What happens if Britain votes ‘No’?

 

In the Eurofacts journal of 3^rd December 2004 the following article by Daniel Hannan makes the point:

 

 

Rejecting the Constitution would enable the UK to work out a new deal with the EU-on highly favourable terms.

 

What would happen if Britain voted “NO” to the [New] EU Constitution while most or all of the 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 would that leave us?  Staying where we are would not be an option, since the existing treaties would no longer exist: they would have been folded into the New Constitution.

 

So we should presumably have to negotiate a different relationship with those states that wanted to adapt 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 plain that, if Britain persisted in rejecting the draft, the other countries would offer an associate membership, based on membership of the free market but not of 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 an 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 membership 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 Common Agricultural Policy.

They are free to control their own fisheries and their own energy reserves.  They are able to sign free trade deals with the third world countries.

 

They are outside much EU social and employment regulation (all of it, in the case of Switzerland)

 

They have their own foreign policies, and immigration controls, legal systems and civil rights.  Their parliaments are Sovereign. And they pay only a token amount to the EU budget.

[Being sovereign nations why should they give even a token amount to the EU budget. -possibly it is to make up for the graft and corruption in the EU]

 

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, in some cases, 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 annual deficit of more that £30million per 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, [Except Ted Heath and other Prime Ministers since.]  For the salesman to have the upper hand over the client.

 

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.

 

Britain’s greater weight and diplomatic experience [?]  [We will have to see about this after having been sold down the river over the last 33 years by so-called experienced diplomats.  One thing is certain there should be a Coalition of political parties to select a non-partisan negotiating committee to ensure we are not taken to the cleaners again?]

 

Third. -  We are an existing member of the EU. We cannot legally be excluded from the existing rules on the single market.  We would be not approaching as supplicants from the outside, but negotiating terms on which other states would be free to adopt the [New] Constitution without us.

 

Voting “No” to the constitution would not be 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 [Well! we hope those one have had any hand in giving away the past goodies to the EU are excluded from the negotiating the new terms –particularly as some might think it to their advantage to keep on good terms with their past chums in the EU] while remaining linked to the other states through the constant nexus of the free market.  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.  [Vote UKIP]

 

[Font altered-bolding used-comments in brackets]

 

This article is based on Voting on the constitution:  What Britain should know about the consequences by Daniel Hannan MEP- published by Politeia. (See our Eurofacts notebook for further details)

[Well as there is no trust in any of the main parties but particularly with the Conservative Party who have done more than any other political party up to 1997 to ensnare us closer to the EU. 

 

No trust should be given to any Party that does not have a mandate to leave the EU.

 

Therefore the voter has only one party not corrupted by past events and that is the UKIP.  This is the chance that all freedom loving people have been waiting for to show other politicians in general that whatever they say as to why you should vote for them: -                         12/04

 

You all know what to say to them.  

 

*

 

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

[EACH WORD HAS A DIFFERENT BULLETIN]

 

*

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?