Sunday, 7 August 2016

Booker & North should start living in the real world of EU politics

Brexit: Juncker breaches own treaty

This is the head line from the latest Booker North offering in the Sunday Telegraph. They are unbeievably naive. Juncker and the Eurocrats don't give a fig about rules or laws that are in their way. Laws are for little people not big Eurocrats. If current laws are getting in our way we ignore them and are assured the European Court of Justice will support this action as necessary to ensure the survival of the Union.

That is why we have to repeal the 72/73 ECA asap and make our UK supreme court the final arbriter of the interpretation of our laws.

Staying in the so called Single Market, which is not a market but a set of regulations interpreted by the ECJ for the benefit of the Franco Prussians, is a gigantic red herring. Its benefits to us are far outewighed by the costs to us of EU membership.

The sooner we are out the better. Keep it simple stupid ie Booker & North.

Dan Hanaan seems to take a similar view,

All we have to do to regain total sovereignty is repeal Sections 2 and 3 of the 1972 European Communities Act

We know what people voted against,’ say half-clever ­pundits, ‘but it’s far from clear what they voted for.’ Actually, it’s very clear: the ­British voted to leave the EU and take back control of their own laws. They didn’t ­dictate precisely what kind of deal we should have with our neighbours after leaving: that is for ministers to negotiate. But when Leave campaigners invited people to ‘take back ­control’, voters understood what that meant: legal supremacy should return from Brussels to Westminster.
Remainers spent the campaign trying to suggest that the EU was just one among several international associations in which Britain participated. It was, they wanted us to believe, a club, like Nato or the G20, in which we agreed to abide by common rules in order to secure common objectives. 
People could see that the EU differed from every other international body in that it presumed to legislate for its member states. Membership of Nato or the G20 may mean ceding power in ­certain areas; but it emphatically doesn’t mean ceding sovereignty — that is, the ultimate right to determine laws


Richard said...

Just a very simple question, which needs an honest, practical answer (not wishful thinking). Assuming we repeal the ECA and thereby abrogate the EU treaties, what happens the next day? Imagine taking a truck to Dover and thence to Calais, what happens then?

Eric Edmond said...

No probs. You drive the lorry on the ferry at Dover and off at Calais. Simples! Its been done like since ro-ro ferries were invented and some of these lorries go on into the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent.

UK trade with Europe has gone on for thousands of years. Skarra Brae in Orkney shows evidence of BC UK Baltic trade. Misguided governments occasionally try to stop it but none have succeeded because people want the benefits it brings. Trade does not depend on trade deals but on willing buyers and sellers and economic forces foumded in peoples needs.

The EU is a Gordonian knot that needs bold action to cut us out of it. Trying to untangle it is a hopeless cause for us that the EU will win hands down. Get real Mr North.

Richard said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Richard said...

I thought that might be the case ... that you would confirm that you live in a fantasy world. This is a world where, apparently, customs rules don't exist or are not enforced, and you can export goods from a third country (the UK which has just walked away from the treaties) to the EU without controls or restraints.

If you seriously believe that, then there is no possibility of dialogue. You have detached yourself from the real world and have decided to live in a parallel universe. How remarkable it is that you should then tell me to "get real", and without even doing me the courtesy of using my correct title.

Edward Spalton said...


When I go the the pharmacy for a repeat prescription, the pills may come from manufacturers in many and various countries - quite possibly a different country each time I go. Yet I have a reasonable expectation that they are all made to the same quality and safety standards. Various markings on the packaging (product licence numbers etc) indicate that there is a system of regulation behind this which involves mutual recognition of standards between countries, presently enforced through the EU. The pharmaceutical industry is one of Britain's success stories.

If we just "walk away" from the EU, all that is instantly finished. No longer inside the single market and without any other agreement, our product licensing system is no longer recognised by the customs authorities on the other side (or anywhere else) . To protect public health, the container has to be firstly inspected and then detained pending testing - an enormously expensive and time consuming business.

In the other direction, on our side, the situation is even more chaotic. The Customs Officers no longer have a customs code to work to. That comes from the EU and we have "walked away" from it. It is open season. Incidentally, there are no more rules on food safety either. They come from EU regulation too and we will have "walked away" from them.

Now, the advocates of "walking away" say "Of course, we will see to all that when we do it", overlooking the fact that there are literally thousands of similar situations. So there has to be a package deal of some sort - also to include the agreements we have with non EU countries via our EU membership on all sorts of matters,not just pharmaceuticals and products but things such as (for example ) civil aviation. The list is endless.

I get the impression from the more gung-ho free traders (who cannot see beyond the matter of tariffs to the far more important area of mutually agreed standards) that, in principle, they would be happy to leave the safety of medicines (and the like) for the general public to Adam Smith's "hidden hand" of free competition between the pharmaceutical companies. But, I would bet a pound to a pinch of snuff that they would insist vigorously that their own medicines come from a properly regulated supply chain! If you once break that chain,
the problems are endless.

