EU politics: leaving the EU
Tuesday 2 July 2013
 Published yesterday by the House of Commons Library was a research paper on "leaving the EU". The online introduction ishere which offers a download facility for the entire 112-page document. For those who want to look at it without downloading, you can access it here.The paper is edited by Vaughne Miller and he tells us that the Treaty on European Union provides for a Member State to leave the EU, either on the basis of a negotiated withdrawal agreement or without one. If the UK were to leave the EU following a referendum, Miller says, it is likely that the Government would negotiate an agreement with the EU, which would probably contain transitional arrangements as well as provide for the UK’s long-term future relations with the EU. There is no precedent for such an agreement, but it would in all likelihood come at the end of complex and lengthy negotiations. The full impact of a UK withdrawal, he adds, is impossible to predict, but from an assessment of the current EU role in a range of policy areas, it is possible to identify issues and estimate some of the impacts of removing the EU role in these areas. The implications would be greater in areas such as agriculture, trade and employment than they would in, say, education or culture. As to whether UK citizens would benefit from leaving the EU, Miller argues that this would depend on how the UK Government of the day filled the policy gaps left by withdrawal from the EU. He argues that, in some areas, the environment, for example, where the UK is bound by other international agreements, much of the content of EU law would probably remain. In others, it might be expedient for the UK to retain the substance of EU law, or for the Government to remove EU obligations from UK statutes. Much would depend, Miller concludes, on whether the UK sought to remain in the European Economic Area (EEA) and therefore continue to have access to the single market, or preferred to go it alone and negotiate bilateral agreements with the EU. And such is the view of a senior researcher in the House of Commons Library. It is not the definitive word by any means, but it is a contribution to a complex subject, where much debate and clarification is needed. At least, it does explore the Article 50 issue, telling us that an EU-exit would not be straightforward and would involve complex and probably lengthy negotiations over the UK's future relations with the EU. In so doing, several of the more egregious myths are debunked. For instance, the decision to leave, we are told, does not need the endorsement or formal agreement of the other Member States. Withdrawal can happen, whether or not there is a withdrawal agreement, two years after the leaving State notifies the European Council of its intention to withdraw. Nevertheless, we learn, the terms of Article 50 TEU imply an orderly, negotiated withdrawal, and it is clearly indicated that transitional provisions would have to be agreed, allowing EU law and obligations to continue to apply until all loose ends had been tied up. It would not be possible to withdraw immediately from several policy areas without causing enormous disruption. In my view, such are the complications that completion of negotiations within a two-year period is unlikely, and we could see the UK – as well as the member states – looking for an extension, before a withdrawal agreement could be finalised, with any side treaties that might be needed. For all its utility, though, the paper has some huge gaps. There is, by way of one example, virtually no recognition of the effect of globalisation of trade, and the expanding role of international standards-setting bodies which, via WTO, are largely displacing the EU as originators of trade regulation. In this context, a paper that talks of harmonised rules on type approval of road vehicles, that does not mention UNECE and the World Forum on the Harmonisation of Vehicle Regulations, must be considered severely lacking. There is much of the "little European" in the arguments adduced. For the moment, though, the paper is probably ahead of the field, which means that many commentators will be struggling to catch up. It gets some attention from the advertising and merchandising conglomerate, the Telegraph Media Group Ltd, which offers a thin report. One suspects its author lacks the intellectual framework with which to assess the paper properly. But then, media interests have shown little ability to deal with the detailed issues attendant on our leaving the EU – and many of the commenters even less so. The House of Commons researchers are better equipped, although one has to say, not that much better. But their contributions do make a start to what is going to be a long haul. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 02/07/2013 |
EU referendum: going nowhere via somewhere?
