Copyright © 2015 - 19 euexit.com. All rights reserved.
22nd August 2018
Fanatical Federalists II
Continuing from the previous article "Fanatical Federalists" dated the 20th August 2018.
Having established that, as part of the EU, the UK is a "Vassal State" of that organisation courtesy of the Lisbon Treaty (2007) - in spite of the fact that the British people have not been given a single Referendum of any of the EEC(EU) Treaties - effectively, the people of the British Isles have been sold into EU servitude by their nefarious MP's, Peers and Judiciary - who have kept the "EU Project" a secret for the past 45 years - and continue to hide the real ambition of the EU from public scrutiny.
Specifically -"The EU Court of Justice has decided that the EU treaties constitute the European Constitution and prevail over national law and national constitutions."andLisbon Treaty (2007) Title 3 Security and Defence Policy in Article 42.3: "Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy, to contribute to the objectives defined by the Council." but this is just a sample of far more Articles, Declarations and Protocols, scattered throughout the Treaty, that confirm the subordinate position and dictate the responsibilities of the Member States to the EU; in no uncertain terms.
Now, following the 23rd June 2016 EU Referendum, the one opportunity in 43 years that we had chance to voice our opinion on the actions of our political class they do everything they can to maintain the status quo which the majority of the UK voted against.
"Chequers" Agreement and Implementation
To be clear, this agreement came about behind the backs of those tasked with bringing about a UK exit agreement and who were working on a "Free Trade Deal" based upon a similar arrangement to that between the EU and Canada (CETA - see later) but more specific for the UK - which was sidelined after Theresa May and co-conspirators in the UK Civil Service "ambushed" the "Brexit" supporting Cabinet members (in a ratio of 20:7) and forced acceptance of the deal - after been told that it had already been agreed by Angela Merkel. Those who would dared to disobey Merkel were threatened with being replaced by inexperienced MP's who would agree the deal. Boris Johnson (Foreign Secretary) and David Davis (Chief "Brexit" Negotiator) both resigned the following day.
This latter extension was apparently requested by the UK government on behalf of the CBI et al., who are part funded by the EU. The UK would not be allowed to vote or even attend meetings related to these new changes that the EU plans to bring in, but more ludicrously the UK government have delayed repeal of the European Communities Act (1972) until possibly the end of 2022 - so we will simply continue under EU rule anyway
It is clear to us that this agreement is just a ruse by the EU/UK to offer an agreement that represents a deal that could only possibly be acceptable to the EU and "arch-Remainers" - so as a alternative to the status quo it is a non-flyer - a giant confidence trick in reality. But is likely to be offered as an alternative to Remaining in the EU under current terms and conditions (i.e. Status Quo) - on the assumption that the public would rather "stay in the EU" with all its faults, rather than have something "worse". Without realising that following the advent of Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) the two alternatives are identical; the UK would be a "Vassal State" of the EU - whichever option was chosen
Norway and Canada - "The Norway and Canada options have been broadly framed as a choice between having a high level of access to EU markets and a high degree of EU regulation (Norway), or a lower level of access and regulation (Canada)." (https://fullfact.org/europe/brexit-trade-deals-norway-canada-options/)
Canada - the Canada-EU -> Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) came into force in 2017 (but not fully implemented) - "Canada has almost completely tariff-free trade in goods with the EU, but it faces more regulatory barriers to trade. The movement of services is also much more limited than within the single market. Canada is not subject to EU law or institutions, and doesn’t pay the EU any money as part of the trade agreement."
However, we understand that the CETA agreement is partly stalled because Romania and Bulgaria are demanding visa-free access to Canada for their citizens - which illustrates the difficulty with trying to escape from the legal clutches of the EU - having to get agreement with all 27 other Member States; once EU citizens are allowed in then it will be a free-movement - free-for-all - and ECJ rules would follow shortly afterwards.
The "Brexit" negotiators (David Davis et al.) were attempting to produce a Canada +++ deal for the UK with the EU - which would be closest to what the British people voted for - but they were undermined and sidelined by May and Merkel, and it is not something that the EU will allow; so it will not be on offer as an option to the UK.
The only acceptable way out of the EU is a "No Deal" which the EU / UK cabal are doing their best to prevent - with the ultimate Project Fear - the threat of "War and Pestilence" if we do not remain in the EU.
