Yorkshire multi-millionaire businessman backs UKIP

[LeMaquis]

"The European Unions Constitutional Obligation to Negotiate with a Member State wishing to withdraw voluntarily from the Union, and to negotiate Free Trade Agreements with the departing Member State"

http://www.globalbritain.org/BNN/BN61.pdf

 

Negotiations can be long drawn-out affairs and to succeed need both sides to compromise and agree. There will be a lot of them as the EU is trying to negotiate free trade agreements with most of the world's countries. The link does not necessarily mean that UK withdrawing from the EU would result in a simultaneous free trade agreement as the EU might prefer to negotiate instead with states wanting to join the EU and with larger states like China and the US as well as with developing states. We might be put to the back of the queue as punishment for leaving and have to wait decades.

[retep]

Negotiations can be long drawn-out affairs and to succeed need both sides to compromise and agree. There will be a lot of them as the EU is trying to negotiate free trade agreements with most of the world's countries. The link does not necessarily mean that UK withdrawing from the EU would result in a simultaneous free trade agreement as the EU might prefer to negotiate instead with states wanting to join the EU and with larger states like China and the US as well as with developing states. We might be put to the back of the queue as punishment for leaving and have to wait decades.

 

Or we might not,

 

Note the [Note] bit of the link.

[L00b]

"The European Unions Constitutional Obligation to Negotiate with a Member State wishing to withdraw voluntarily from the Union, and to negotiate Free Trade Agreements with the departing Member State"

http://www.globalbritain.org/BNN/BN61.pdf

I thought we'd already put that one to bed, retep? Did you think I wouldn't notice?

 

See post #99, relevant excerpts below for your convenience:

<...>

Under Articles 3, 8 and 50 of the Treaty on European Union, the EU is constitutionally obliged to negotiate “free and fair trade” with non-EU countries – which it does.

Now that, I can confirm to you right now, is complete and utter bollotox. Read the Treaty, the latest consolidated version is here.

 

Here's Article 3(4):

4. In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.

Lofty ideals indeed. Where is the "constitutional obligation" to "negotiate “free and fair trade” with non-EU countries"?

 

Here's Article 8:

1. The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation.

 

2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the Union may conclude specific agreements with the countries concerned. These agreements may contain reciprocal rights and obligations as well as the possibility of undertaking activities jointly. Their implementation shall be the subject of periodic consultation.

Where is the "constitutional obligation" to "negotiate “free and fair trade” with non-EU countries"?

 

Have a look at Article 50, governing exit from the EU. It's bigger than 8 (though not much more)...but here's a preview anyway: there's nothing about any "constitutional obligation" to "negotiate “free and fair trade” with non-EU countries" either.

That's the actual Treaty I'm quoting. 100% bias free. Not pseudo-interpretation by a think-tank with vested interests.

 

...Oh yeah, I forgot: you don't actually believe the factual EU legislation, if it is at odds with your opinion!

[LeMaquis]

Or we might not,

 

Note the [Note] bit of the link.

 

Why would be put to the front of the queue if we wanted to leave the EU? The EU could make it quite clear that if we wanted to leave we'd have to wait decades for a free trade agreement until after other ones had been signed with the USA, India, Brazil, China, et al. In the meantime tariffs would be enforced. They could make us suffer.

 

I find it strange that an organisation you hate so much is one you also feel would go out of its way to be nice to us if we left it against its wishes. That looks a lot like your usual right-wing fantasy world.

[tzijlstra]

There isn't a lot of point in trying to predict how the EU might or might not react. There is no precedent as no-one has left the EU before.

 

Something that hasn't come up yet (surprisingly in my opinion) is the initiative the government has shown today to limit benefits for EU immigrants. I am through and through pro-EU and I don't know all the ins and outs of the proposals yet, but from what I have heard so far I am firmly on the side of the UK on this one.

[dosxuk]

I find it strange that an organisation you hate so much is one you also feel would go out of its way to be nice to us if we left it against its wishes.

 

It's the underlying argument for leaving the EU.

 

All of the other positive arguments fall apart if we lose the ability to trade on the current terms and demand levels with the rest of the EU, and with no added restrictions for workers / travellers / companies working in both the EU and UK.

 

The problem is that when you start to analyse their other bonuses (like no "open border" immigration), they don't stand up to having free / fair trade and making the UK a sensible business base (companies need access to a wide pool of talent).

 

The anti-EU groups want everyone to believe that leaving is all carrot, no stick, when in fact the opposite is quite true. At the moment, we're a big fish in a little pond, if we leave the EU, we'll become a tiny fish in a massive ocean.

[retep]

I thought we'd already put that one to bed, retep? Did you think I wouldn't notice?

 

See post #99, relevant excerpts below for your convenience:

That's the actual Treaty I'm quoting. 100% bias free. Not pseudo-interpretation by a think-tank with vested interests.

