The EU Council took no time at all yesterday to endorse the texts bureaucrats had prepared for the UK’s Withdrawal agreement and Future relationship Declaration.
Rubber stamping might reasonably sum it up.
But The Deal proposed by May’s EUphile bureaucrats and the EU’s own ideologists is in serious trouble in the UK Parliament and has caused resignations by ministers most concerned.
It has also begun to affect the government’s ability to pass the most important laws of all, the annual Budget. The DUP which alone enables the Conservatives to remain in power, has been withholding its support in protest at May’s dangerous and unacceptable proposal.
So what is plain sailing for the EU has been, and remains, a major source of contention in the UK.
That says a great deal. It says that this is a deal which suits the EU and its agenda, but which seriously undermines the democratic will of the UK electorate expressed in the ballot of June 2016, and again in the 2017 General Election when 82% of people voted Labour or Conservative, both standing on manifestos clearly declaring the UK’s exit from the Single Market and Customs Union.
We now have a 585 page Withdrawal Agreement which seriously jeopardises that, and the final text of the Declaration on the Future relationship.
The nonsense of that Withdrawal agreement being drafted without first defining the Future relationship categorically I discuss elsewhere. But the Declaration on the Future relationship finally agreed by the EU side yesterday is revealing.
It confirms the view taken at the above link and on the previous post on this site, titled: This is Remain, Not Leave
The 147 paragraph Declaration was beefed up in just a week from the feeble 6+ pages of bullet points which originally went with the Withdrawal Agreement.
This after thought effort to make something of the Future relationship Declaration, and the fact that the EU says that the Withdrawal Agreement is binding and the Declaration merely an expression of intent, speak volumes about the way all this has been handled.
The Withdrawal without full reference to an established and agreed statement on the new relationship is complete nonsense, and reflect the twisted interpretation of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.
This was done because to determine the new relationship first meant starting with the Leave referendum result. That places the UK outside the EU as equivalent [in EU parlance] to a “third country”. It means the terms of reference for withdrawal must start with being fully outside. How do we go from being a member to being a non member ?
That’s the logical position, and indeed the position a common sense reading places on Article 50. It’s the only practical position. But it does not suit the EU nor the Remainiac civil servants and politicians in the UK.
Therefore, they assumed the future relationship to be in line with being inside the ambit of the EU, and the Withdrawal ‘negotiated’ accordingly.
Analysis of the Withdrawal Agreement has revealed that to be so, as does analysis of the Declaration on the Future Relationship.
You only have to read the first 5 paragraphs to appreciate the EUcentric assumptions, terms of reference and the perspective at work here.
It is as if the Referendum decision to Leave the EU was simply ignored: the stupid masses don’t know what is best for them so we will have to put it right on their behalf.
The scope is not limited to a future trade agreement, but comprehensive – just like now, as members of the integration project. Para 3 states: “this declaration establishes the parameters of an ambitious, broad, deep and flexible partnership across trade and economic cooperation, law enforcement and criminal justice, foreign policy, security and defence and wider areas of cooperation”.
Paragraph 5 has: “the United Kingdom’s membership of the Union has resulted in a high level of integration between the Union’s and the United Kingdom’s economies, and an interwoven past and future of the Union’s and the United Kingdom’s people and priorities. The future relationship will inevitably need to take account of this unique context. While it cannot amount to the rights or obligations of membership, the Parties are agreed that the future relationship should be approached with high ambition with regard to its scope and depth”.
Leaks have already revealed secret negotiations to harmonise Tax as well as Defence policy and practice since the June 2016 vote – both areas not previously submitted to the EU.
Part III of the Declaration concerns Foreign policy, Security and Defence [paras 92 to 109].
Para 101 has the UK in “close cooperation in Union-led crisis management missions and operations, both civilian and military.” Para 104 has this: “research and industrial cooperation between the Parties’ entities in specific European collaborative projects to facilitate interoperability and to promote joint effectiveness of Armed Forces.”
104 goes on to spell out that all this means UK participation in the EU’s Defence Agency, the EU’s Defence Fund, and the EU’s innocuously named Defence Procurement mechanism, PESCO.
Why is an Independent United Kingdom, the 5th largest economy in the world with an unparalleled history, including the foundations of freedom in the English speaking world today, acting like a component in a continental Super Power’s imperial ambitions ?
I did not vote for this, and I don’t want it. I voted for my country’s independence from all such falsehood and posturing. And military independence is the essential underpinning and guarantee of a State’s independence.
They know this is unpopular: that is why it’s all done behind closed doors, and kept from us until it is too late. The hypocrisy of talk about democracy and law and order in this Declaration and generally demonstrates that the EU is a cynical and imperial project trading on our idealism.
Why does the guarantor of peace in Europe [as the EU claims to be] need a fully fledged military operation to be effective, especially after all these years of apparent success ?
This dominance of the EU project is everywhere in this Declaration, where “the Union” is always mentioned before the United Kingdom, and where the talk is of UK participation in EU projects, not the other way round; and where the UK is required to conform to EU requirements. Never the EU to meet UK requirements.
Para 9 on Data Protection provides just one example. The UK must be assessed by the superior EU institution, despite already being in conformity and a member. It says:
“the European Commission will start the assessments with respect to the United Kingdom as soon as possible after the United Kingdom’s withdrawal”.
Para 15 foresees the UK’s participation in the European Investment Bank.
Para 22 on Goods has “a free trade area, combining deep regulatory and customs cooperation“
Para 25 says “the United Kingdom will consider aligning with Union rules in relevant areas”.
Para 34 on Regulation of Services has ” the Parties should agree disciplines on domestic regulation” ie UK law must fall in line with the EU’s because they sure as hell don’t mean conforming to UK law …
Paragraphs 50 to 59 concern Mobility and that really does beg the question. Just what have they been doing the past two and half years regarding the basic concerns of people moving about between UK and EU countries ?
Paras 60 to 65 concern basic transport questions, and 66 to 72 concern Energy co-operation.
All these are basic questions which needed sorting before Withdrawal, not as some dim and distant possibility when so much depends on Transport and Energy in the modern economy.
If Czechoslovakia could split into two countries in just 6 months in 1992, just what has been going on in these negotiations ? Answer: dogmatic and propagandic posturing regardless of the actual economic or social consequences, because disruption will be blamed on Brexit, not on dogmatic bureaucrats where the blame actually lies.
And para 79 simply states a situation no different from the current position as members of the EU’s single market we are supposed to be leaving. Under the heading a Level Playing field, we have:
“The future relationship must ensure open and fair competition. Provisions to ensure this should cover state aid, competition, social and employment standards, environmental standards, climate change, and relevant tax matters, building on the level playing field arrangements provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement and commensurate with the overall economic relationship.”
In other words, every area of domestic life in the UK is to fall within the ambit of EU determined parameters and ideology.
And as for Mrs May’s continued assertion that we will take back control of our laws, para 83 under law enforcement and judicial co-operation has:
“The Parties agree that the scale and scope of future arrangements should achieve an appropriate balance between rights and obligations – the closer and deeper the partnership the stronger the accompanying obligations. It should reflect the commitments the United Kingdom is willing to make that respect the integrity of the Union’s legal order, such as with regard to alignment of rules and the mechanisms for disputes and enforcement including the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the interpretation of Union law.”