The "No Deal" scenario involves repealing the European Communities Act (1972) and leaving the Customs Union and Single Market and trading under Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules thereby reducing tariffs and freely trading with the rest of the world - in other words we do have a deal with the EU under WTO rules. The EU is a protectionist block which favours Germany (Manufacturing) and France (Agriculture) - whose countries jointly established the Élysée Treaty (1963) - a treaty of friendship between France and West Germany, signed by President Charles de Gaulle and Chancellor Konrad Adenauer on 22 January 1963 at the Élysée Palace in Paris. Among other things it established a Franco-German Military Brigade, in 1987 and is still intact. (wikipedia) - France and Germany have cooperated in controlling the EEC(EU) ever since, and that co-operation is still very much in evidence today in their efforts to keeping the UK in the EU.
The benefits of, and obstacles to, moving to WTO rules have been comprehensively analysed by Martin Howe QC at Lawyers for Britain viz.
"In the Sunday Times on 12 August 2018, under the headline “No deal will hike food bills by 12%”, it was reported that ‘senior executives from the big four supermarkets’ had claimed that a ‘no deal’ Brexit ‘would force up the price of the average weekly food basket by as much as 12%.
"This suggestion is therefore based on a misconception which is so widespread and so often repeated that I shall call it “the tariff delusion.” That delusion is that when we leave the EU, WTO rules will require the UK to take the current tariffs which the EU at present forces us to impose on imports from the rest of the world, and impose them on imports from the EU as well."
"What WTO rules do require, under the so-called “Most Favoured Nation” (MFN) principle, is that whatever tariffs we decide to set must be charged equally to everyone, with the exception of countries with which we have customs union or free trade agreements. In those cases, zero tariffs must be charged on substantially all trade in goods under Article XXIV(8) of GATT."
None Tariff Barriers
"Quite apart from tariffs which increase prices inside the EU above world levels (indeed, that is the whole point of having the tariffs), the rules of the EU single market on goods also raise prices inside the EU above world levels because they create so-called “non-tariff barriers” (NTBs) against imports of many kinds of goods from outside the EU." One estimate suggests that NTB's could add up to 20% on prices inside the EU compared to those outside the EU.
"This means that UK consumers and UK companies who buy goods are paying on average 20% above world prices for goods which they buy from the EU27. It is true that by the same logic, UK exporters of goods are also reaping a 20% premium above world prices for the goods which they export to the EU27."
"But – and here is the crunch point – the UK buys massively more goods from the EU27 than we export to the EU27. In 2017, we exported £164bn of goods to the EU27 and imported £259bn, giving a deficit of £95bn in goods (ONS Pink Book 2018, section 9, table 9.4)."
"After Brexit, the UK will not have to charge any tariffs on anything unless we want to. The depth of ignorance in public discourse about tariffs and tariff policy is probably the result of us having outsourced tariff policy to the EU for the last 40 years. Tariff policy used to be the subject of lively and informed political debate: the trade off between protection of producers and higher prices for consumers was well understood." ...
We will end this article at this point and refer to the remainder of the extensive analysis, since we are also including the entire analysis by Martin Howe QC under the heading of "WTO - Lowering Prices" on the button below. If anyone is interested in more about the "NO Deal" please feel free to contact euexit.com
The high food tariffs were and continue to be very damaging to us as a net food importing nation. Our consumers pay 100% of the elevated prices for food inside the EU’s tariff walls, but only part of the benefit goes to British farmers. The rest of the benefit of the higher prices goes to farmers in other EU countries."
" ... part of the price of membership was to swallow the bitter pill of higher food prices. Heath’s White Paper advocating EEC entry in 1971 estimated that “membership will affect food prices gradually over a period of about six years with an increase of about 2.5 per cent each year in retail prices” (para 88 on p.23)."
"And this elevation of prices has persisted, with a more recent estimate that the price of food in the UK is at least 17% more expensive than it would be outside the EU (Gerard Lyons and Liam Halligan, Clean Brexit, Policy Exchange, January 2017, p10.)"
"The effect of the EU’s tariffs is that UK consumers pay a subsidy to producers in other EU countries. This is particularly easy to understand in the case of goods which are not made or grown in the UK."
"At the moment therefore the British consumer can buy Spanish oranges tariff-free, but must pay 16% tariffs on oranges imported from the rest of the world. The effect is that UK consumers have to pay 16% more for their oranges than if oranges were let into the UK at world prices, and Spanish and other EU orange growers can raise their prices to match world prices plus 16%, and pocket this extra money."