WITHDRAW AGREEMENT – HONEST NEGOTIATION OR TROJAN HORSE?
The Homer’s Odyssey tells us of the devious
stratagem of Odysseus in creating a wooden horse which tempted the Trojan’s to
drag it into their city, without checking whether it had got any Greek soldiers
inside, who after dark, were able to creep out and open the gates to the city
and let in the Greek Army to rape, pillage and kill or enslave the unwary
Trojans and to destroy Troy.
Similarly the Withdrawal Agreement is
superficially not so bad an Agreement. Theresa May and her supporters were
attempting to drag in her Withdrawal Agreement, ignoring the hidden provisions
of the backstop. It is these which,
which basically mean that the UK would automatically fall permanently into the
power of the EU in the near certain event that we cannot satisfy the EU on
various tricky provisions, including notably what happens to the Irish
border.
I think very little reflection should have
told anybody involved and thinking about it, that it was obvious that we would
be falling into the backstop provisions and then, as one of Guy Verhofstadt’s
staff described it, have the status of the EU’s First “Colony”.
One of the reasons why it should be obvious to
such people is because the EU is also trying to get Switzerland into almost
exactly the same set of provisions as appear in the backstop. It is clearly a game plan of the EU.
Anyone who has any patriotic pride in our
country should never have been willing to accept such an outrageous
arrangement. The revealing thing is that
leading “Conservatives” were so unpatriotic that they were willing to agree
it.
Here is an interesting article about the EU’s
bullying of Switzerland by Professor David Blake:-
EU bullying of Switzerland – the shape of things to come and how we can
fight back
The EU is using bullying tactics to bring Switzerland to heel. This
should be a warning to the UK as we fight off the Withdrawal Agreement which
seeks to put us in a similar position of inferiority. We should seize the
opportunity to join forces with the Swiss.
Switzerland is a free independent country in the heart of Europe and its
citizens like it that way. They have made it very clear in referenda that they
do not want to join the European Union.
But the EU does not like this at all and it is using all sorts of
bullying tactics to bring Switzerland to heel. In 2014, it threatened
Switzerland with losing access to EU markets when it voted in a referendum to
limit ‘mass migration’ to stop the undercutting of local wages. Switzerland is
a signatory to the Schengen Agreement on free movement, but is not a member of
either the Single Market or the Customs Union. It eventually backed down.
This just emboldened the EU. Guy Verhofstadt, the European Parliament’s
Brexit co-ordinator, and the rest of the EU elite want to turn the EU into an
empire and they clearly now see Switzerland as a potential colony.
Switzerland and the EU have around 120 bilateral agreements governing
their trading relationships – the so-called Swiss model. This leaves
Switzerland with far too much flexibility for the EU’s liking. In short, the
Swiss have been allowed too much ‘cherry picking’. This is despite the fact
that the EU had a trade surplus with Switzerland of €48bn in 2018 (with exports
worth €157bn and imports worth €109bn).
The EU wants to put a stop to the cherry picking. It is currently trying
to bring Switzerland under its legal and regulatory control by forcing it to
accept ‘dynamic alignment’ with EU rules on migration, social security, and key
areas of economic policy in perpetuity – plus final arbitration by the European
Court of Justice. Because of Swiss resistance, as these bilateral agreements
comes to an end, the EU is refusing to renew them. It has just suspended the
trading of Swiss shares on EU stock exchanges and is threatening to withdraw
mutual recognition for exports of medical equipment. Switzerland is being
systematically closed out of the EU’s economic, transport and energy system
until it again backs down. For example, it has been excluded from EU
legislation on power grids and network codes. This is despite the fact that
around 10% of the EU’s electricity flow between member states passes through
Switzerland. The EU is clearly supremely confident that Switzerland would not
dream of retaliating. But given the size of the trade surplus and with a lot of
intra-EU trade passing through Switzerland, slowing down EU lorries at the
border – as the EU is threatening to do with us – must be quite tempting.
All this should be a lesson for us in the UK as we fight off the
Withdrawal Agreement with its similar requirement for ‘dynamic alignment’ with
EU rules and the final jurisdiction of the ECJ. And, of course, the WA quite
deliberately has no termination date, so it gives us no opportunity to
renegotiate its terms in the future. It holds in perpetuity. We know from the
BBC4 fly-on-the-wall documentary Brexit: Behind Closed Doors broadcast in May
2019 that a member of Verhofstadt’s private office views us as the EU’s ‘first
colony’, so Switzerland’s experience should be a warning for us about the shape
of things to come when it comes to our future relationship with EU.
It is therefore time not only for us, like the Swiss, to resist any
further EU bullying, but to fight back, particularly when it comes to the City
of London. The EU is fully aware of the importance of our global financial
centre to EU financial stability. This gives London too much power in the EU’s
view. This is why it wanted to clip the City’s wings in the WA, by having a
relationship based on ‘equivalence’ which the EU can withdraw at short notice
without any right of appeal. The City is six times bigger than all the other EU
financial centres combined. So the EU’s stance is totally unacceptable and
needs to be replaced with either a form of ‘enhanced equivalence’ or ‘mutual
recognition’ which cannot be withdrawn unilaterally.
But we should go further, as Matthew Lynn has recently suggested, and
form an alliance between the UK and Swiss financial centres: ‘By far the two
strongest financial centres in Europe are the City and Zurich. If the two of
them teamed up, they could create a network of expertise that would provide a
real alternative to the EU – and one to which many European companies, fund
managers and investors would flock. … [The EU row with Switzerland offers] the
City of London the perfect opportunity to create a rival regulatory regime that
covers more than one finance centre’. As the current disastrous plight of
Deutsche Bank and the even bigger fiasco of the euro show, the EU is not
actually very good at finance and we should not allow ourselves to dragged down
by their incompetence.
The EU bullying of Switzerland is too good an opportunity to miss. It’s
time for us and the Swiss to fight back. In July 2019, the UK and Switzerland
signed an agreement allowing their citizens to work in each other’s country in
the event of a no-deal Brexit. There need to be many more deals like this.
Here is a link to where the article originally
appears>>>
Good read.
ReplyDeleteDoes the likes of this article get to the right people in the big house?
I mean, in a lot of interviews/radio shows, the mention of our case seemed to be “the first time they’d heard about it”
The bbc aren’t going to shout about this and who in government may not have read that memo..but needs to?
(Any update on the case or a reply from facebook?)
hope you had a nice holiday....
Hi ��, this is very interesting and worrying to read.
ReplyDeleteI have heard that the London Stock Exchange will move to Frankfurt, next year, in 2020 and be integrated into the EU Stock Exchange, resulting in a loss of more than 200,000 jobs because of the relocation.
Could this be part of the Trojan Horse ��?
It is more Olly Robbins surrender terms for the UK. I read somewhere that it had the fulsome praise from Tony Blair. That was enough for me. They might call it the backstop the correct name has to be the BACKSTAB!
ReplyDeleteHi
ReplyDeleteWhy is the appeal court not getting on with the case
AS Farage keeps telling us, its not an "agreement" but a new treaty. They reckon the government does not need to consult parliament in order to sign a treaty, and Royal prerogative can do it. The history books I have read say that's not so, and parliament needs to be consulted and agree any treaty. If the treaty is such a divergence from the treaty of union 1707, under the Vienna Convention on treaties, the English could reject it and set up our own national parliament again. In a way I hope the UK parliament does go over board, then the English can get our lives back.
ReplyDelete