I do agree that there has to be a definitive point at which we are out of the EU's jurisdiction and this has to be marked by a repeal of the ECA 1972 and the entry into force of the new arrangements. It would be helpful if the independence movement pressed for this. It could be in the form of an Act to come into force on an "appointed day" when all the i's have been dotted and the t's crossed on an interim arrangement which sufficiently safeguards the unbroken continuity of trade. For several years now I have been far more worried about that being cocked up by the incompetence or treachery of our own officials and politicians than by the Evil "Europeans".

Eric Edmond said...

Mr Spalton,

Drugs standards are lrgely set by the US FDA, nothing to do with the EU. It is in the drug companies marketing interests to keep consistent standards. In some areas eg computing there again is a commercial interest in adhering to standards so computers can talk to each other. They set up the International Standards Organisation, ISO to do that. Internet http protocols originated in the non EU swiss based Cern and so it goes on. The EU claims credit and invents rules for achievements it had no part in.

All of international trade and commerce has had rules and agreed arbritation procedures to settle disputes for hundreds of years. These rules and procedures were formulated by the traders. Some were later incorporated into law but they were not originated by politicians.

You are swallowing EU propaganda hook,line and sinker.

Dr North I am sorry I did not use your Dr. Initially I did not put my DPhil at the top of my blog until certain friends of mine requested I do so. I am still uneasy about it.

In almost 6 years at the BoE I was always plain Mr as was Prof Dr Mervyn King until he became Governor when he was called Mr Governor,

I suggest you read Dan Hanaan's piece in the Spectator about abolishing sections 2 & 3 of the 72/73 ECA asap to remove the jurisdiction of the ECJ in the UK asap.

You simply do not understand how unscrupulous the EU commission is. They make the rules and if they think you might win they can simply change the rules. You are in a lose lose situation Dr North. That is the real politik you seem blind too. You may respect the rule of law. The EUcrats do not so again you lose.

Edward Spalton said...

After 40 years of opposition to the EU project, I think I am sufficiently immune to any propaganda which it puts out. I am very cross that I have spent so much of my time opposing the EU but I would not let that anger blind me to the need for a cool head in getting out. A cock-up at this stage would mean all my time had been wasted. It is only three years ago that Nigel Farage was saying that his ideal free trade agreement was a blank sheet of paper. No doubt his audience cheered but many (who should know better) seem not to have moved very far from that. ("They sell more to us than we do to them" is about as far as their thinking gets them)

My experience, now rather dated, was with veterinary medicines - those which were permitted to be used in animal feeding stuffs. I think the EU authorities would be rather surprised to learn that they do what the FDA tells them! Prior to EU membership, our own standards for inclusion of feed additives were tighter than those allowed in the USA and became tighter still by stages within the EEC/EU. Most of it was quite sensible in its objectives although we beefed about it
at the time.

"Agreed arbitration procedures" are quite insufficient for things like the safety of medicines.
Proof of non-compliance with procedures is relatively easy to establish.

I read Daniel Hannan's article and was not overly impressed. Whilst I can share the sentiments, it does not get us anywhere. It would not relieve us of a single treaty obligation either under EU law or the Vienna Convention - just a piece of playing to his gallery. As I am sure he knows, it would not happen with a government answerable to this overwhelmingly Europhile House of Commons and even more Europhile House of Lords.

The business of leaving will depend on the efficiency of the Conservative whips' office . With such a small majority (and a split party), I was originally worried that the Evil Europhiles
might stage a rebellion. Now I think excess of zeal by our friends might be even more disruptive - assuming we want a businesslike BREXIT in this parliament rather than a striking of dramatic attitudes.

I quite agree that the EU is likely to try things on. It rather reminds me of the time when our business was being pursued by Environmental Health Officers (Dr. North's former profession!).
We had hundreds of site visits. If we had taken them at their word, they would have destroyed our business. (The area was becoming "ripe for development" and a Councillor worked for a property company which owned most of the surrounding land). It was only by becoming intimately acquainted with the rules under which they operated and the powers which they had (and didn't have) that we were able to defeat them. They ended up offering no evidence and paying our legal expenses. I think something similar applies here, if we do our homework.

Eric Edmond said...

Mr Spalton

All I know about vet medicines is they are far more expensive than the human variety. Why? Second why were agricultural food companies allowed to add human type antibiotics to animal feed and so build up bugs antibiotic resistance.

If you want to sell to the US and related markets you comply with US FDA standards. The EU is just a pimple of no relevance in this matter.

you are dead right about the difficulty of getting an ECA repeal bill through the HoC and I guess deselection threats wiil be the stick.

The House of lords is a lost cause so I would label the repeal bill a money bill which the Lords cannot touch.