If Britain votes No associate membership will be offered
of Free Market and not Political says Giscard d’Estaing and others.
Eurofacts 3rd December
2004
Vol 10 - No 4
What happens if Britain votes ‘No’?
Rejecting the Constitution would enable the UK to work
out a new deal with the EU-on highly favourable terms.
By Daniel Hannan
The following article is based on Voting on the
Constitution: What Britain should know
about the consequences by Daniel Hannon MEP published by Politeia
What
would happen if Britain voted “No” to the EU Constitution while most or all
other countries wanted to go ahead?
Would the other heads of government tear up the draft in
deference to the British? And, if not, where we are would not be an option,
since the existing treaties would no longer exist: They would all be folded
into the New Constitution. So we should
presumably have to negotiate a different relationship with those [Member-]
States that wanted to adopt the Constitution.
Europe’s
leaders have been admirably frank in spelling this out. Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroder, Valery
Giscard d’Estaing and others have made it clear that, if Britain persisted in
rejecting the draft, the other countries would offer it a form of associate
membership of the Free Market [In otherwise we would be back to 1975 to an
EEC -an economic and not a political union] but not on the new political
structures.
The Commissioner who has gone furthest in adumbrating
exactly how this would work is Pascal Lamy, who held the trade portfolio,
Britain he said, would be offered a status rather like Switzerland’s.
Since
this is the clearest definition we have, it is worth looking at exactly how Switzerland
- and its three EFTA partners, Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein - manage their
relations with the EU.
These States are not identical, of course. Each one has struck its own deal with
Brussels. In particular, there are
important differences between Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein, which maintain
their relationship of the single market through the European Economic Area, and
Switzerland, which does so through a series of bilateral treaties. None the less, they have several characteristics
in common.
The
EFTA States are all covered by the four freedoms of the single market:
Free
movement, that is of goods, services people and capital.
They
are able to opt into other common policies on a case-by-case basis, whether on
research and development.
Classification
of medicines.
Border-
free travel or whatever.
Yet
they are spared the huge costs and inefficiencies of the CAP -Common
Agricultural Policy.
They
are free to control their own fisheries.
Their own energy reserves.
They
are able to sign Free Trade Deals with Third Countries.
They are outside EU Social and Employment Regulation.
(All
of it, in the case of Switzerland)
They
have their own Foreign policies, immigration controls.
Their own Legal Systems and Civil Rights.
Their
Parliaments are Sovereign.
And
they pay only a token amount to the EU Budget.
[We
would not expect Britain to give even a token amount after all we have been
bled dry by the EU for over 30 years]
[Whoever negotiates the new
arrangements they must be selected from those who have had no hand in previous
Treaties, as their traitorous designs will no doubt return-once a Traitor
always a Traitor]
Unsurprisingly the EFTA
countries are considerably wealthier than the EU States. Indeed their citizens are, on average, more
than twice as rich as those in the EU.
Every EFTA country has a higher GDP per capita than every EU nation
except Luxembourg. It is also
interesting to note that every one of the EFTA States exports more per head to
the EU than does Britain.
I am not arguing that Britain should exactly replicate
what the EFTA countries have negotiated.
On the contrary, I believe that Britain would be able to strike a much
more favourable deal than any of these countries, for three reasons.
FIRST: as readers of eurofacts will be well aware, Britain is
structurally in deficit with the rest of the EU. In the years since we joined, we have run an average deficit of
more than £30 million a day. For most
of that period, we have been in surplus with every Continent in the world
except Europe. It is not normal, in any
transaction, for the salesman to have the upper hand over the Client [unless your name is Edward
Heath or those other give- away merchants that didn’t know anything about the
above maxim -or want to know.]
SECOND: We are much larger than the EFTA States.
Switzerland has a population of 7.4 million
Norway
4.6 million
Iceland 280,000
Liechtenstein 18,000.
Our
greater weight and diplomatic experience should give us a powerful negotiating
position [Here again so long as those so-called diplomats who have
previously given ALL away without scruple should NOT be involved.]
THIRD: We are an existing member of the EU. We cannot legally be excluded from the
existing rules of the Single Market.
We
would not be approaching supplicants from the outside, but negotiating terms on
which other States would be free to adopt the Constitution without us.
Voting
‘No’ to the [New] Constitution would not simply be a vote for the status quo.
Rather,
it would be a vote for better terms, allowing us to repatriate substantial
powers from Brussels, while remaining linked to the other States through the
constant nexus of the Free Market.
[Font
altered-bolding used -comments in brackets]
In
order to achieve this, though, we need a Government that will demand it. That is why the really vital vote is not the
referendum, but the intervening General Election on 5th May 2005.
Only one political party can get the right terms for us
all -and that is the
UKIP-
www.ukip.org
THE ONLY PARTY
WITH A MANDATE
TO LEAVE THE EU.
[The
majority of politicians in all the other main parties are ardent Europhiles who
are not to be trusted as we are witnessing by the majority in our House of
Commons to deprive British citizens of their right to Habeas Corpus-the right
to a trial by jury and not to House Arrest without any charge being preferred.]
MARCH/05
*
www.eutruth.org.uk
*
www.thewestminsternews.co.uk
*
www.speakout.co.uk
*
Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION
to the EU
www.telegraph.co.uk.blogs
*
VOTE
MAY -2007
TO
LEAVE
THE
EUROPEAN
UNION
WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE
TO SET YOU
FREE
THE
UK
INDEPENDENCE PARTY
www.ukip.org
TO RECLAIM YOUR DEMOCRACY DON'T VOTE
FOR THE TRIPARTITE PARTIES IN WESTMINSTER
BUT
SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR MINDS
WITHOUT SPIN AND LIES.
*
ONLY
PRO-PORTIONAL
REPRESENTATION
WILL
BRING
DEMOCRACY
BACK
TO
THE
ENGLISH
PEOPLE
*
Home Rule for
Scotland
WHY NOT
HOME RULE for
ENGLAND
*
MAY/07
[All underlined words have a
separate bulletin
THE QUESTION THAT THE VOTER MUST ANSWER
‘DO YOU WISH TO BE GOVERNED BY YOUR OWN PEOPLE, LAW AND CUSTOM OR BY
THE CORRUPT ,EXPENSIVE UNACCOUNTABLE AND ALIEN BUSYBODY BRUSSELS’
-SIMPLE IS IT NOT?
