UK's Art. 50 response to EU

At first listen, the tone and words used by Donald Tusk, European Council President, seem helpful and conciliatory but listen again.  The EU response to Britain’s triggering of Article 50 is a poisoned chalice.

There are three main strands to this response.

Firstly, the EU seeks a ‘divorce settlement’.  The figure that has been bandied about is £50-60 Billion.  The EU, which is the shorthand phrase I shall use for Germany, says that they want this resolved before moving on to any deal on the future relationship between the EU and a freed Britain.  In a ‘conciliatory’ frame of mind, they say that they only want to see progress on this matter – so the general terms of reference based on what the UK should pay – rather than an actual number. 

This though is a trap.  ‘Progress’ will not be made on anything that the UK proposes which takes account of prior contributions, for example. 

In the past 40+ years, the UK has contributed a net £500 Billion plus to the EU.  That is a net number – money that has flowed from Britain out to the EU.  That is money that has been ‘invested’ in farm support payments to French, Italian and Greek farmers but also much investment has been made into roads and buildings across the EU.  These represent the ‘assets’ of the EU and Britain’s contribution to these needs to be recognised.  Since the talk is of a ‘divorce settlement’ think of these as the main home and second homes that the British spouse has contributed to.  In a divorce the value of these would be considered.  The EU only wants to consider their own future expenditure and Britain’s contribution to that.  So, ascribing no value to the past contributions. 

So, in the eyes of the EU, the more than €24 Billion that Britain invested in the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) is ignored. (Oh, and that is not part of my earlier quoted £500 Billion number!).  Neither is the €39 Billion invested in the European Investment Bank (EIB).  Nor are the amounts invested in the EU offices that have spread around the globe.

Second part of the response is the Spanish sop.  Essentially, the EU is seeking to make a condition of a deal, that Spain should have a say regarding Gibraltar.  The same Gibraltar that voted 99% to 1% to want to remain a British Overseas Territory, in a recent referendum.  Spain has long coveted Gibraltar, which fell under British rule back in 1713. 

I think of this part of the response a ‘false flag’ Something to get us to focus on this and become highly irate so that eventually, when the EU give in on this, it can be dressed-up as a major concession.  Simply put, the EU, Spain and the UK know that this isn’t even on the table.  It is though an irritant and one that the EU know will be seen as so.

The third part of the response is the most critical.  The EU seeks to control Britain’s post-Brexit taxation and regulation policies.  The EU is a typical bureaucratic entity.  They look for uniformity so that no country stands out and can attract investment or set policies that are appropriate for itself. 

Britain already has a pro-enterprise approach to Corporate taxation and, if it can silence its internal socialist envy-peddlers, will have a personal income tax policy that promotes individual rather than State growth. 

The EU know that Britain will continue down this pathway.  They are seeking, by the dangerous third component to their response, to stifle this.  Should they succeed, then parts of the Brexit Referendum Project Fear will be fulfilled. 

What kind of country, other than a client state, (which is increasingly how we must see the relationship between Germany and the other EU ‘nations’) cannot control its own levels of taxation and regulations?  What would be the point of Brexit if we are controlled by Brussels (Berlin on the Zenne)?

So!  The response from the UK Government needs to be as follows:

Dear President Tusk,

We have heard of your proposals regarding our invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

In order to facilitate discussions, I advise, on behalf of the UK Government, that we will not accept any discussions about or inclusion of the status of Gibraltar in these discussions and most specifically will not allow any talks of a bilateral nature between Spain and the UK, to be a part of such discussions.

In a similar vein, the UK Government will not allow the EU to have any say or competency over Britain’s taxation or regulatory regimes once we exit the EU.

Finally, as a gesture of goodwill, the UK will not pursue a refund of its share of contributions made to the EU, during the course of its membership.  Linked to this is an understanding that the UK will make no further contributions to the EU, from the day that the UK’s membership of the EU, actually ceases.

Yours sincerely

Theresa May

On behalf of the UK Government

I have no doubt that such a letter would be found, by the EU-favouring Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to be lacking in diplomatic finesse.  That is intentional.  A very clear message needs to be sent.  Very clear.  When Theresa May said ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ this wasn’t rhetoric.  She was speaking on behalf of the UK.  We do not expect to spend two years discussing issues on which we simply will never concede.  The EU need to understand that, immediately.  The gloves need to come off.  Diplomatic niceties are not what is needed, plain talking and backbone are. 

We would look for a partnership with the EU but a partnership of equals. If that is what the EU wants then they should start seriously negotiating and they should cease with  their delaying tactics which they know will not be conceded. 

Oh and yes, regarding the thinly veiled threat concerning security cooperation.  The EU and its apologists within the UK, need to understand that Britain doesn’t do anything for free and the contribution to Europol and security matters, from the UK is far superior to that from other member states.  Theresa May was absolutely right to put this on the table.

I have faith in the UK - do you?

This isn't a blog on religious belief.  I am sure it wouldn't deter some readers, if it were but some don't follow.

No, this is about having faith in something a bit more tangible - the United Kingdom.

