Unilateral withdrawal from the EU! How Else?
January 17, 2007 by Ken
Filed under Political Humbug
On his blog John Redwood wrote that the Conservatives failed yesterday in the House of Commons to get a commitment to a referendum on part of the Constitution, if they decide to smuggle some of it in by the back door. Mr Redwood says it is typical of this government’s approach. It is also typical of the Conservative approach to miss the fact that they are already smuggling parts of the constitution in through the back door.
However he correctly says “most people in the
But then in a veiled criticism of UKIP says “Some now think the only answer is to declare unilateral withdrawal from the EU” Mr Redwood argues that there are “two big problems with this approach”
“The first is there are no MPs elected to vote for this in the present Parliament, and no-one thinks there will be any elected on such a ticket for a fringe party after the next election either.”
“Secondly, we would need a series of agreements with the EU and other European countries which would need to be negotiated when changing the relationship. For example, we need agreement for landing rights at continental airports, train route agreements through the Tunnel, general trading agreements, environmental agreements over cross border pollution, agreements over the use of the
“The issue therefore is a simple one. If you like me belong to the Eurosceptic majority that wants a different relationship with the neighbours, is it best to negotiate without unilateral withdrawal, or try to negotiate after you have pulled out?
It seems obvious that you should negotiate. The best approach is for the
The first point he makes is rather like saying we do not want to breath because no party is offering us air and begs the question; if returning power to our government it is so important to Conservatives why on earth is it not their policy, the question the Conservative party needs to address is if it is not their policy as “most people in the UK strongly oppose a federal EU state” then why is it not their policy. The question we as voters need to consider is if the Conservative party will not offer sensible grown up policies on the EU then why should we bother to vote for them.
On the second point I think Mr Redwood is attempting to put the horse before the cart, first we should hold a referendum on staying in or leaving the EU. In this the Conservative party could and should lead the way in selling an alternative to EU membership for this country, then our government would negotiate the various agreements with the EU.
Mr Redwood then returns to the main theme of his post which boils down to an appeal for EUsceptics to back the Conservative parties approach to the EU.
“In the last three General Elections Eurosceptics have split their votes, giving the federalists an even bigger majority. It is ridiculous that a country which opposes the Euro, common borders, a common foreign and security policy and the constitution by big margins should be represented by a Lab Lib majority who want all these things.”
I am not persuaded by the argument that to vote for a party which stands on the platform of leaving the EU is splitting the EUsceptic vote, the Conservatives do not offer us that option, for as long as we remain a member, our own parliament in Westminster is a charade, and it really does not matter which particular British political party has to follow the socialist EU line.
What we can however glean from Mr Redwoods post is the Conservatives parliamentary party’s slow realisation that they just might need the EUsceptic vote their leader has so far distained. But I am afraid they will have to do a great deal better before they are ready to lead this country out of the EU madness which they took us into in the first place.
Technorati Tags: better-of-out, the-eu, tory-party, uk-government, ukip
But what happens if the rest of the EU’s member states refuse to negotiate with us over our withdrawal? Are we stuck unless we want to risk international censure and sanctions?
As Nigel D White, of Sheffield Uni, says:
“It is clear… that the straightforward view, that member States have the sovereign right to withdraw from organisations in any circumstance is not tenable. The very fact that the founding States have the choice to insert a withdrawal clause in the constituent treaty and choose not to is strong evidence that withdrawal is not permitted unless ‘it is established that the parties intended to admit the possibility of denunciation or withdrawal”
pp 117-118 of his book, The Law of International Relations
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=l33V-x530SEC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Isn’t this the elephant in the euroscpetics own backyard?
Of course a state can withdraw from the EU it has already been done, further a state can absolutely refuse to allow for treaty change, in the case of the EU this would have the affect of preventing any further integration. We have seen that the EU pursues a method of integration by constantly changing the treaties, which other international organisation has so many treaty changes None! So a total block on any further treaty change would soon make other states fall into line.
The Conservative party has stated quite clearly that the Lisbon Treaty is unacceptable a Conservative administration would have every right and power to repudiate Lisbon.
Also the right of withdrawal was clearly understood before we joined see http://eurealist.co.uk/pages/fco-paper-1971
Hence you do not have an argument. The only Elephant it the one in the room which is the EU itself.
I’m interested in the legalities of EU withdrawal. Academics (and they are not Monnet professors) put up a good argument for its being illegal without the consent of all the other parties involved. I want to know if this just means going eyeball to eyeball, or if there is more the EU can do to stop us if it or its member states choose to. I’d like to see the clause in the French Constitution which Wiki says
could be used if the French ever wanted to leave, but I can’t find it.
I would like the UK to leave the EU right now if it could, but I have absolutely no faith at all in the Conservative Party. It’s only eurosceptic when there is an election in the offing.
The EU is based on the treaties where the member states decide to delegate some of their powers to the EU. This does not mean the states have transferred power to the EU but have instead only delegated power, they remain always sovereign in that they always retain the final power to leave the union. The concept that a government of Britain has actually transferred power brings into question whether any government has ever had the legal authority to transfer power rather than delegate.
One of the mainstays of the British parliamentary system is that one government does not have the power to bind a successive parliament; hence the British Parliament remains sovereign and can repeal any previous laws and or agreements made by a previous administration.
The fact always denied by the unions supporters that the EU is destined to become a state or even destined to become a supra government. This according to them is nothing but Eurosceptic scaremongering! However the very suggestion that sovereignty has been transferred and the previous sovereign state no longer has the authority decide if it wishes to remain within the union, is proof positive of the EU intention to create such a position where the central EU decides if the state may or may not leave.
The EU constitution had a withdrawal clause and this has obviously been brought forward into the Lisbon Treaty but it is a trap, because for the first time the sovereign independence of the state to leave the union will be controlled by the treaties. Hence the Constitution was and the Lisbon Treaty is, actually something more than a treaty.
The previous treaty which was voted down by the French and the Dutch was said to be “a treaty to establish a constitution for Europe”. There could not be clearer statement of intention than that. And it was clear from the text that this constitution was also binding on the peoples as well as their governments.
As LA Laws says:
A treaty belongs to its parties; it has no life apart from them. It is a
premise of the ordinary conception of a treaty that its parties remain sovereign. Here I must anticipate what I will say about constitutions in order to draw a contrast. There is
a categorical difference between a treaty and a constitution. A treaty is an exercise of power by sovereign States. A constitution is itself the repository of sovereign power.
No argument with regard to the Conservative party!
This is a bit off-topic request to Eurealist. In the article <a href="http://eurealitshome.com/blog/?p=671">Jean Monnet that elusive Quote</a>, you analysed a Jean Monnet quote common in Eurosceptic circles as erroneous, a misquote from someone talking about Monnet. But you also bring up another quote:<blockquote>3 April 1952 Monnet did say
“The fusion (of economic functions) would compel nations to fuse their sovereignty into that of a single European State.</blockquote>
This quote happens to be one I have been hunting in vain. The only appearances in English are on Eurosceptic pages, without text context or more on circumstances than the date, and I could find absolutely nothing in French. I have a strong suspicion that this is another misquote, from someone paraphrasing Monnet’s 30 April 1952 speech before the US National Press Club (which you also quote). Do you have a better source for the quote?
May I suggest that you sign the Better Off Out petition if you’re so inclined?
The UK-EU relationship must be renegotiated, at a minimum.