Indeed, those who SIGN AND RATIFY are so bound. But the US played in Kyoto, and LOST, and Agenda 21. However, we have NOT ratified ANY of those, even though those international bodies have adopted same. I expect there are others as well, but I'm too lazy to chase down more than those three. Of course, our current "leadership" wants our nation to comply with those anyway, for they are the way to One World Government. But they are unable to get them through the Constitutional wickets. What I'm trying to say is that the UK could participate in those international bodies, once outside the EU, and help drive their outputs. But if the end result is not acceptable to your country, you can choose to ignore them even if the international body imposes them as long as YOUR nation does not ratify the regulations/treaties/laws.

An astute synopsis and cogently argued Richard.


The Norway 'question' is a recondite argument - designed to misdirect. Britain, in the EEA we would be far more able to dictate our own terms with the EU - we are a major European nation and big, big customers of the Germans - I have posited before - that we should make our own trade agreement solely with the Germans and thereby circumvent the French, Italians and Spanish club med bloc.

However and playing Devil's advocate - rules are there to be broken and 'failed' states do not abide by any rules, furthermore China and Russia pick and choose as do many other nations, from a smorgasbord of 'legislation' [legal in whose eyes?] from different world treaty organisations. As mmatis points out above, the USA never formally recognized the Kyoto protocols and a similar take it or leave it attitude exists from all around the world. Argentina, Zimbabwe, Sudan, N. Korea, Iran - surely have never 'played ball'.

Iceland broke all the rules and let their banks go bust and are a failed state - but life goes on, why should a nation the size of Britain unduly worry about rewriting some diktats and severing many others?

Evidently, Britain must leave the EU. Out of it [EU], we will be more able to plan and design our own future. What Cameron, the politics of vested interests, the crony capitalists of big business are afraid of is - something else.

Independence would mean that, the now myriad 1,000,000 metre thick gossamer web of carefully [over forty years] layered threads of 'legislation' will be unpicked - not overnight admittedly but it will be cut away in time.
This is not good news for lawyers, corporate business, banks or the apparats and colleagues in Brussels but it is damp trousers time for Whitehall - because the onus would be back on a British administration and direct and due process can be scrutinised in detail by the British people. The whole establishment - they would be far more answerable - now they can all hide behind European statutes, ECHR and red tape regulation - this would not be so if we were to achieve independence.

One point to emerge, as I am writing in a separate report I am preparing, is that the situation "is complex, nuanced and highly variable, exactly reflecting real life and the realities of politics – which are complex, nuanced and highly variable".

To a very great extent, trying to capture networks of influence on an organogram is like attempting to bottle moonbeams.

Richard,

I have every admiration for your blog. Good stuff. I'd like to pick over this comment.

There would be a great deal of differing opinion over this remark "First of all, though, if there is even to be a referendum, it looks as if we must first ensure that the Tories get elected with a clear majority. That is not going to be easy".

There are those ex-UKIP people (and many more besides) who would cut off their own testicles rather than support another Tory government, which is so untrustworthy over the EU.

As a person who has fought many elections from Parish Council to European Elections (winning up to District Councillor level and and helping lead candidate Trevor Colman win his MEP seat) I can assure you that the Eric Edmond view of a 100-seat victory by Labour at the next election is the more likely. That does not help the anti-EU cause. Labour are led by the pro-EU caucus.

The Labour vote will be "soft" as a result of immigration issues and the traditional Labour voter would be tempted by UKIP, but UKIP will always help the Tories whilst Farage is in charge which will undercut the support from the working man.

If UKIP were to be led by a person without the baggage of Farage and his mates and moved UKIP to a neutral postion to get both Tory & Labour votes UKIP could storm the ramparts and be part of a coalition government that demanded a fair referendum. It probably will not happen .

Failing that it needs a new Party to supplant UKIP by 2015. To do that an alternative to UKIP has to be found for the 2014 European elections.

Yes I can appreciate that. I am just so grateful that you are doing this.

Perhaps we can borrow Josh the cartoonist on Bishop Hill!?

Josh is a professional illustrator and doesn't really come cheap. Just see the prices of Tee-shirts and prints.