Skip to comments.Why the Tories are ready to risk detonating the Brussels bomb
Posted on 10/19/2012 12:18:13 PM PDT by Olog-hai
When David Cameron became Tory leader seven years ago, William Hague is said to have delivered a stern warning on the subject of Europe. Stay well away, advised Mr. Hague, who knew from brutal personal experience as Conservative leader the damage it was capable of doing. Mr. Hague added that Europe should be regarded as a bomb that could never be defused, yet might well go off at any moment. The wisest course was to leave well alone and hope for the best.
It has suddenly become very clear that, seven years after the Foreign Secretary delivered his warning, the Hague doctrine has been abandoned. Over the past few days, though, without the knowledgelet alone assentof a bemused Mr. Hague, a series of Cabinet ministers have articulated anti-European sentiments.
The importance of these remarks cannot be overstated. Although many people have criticized Europe, no senior British politician has actually dared to advocate a severance of relations since Michael Foot more than a quarter of a century ago.
So it is clear that the Conservative Party has reached a turning point. Mr. Cameron has resolved to risk detonating the European bomb, in the full knowledge of the consequences.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Grab the popcorn. It’s all coming down.
So, is there anything in the EU charter that allows member countries to depart and go on their merry way separately, or do we get to see a re-cap of the US Civil War?
There isn’t. But I doubt anyone has much stomach for bloodshed, fiscal or otherwise.
For the record, the USSRs constitution also had clauses allowing the secession of republics, so you can see how meaningless such things are.
- Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
- A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention.
In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
- The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
- For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
- If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
That depends on how much potential cash is tied up in the issue. If enough money is involved, they’ll find a ‘moral’ reason stop the UK, with force if necessary.
One of the reasons for the Civil War here was the South’s plan for a 10% tariff, combined with its control of the mouth of the Mississippi. The Yankees saw visions of empty ports and grass growing in the streets of New York and Boston - there was no choice but to go to war...
The difference between a federation and confederation is that in one members are allowed to leave.
So, if your nation want to pack up and get out, the EU gets tell what you can pack, and set the conditions. You don’t get a say at all...
The UK is not prepared to have Germany dictate its budget or do away with British sovereignty. If that is the price of EU membership, the UK can ask whether its worth it to remain in Europe. The price is too high.
3.The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
Doesn't this sort of say that you are out after two years if no agreement occurs?
The core treaty has a process for withdrawal in Article 50.
Interesting stuff - could be basis for constitutional amendment here in the states.
Yep, the treaty obligations end after two year regardless of negotiations. Its a solid way out. Nowhere near as murky as our own constitution.
That does not translate to you having a say. Remember that even during that two-year period, all your voting rights (as little as they are) are cut off and anything can be decided about you without a shred of input.
It’s anything but a solid way out. Read the whole thing.
Although many people have criticized Europe, no senior British politician has actually dared to advocate a severance of relations since Michael Foot more than a quarter of a century ago.They're on maneuvers.
Good luck with that .... David Cameron has several boatloads of Trident D-5's at his disposal, all MIRV'ed.
Of interest is the mushy language .... it appears that a bloc of EU countries could drag their feet on a secession proposal, and in effect "forbid" that member State to withdraw from the EU.
That would be a sticky wicket.