Over the Christmas period, I've started writing a pamphlet on the famous exit plan – a guide to leaving the EU. And, although it's early days yet, I cannot find any other way of starting but to suggest that the UK invokes Article 50.

Looking back at 1961 and the first formal negotiations for entry to the European communities has been helpful, as the Government had then concluded that it could not expect the Six to change the treaties to accommodate the UK.

Again in 1969, when formal negotiations were recommenced, the same ethos applied, whence our chief negotiator, Con O'Neill, spoke of us having to "swallow it whole and swallow it now" – the starting point being that we accepted the treaties unchanged, and the whole of the acquis.

View full article here

and ...

Not many people could bring to mind the treaty which the UK has signed on Antarctic krill, but the fact that we have provides a fascinating insight into how this modern world of ours works.

The treaty itself is known as the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) which, according to this site came into force in 1982, as part of the Antarctic Treaty System.

The aim of the Convention, we are told, is to conserve marine life. This does not exclude harvesting as long as such harvesting is carried out in a rational manner, but it has spawned a huge raft of regulations to which signatory countries (Contracting Parties) are required to enact.

The interesting thing here is that, while the UK is a signatory, we have made no regulations to implement the convention, even though we fully comply with it. The reason for this is because the EU is also a signatory. Rather than producing our own national regulations, therefore, we have relied on the EU making them, which we then implement.

View full article here

Edited by user 02 January 2013 19:40:52(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Does that in any way relate to a 50/50 chance of it being ready by then?

Great post, Richard!

A pamphlet explaining it all would be VERY useful. Can I suggest you make it a Janet & John type publication so even the most obtuse can finally 'get it'.

I'd carry a satchel load with me a slap one on the forehead of every middle-class fcukwit opinionator I came across.

That's them, that is.

I meet them at parties and social gatherings. They're my friends—that's who these people are. You can't talk to them. You can't talk at them. But you can stick a pamphlet on them and challenge them to find out anything wrong with it.

I found that approach particularly effective with a good friend of mine (and a good man) who was proving difficult on an entirely different technical matter, nothing to do with politics or the EU. I set mine out very clearly and requested he do the same with his. He didn't do it but in the end he agreed with me. He didn't say so but he obviously re-thought his argument and found it wanting. Up to that point it had all been arm-waving with him. That stopped it.

The only test for arguments is to SET THEM OUT CLEARLY, and in detail, and see whether they stand up to proper scrutiny. If they don't then the sooner we're shot of them the better — whether they are one's own or not.

Invoking Article 50 is a notice not a request of leaving, similar to handing your notice in at work. The EU under those conditions, and under international law and EU law, has to come to some sort of arrangement - and it's in their interest to do so. The EU cannot prevent us leaving nor can they arbitrarily stop any trade with us.

I presume that if we are involved in this trade, we already have such designated ports? I'm not saying that there would be no disruption, but the general principle of maintaining current EU processes where we have an economic connection should provide a working solution to most issues. For instance, I suspect that we would maintain the VAT system...

This post is the answer to all those who reckon repeal of the EA1972 and "walk away" is all that is necessary!

It is obviously not only the media that parrot the politicians - there are those among us that only, to coin a phrase, "Barnby" -aka parrot - the idiots!

(With apologies to other commenters for the last sentence - an "in joke" twixt Richard and I) - (grins)

Barnby is the least of our problems ... it is the Hannans of this world who think we can use the threat of leaving to push the "colleagues" into renegotiating. They will know (the "colleagues", that is) that we cannot leave just like that, without massive disruption.

Leaving the EU is reconquering national sovereignty from yet another empire.
Finland conquered her sovereignty from the Russian empire 95 years ago, defended it successfully in two wars with Soviet Russia, and stupidly lost it to the Great Deception of the EU.
Finnish people are increasingly furious about living under increasingly lunatic and strangulating regulations and the Damocles sword of financial guarantees to an amount equal to the annual state budget to foreign banks for their bad loans to foreign countries.
A blueprint for exit would be a tremendous help - the EU was built to be so complex that leaving it is impossible.
It may be impossible without disruption, but life as exploited serfs in a remote province of yet another empire is worse.

Nicely observed. I don't think a pamphlet laying out the basis of an important campaign needs a snappy title. I do think it needs an idiots' FAQ however, principally to ensure that those who may have to answer idiotic questions are equipped to answer them.

That applies to everything, in every field, and I'm still 'amazed' when people who present themselves as capable of knowing otherwise confirm that they actually know fuck all. 'Instead of standing on the sidelines and knocking us', they say, 'why don't you join us and get involved?' When I answer that I've done that, time and time and time again and got nowhere, a voice from the crowd invariably says 'oh he's just a knocker'. I'm not a knocker; I'm just old enough, and hairy enough, to know that paper cannot blunt scissors and, as you observe, 'trying is a waste of time and effort ... simples'.