening shot of the Daily Telegraph‘s Europe series today.  The case it puts is right: the EU is deeply flawed.  The writers are magisterial: Luke Johnson, Mark Littlewood, John Mills, Matt Ridley and others.  The effect of the series will surely be beneficial, since its readers will learn more about why the Union isn’t working.  But the logic on which it is founded – with its focus on a big renegotiation – has a flaw at at its heart.  For example, Cameron is not going to press for a single-state national veto for Britain without a major treaty revision – one of the ten demands that the authors set out.  Nor would he achieve it if he did.

And while the energy of those who believe in Out is dissipated on renegotiation, that of those who support In is fixed on their goal.  The old saw has it that a lie gets halfway round the world while truth has still to get its boots on.  At this rate, the Prime Minister will return from his negotiation with the In case thoroughly made – backed by the authority of government, no real purdah and money from the EU institutions – and the No campaign yet to make its case.

It could all be different.  The squabbling medley of Out campaigners could come together under the leadership of a single vehicle, which can only be the all-Party campaign now kicking off in Parliament.  They could drop pressing for a renegotiation in which they don’t really believe, and start setting out the benefits of leaving the EU (in which they do): fewer politicians, better immigration control, more money for public services and tax cuts, a stronger economy, global engagement.

If this case is communicated effectively, Britain may vote Out.  However hard a fundamental renegotiation is pressed, it won’t happen (at least, without a Europe-wide convulsion first).  So doesn’t it make sense for Eurosceptics to drop the latter and push the former?  Oh and by the way, not demanding of Cameron a programme that he won’t concede would be a little bit helpful to the Conservative Party, too.

.

Regards,

Greg_L-W. .

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337 – number witheld calls are blocked & calls are recorded.

of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE

Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS, >SEARCH< & >Side Bars< & The Top Bar >PAGES< Also:

Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com

UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE General ‘Stuff’ archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com

General ‘Stuff’ ongoing: http://gl-w.com

Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: Greg_LW

.

 Please Be Sure To .. Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide of OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN & To Leave-The-EU