Tuesday 2 July 2013
 Perhaps it is because it isn't really real, or perhaps we don't believe it will happen. Perhaps because it's degenerated into a party political squabble, the whole object of the referendum seems to have been lost. This should be about getting out of the EU, not about getting Mr Cameron out of a political mess, or making the Conservatives less unelectable. But now we have another complication. John Mills, the founder of the Labour campaign for a referendum, is claiming half of the shadow cabinet and at least a third of all Labour MPs now privately support Labour backing a referendum at the next election. Mills is worried about the danger of a gap opening up between what potential Labour voters want on a referendum and the possible Labour stance at the next election. "A failure to back a referendum would pose great dangers to Labour's electoral chances", he says. So, if Miliband does not commit to a referendum, does that mean that Labour will lose the election? And if Labour loses, does that mean the Conservatives will win? Or will the UKIP effect make the whole thing too unpredictable to call? On balance, there do not seem to be any answers to these questions, which is perhaps why poll sentiment isn't really changing. We're going around and round in circles and not really getting anywhere. When we finally arrive, will we know we are there? COMMENT: COMBINED THREAD Richard North 02/07/2013 |
Media: the power of the green lobby
Monday 1 July 2013
 At the heart of its power is the ability of campaign groups to forge alliances and create networks, and in their fund-raising capabilities, often using iconic images to assist in prising cash from the gullible public. Not for nothing is the logo of WWF a panda – an animal, like the badger, which invokes strong public affection. The networking capabilities very much came to the fore last week, as the alliance of green activists, animal rights campaigners and vegan groups, acting under the banner of Team Badger, confronted the reality that the much-opposed badger culling was due to start and time soon. As it turns out, though, the driver of the campaign against the cull is a little-known organisation called Care for the Wild International (CWI), which works alongside another group, Network for Animals. Amongst other things, these two groups, together with the vegetarian group Viva have been seekingto boycott dairy farms within the agreed cull areas, with some media support. But last week, Care for the Wild decided to up the ante with a repeat of stunt pulled by Viva in June 2009, when that group sought to raise public concern via the media over bovine TB infected meat entering the human food chain. Those four years ago, there seem to have been no takers, but with practically identical claims, this time the media welcomed the story. First out of traps was Jonathan Leake of The Sunday Times, although CWI managed to sell a variation of the story to the Sunday Express as well. But, not content to leave it there, it rushed out apress release boasting of its co-operation with The Sunday Times. Without troubling to hide the agenda, Philip Mansbridge, the CEO of CWI, told reporters that people should know of the "infected meat story" - trialled four years previously without success - because "the government are surging forward with an unpopular badger cull based on the argument that they know what's best for farmers, and for the public". But this scandal exposes the complete failure of their bovine TB management system, from farm to fork. Said Mansbridge, in the press release, "The government has repeatedly said that badgers must be culled for reasons including human health. But this justification is completely undermined by the fact they are placing large quantities of TB meat into the food supply chain without any labelling or cooking advice, which puts the public at risk". Despite the partisan source of the information, however – which was quite clearly agenda-driven – few newspapers chose to reveal their source, using the "it can be revealed" phrasing so often favoured by modern journalists when recycling press releases. Most readers, exposed to the story, therefore, would not have been aware that this was a publicity coup inspired by animal activists seeking to prevent the badger cull. As a registered charity, CWI is almost certainly breaching the rules by organising such an overtly political campaign, although the Charities Commissioner seems to be unduly tolerant of such behaviour these days. However, in buying into a quite deliberate deception by the animal lobby, suggesting that the government is in some way seeking to conceal its treatment of carcases from TB-infected animals, and that a significant risk exists (even if this has not been explicitly stated) , the newspapers are most probably in breach of the Press Complaints Commission Editor's Code of Practice. It will be interesting to see now whether the government sits back, or whether it comes out fighting, and takes on the green lobby with a series of complaints. COMMENT: "RACE TO THE BOTTOM" THREAD Richard North 01/07/2013 |
Tuesday, 2 July 2013
EU politics: leaving the EU...... EU referendum: going nowhere via somewhere?
Posts