I have lost track of the number of times, I have heard the 'Remainians' (the name given to those who want Britain to remain in the EU) say that a vote for Britain to regain its independence would be a 'leap in the dark'.  If I think of such an important vote as a leap, I prefer to consider it as a leap of faith.

I have faith in the United Kingdom.

I have faith that the UK can regain control of its democracy, which for many years has been constantly undermined by membership of the European Union.  For many European countries, democracy is a relatively new phenomenon but not for the UK.  The largest constituent of the UK, England, has enjoyed differing levels of representative democracy for more than a thousand years.  It is a system, from which other countries have also benefited, particularly those in the so called, Anglosphere.  Countries such as the USA, Canada, Australia, Ireland and India, for example.

I have faith that the UK will be able to enjoy a thriving economy.  The UK has always been a trading nation and we continue to be so.  As the economies of the EU, and particularly the Euro-zone, have stuttered and stagnated over recent years, Britain has been slowly re-connecting with the rest of the world outside the EU.   The Remainians  emphasise that the EU is a market place of 500 million people.  No doubt that is true.  Remember though that there are 6.5 billion people outside of the EU. To save you doing the maths, that is 13 times more people outside the EU, than are in it.

Not that we would automatically lose access to the EU, were the British to leave.

Forget Project Fear with their talk about '3 million UK jobs are dependent on the EU'.  The number of 3 million has been found to be a highly dubious extrapolation from old data but mainly remember that whatever the number of jobs, these are dependent on trade with the EU, not the EU itself.  There is no logical reason why trade between a free UK and the EU, should be reduced.  Yes Britain would need to conclude a trade treaty with the EU and of course this could very easily be concluded within a very short space of time.  The template for this already exists.  It is the way that trade is already conducted between the UK and its EU partners.  All that is needed is for that to be converted into legislation.  However, also don't forget that failing that, the tariff rates that would otherwise prevail would be those from the World Trade Organisation.  These WTO rates are in the range of 2-4% - so hardly likely to lead to a massive change in trade relationships.  I also have faith that EU businessmen will pressure their own political leaders to quickly conclude a trade treaty with a now free United Kingdom.  Given that the rest of the EU enjoys a significant trade surplus with the UK, does anyone seriously believe that these countries would not treat with a free UK so as to retain such a beneficial commercial relationship?

I have faith that those in power in a free UK and those in the EU and in the rest of Europe, will continue to see the benefits of cooperation on security issues.  In this interconnected world, all governments need to cooperate and share information on security issues.  It defies logic and common sense to think that a vote for Brexit, would then mean that Britain doesn't share information that it gathers from GCHQ or other assets, with other members of Europol.  The same applies reciprocally to the security services of other European countries.

I have faith that freed from making a net contribution of at least £10 billion a year to the EU budget (the amount is sometimes quoted as more than £20 billion but I have taken the lowest number, on which there seems to be no dispute), the money can be better and more efficiently spent in the UK.  I am certainly right to have faith that the funds, when they remain in the UK, will be properly accounted for.  The same can never be said of the EU.  To me, the fact that the accounts of the EU have not been signed-off by auditors for the last 19 years speaks to at best, an extremely inefficient organisation and at worst, an organisation that is riven through with corruption and mis-spending.

I have faith that freed from the protectionist policies of the EU, the UK will be able to support developing country economies by buying their agricultural products.  The EU Common Agricultural Policy has a terrible effect on the economies of these developing countries.  One has to wonder just how many of the economic migrants from Africa now flooding into Europe are doing so because they cannot make a living at home, as a result of the trade barriers that the EU puts in front of the exports from their home countries.  This isn't fiction, just because it sounds like it, the  EU imposes trade barriers on agricultural imports from third world countries and then turns around gives aid to those very countries.   Sounds like economic colonialism to me but we hear not a peep from the 'Left' in the EU.

A British actress was recently quoted describing Great Britain as a 'cake-filled, misery laden, grey old island'.  Since I am not a 'lefty' I don't subscribe to the self-loathing to which socialists and communists are prone.  Cake-filled?  Really don't understand that - certainly don't understand how Britain is any more 'cake-filled' than say Austria with its delicious sachertorte or a tredlnik from the Czech republic - such a strange, weird statement.  Misery laden?  Hmm, the actress was speaking in Germany, which ranked at 26th place, according to the 2015 Happiness Index, ranks behind the UK which is in 21st place.  Grey? Maybe she should get out of her tinted-windows limousine and see the colours of Britain.  There are some grim colourless parts of the UK, just as there are, in so many other countries, around the world but look at the variety of colour that extends across the British countryside and call that grey!  Old island - yes, she is right on this.  We are an old island and an old democracy as well but that hasn't stopped our country turning out giants of industry, letters and arts, science and philosophy and politics.  I have faith that we will continue to do so.

It is probably old fashioned to say this but I share my faith in the United Kingdom, with previous leaders of this country.  I share it with Winston Churchill who, in 1940, when Britain stood alone against the Nazis, had faith in the British people and had faith that our British values of decency and democracy would prevail against the evil National Socialism of Hitler.
  
Join me, take a leap and have faith in Britain - Vote Leave!