 

...Oh yeah, I forgot: you don't actually believe the factual EU legislation, if it is at odds with your opinion!

 

perhaps your lack of understanding,

 

"4. In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter."

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-1-common-provisions/4-article-3.html

[L00b]

Something that hasn't come up yet (surprisingly in my opinion) is the initiative the government has shown today to limit benefits for EU immigrants.

It might not have come up bright, loud and clear in mass media until today, and will be perceived by many as knee-jerk political opportunism biased by UKIP's rising popularity, but believe you me - Cameron and Merkel have agreed that particular policy shift a long time back, on the quiet. Both herself and Hollande in France face the exact same wave of anti-EU sentiment and rising xenophobia as Cameron does, all 3 have long known they'd eventually have to deliver on that front, and Merkel has been supportive of Cameron's renegotiation approach from the get-go because it is in Germany's best interest, as the backbone of the € club and the most solvent economy on the Continent, to repatriate more power from Brussels as well.

 

I thought Barroso looked pitiful on the news tonight. Mark my words, just like a new "Brussels-lite" deal has been hashed by Cameron and Merkel in the background and on the quiet, he must already know what's on the cards. Wishful thinking maybe, I'll just be content to sit back and let events unfold for now

 

perhaps your lack of understanding,

 

"4. In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter."

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-1-common-provisions/4-article-3.html

I had a feeling you were going to reply just like that.

 

retep, these are not "constitutional obligations". They are political statements of intent. Not binding rules and regulations. And certainly not constitutional (there is no EU Constitution ).

 

Else,

 

how exactly is the EU contributing to the "sustainable development of the Earth" (LOL at that one ) and to the "solidarity and mutual respect among peoples"?

 

how do you explain the continuing application of tariffs to Norwegian and Swiss exports to the EU (just as well as those of other EEA countries which have all long enjoyed "free" trade agreements with the EU (as you call them )?

 

<for example, as that's not exhaustive by a long shot>

[retep]

Why would be put to the front of the queue if we wanted to leave the EU? The EU could make it quite clear that if we wanted to leave we'd have to wait decades for a free trade agreement until after other ones had been signed with the USA, India, Brazil, China, et al. In the meantime tariffs would be enforced. They could make us suffer.

 

I find it strange that an organisation you hate so much is one you also feel would go out of its way to be nice to us if we left it against its wishes. That looks a lot like your usual right-wing fantasy world.

 

I find it strange that you seem to know what the EU would do before you know the result, funny old world the lefty's live in init.

 

---------- Post added 27-11-2013 at 22:26 ----------

 

It might not have come up bright, loud and clear in mass media until today, and will be perceived by many as knee-jerk political opportunism biased by UKIP's rising popularity, but believe you me - Cameron and Merkel have agreed that particular policy shift a long time back, on the quiet. Both herself and Hollande in France face the exact same wave of anti-EU sentiment and rising xenophobia as Cameron does, all 3 have long known they'd eventually have to deliver on that front, and Merkel has been supportive of Cameron's renegotiation approach from the get-go because it is in Germany's best interest, as the backbone of the € club and the most solvent economy on the Continent, to repatriate more power from Brussels as well.

 

I thought Barroso looked pitiful on the news tonight. Mark my words, just like a new "Brussels-lite" deal has been hashed by Cameron and Merkel in the background and on the quiet, he must already know what's on the cards. Wishful thinking maybe, I'll just be content to sit back and let events unfold for now

 

I had a feeling you were going to reply just like that.

 

retep, these are not "constitutional obligations". They are political statements of intent. Not binding rules and regulations. And certainly not constitutional (there is no EU Constitution ).

 

Else,

 

how exactly is the EU contributing to the "sustainable development of the Earth" (LOL at that one ) and to the "solidarity and mutual respect among peoples"?

 

how do you explain the continuing application of tariffs to Norwegian and Swiss exports to the EU (just as well as those of other EEA countries which have all long enjoyed "free" trade agreements with the EU (as you call them )?

 

<for example, as that's not exhaustive by a long shot>

 

Treaty of Lisbon will do, unless of course you deem it to be useless, in which case why would we be signed up to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe

[Doom]

There isn't a lot of point in trying to predict how the EU might or might not react. There is no precedent as no-one has left the EU before.

 

I think there's an awful lot of guesswork regarding what will happen if we pull out, but generally it's just that....guesswork.

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see the whole thing fold like a pack of cards if we do pull out. At this moment in time many of the economies are in a very poor state of health, with the Germans holding the whole thing together.

 

As one of the other major economies and a net contributor into the EU, our pulling out might be the straw that broke the camels back.

 

I'm all for trading agreements with the EU, but I'm against a United States of Europe that some politicians seem to be wanting to impose on us by stealth without any vote taking place.

 

We should be responsible for our own borders and our own political and legal decisions, the rest of Europe should be nothing more than a friend who we do business with on equal terms.

 

Regards

 

Doom