Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W)
.
. Re-TWEET my Twitterings.
is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!
Article 50 revisited! Courtesy of Dr. Richard North, Christopher Booker and further to CLICK HERE!!
.
http://EUAlliance.blogspot.co.UK
CLICK HERE
On the more weighty issue of the desire of the common members of UKIP and most of the British peoples to Leave-The-EU the merits of a Referendum, a Royal Commission and Article 50 are of far greater significance than the idiotic and irresponsible behaviour of Farage, Bloom, Batten, Michael Fabricant and the like whilst UKIP’s sole performing monkey of any merit is still Nigel Farage as shown by thwe incompetence of Paul Nuttall in the media or the light weight and incompetent input of UKIP’s spokeswoman on the regional section of Andrew Neill’s programme on Sunday where her irrelevancy and ineptitude is writ large from 40 minutes onwards at: CLICK HERE
I have written on numerous occasions of the importance of Article #50 but permit me the indollence of merely republishing Richard North’s most recent piece on the subjest which makes many of the relevant points and also points out just how crss are those supposedly advising UKIP’s leadership!
EU politics: another modest proposal
Monday 26 November 2012
On 7 July 2012, Booker raised the issue of Article 50, as a means of withdrawing from the EU. The piece drew a response from “veteran campaigner”, Torquil Dick-Erikson, in the following terms:
Article 50 is a trap: In the typical Napoleonic-state style, with one hand it purports to grant a right, the right to withdraw from the EU, but with the other hand it restricts it, so much so that it reduces it to nothing. The catch, hidden within article 50, lies in the two-year waiting period that a withdrawing state must wait before it can consider itself sovereign once again, if no agreement on the terms of withdrawal is reached with the others.
He was answered (by me) thus:
I would suggest that you have misread the Article. The two year period is a maximum, unless there is an agreed extension. See 50(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.
In this instance, Torquil did not respond to the comment. But again, this time on 24 November 2012, Booker raised the issue of Article 50. And we got this from Torquil Dick-Erikson:
What Booker does not deal with here is the fact that Article 50 imposes a forced 2-year waiting period on any State that announces its intention to leave, and that does not wish to supinely accept the terms that the remaining EU would want to impose on it …
Christopher Booker has raised the idea of using article 50 before in his column. And here he is doing so again. I hope that next time he will deal with the issue of the enforced two-year waiting period that is imposed by this article. An imposition that prevents us from conducting negotiations for a new arrangement from the strong position of regained sovereignty.
Again he was answered:
Article 50 does not impose “a forced 2-year waiting period on any State that announces its intention to leave”. The article actually says:
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.
It thus sets a maximum timescale for the negotiations, of two years, which may be extended by mutual consent.
As before, Torquil did not respond to the comment. Instead (and as before), he e-mailed his own comment – and only his comment – to a select group of activists, reinforcing his own view that the only way to leave the EU was to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 – a proposition with which his correspondents completely agree.
My response last time was to note that there is a group of eurosceptics imbued with an absolute determination to fail. To keep the faith, they confine their discussions to themselves, never engaging in debate with anyone outside their circle. However, their malign influence on the likes of UKIP ensures the currency of a policy line – immediate withdrawal from the EU – which hands the game on a platter to the other side.
They offer a strategy guaranteed to maximise the disruption and uncertainty, reinforcing the europhile claims that leaving the EU would be a “disaster”. Under the terms of our eurosceptic clique, it most certainly would be so.
Out problem is that, as long as this self-deceiving rump of eurosceptics maintain their position, the likes of David Cameron can appear entirely reasonable in rejecting the idea of withdrawal. Only if they offered a well-structured exit plan, aimed at minimising disruption, would the eurosceptic doctrine pose a real threat.
There, of course, Mr Cameron has a way of completely neutralising the eurosceptic threat, if he choose to take it. With his very substantial resources, he could devise his own exit plan, couched in such terms as to make it clear that we would no longer be members of the EU, but defining a new relationship that was very litte different from full membership.
That would involve the UK withdrawing from the existing treaties which place our nations in the EU, instead forging a new treaty which would have the UK in alliance with the EU. That would entirely confirm with the traditional British policy towards Europe – interested but not absorbed.
Currently, in the pages of the Independent, Tory MP Michael Fabricant advises Mr Cameron to do a deal with UKIP. He should, the Conservative vice-chairman says, set out plans for a referendum on EU membership in exchange for UKIP not standing in the next general election.
On the other hand, there is no need for a referendum. Instead, Cameron could invoke Article 50, offering precisely the “new relationship” with the EU which he professes to want. This would bury UKIP completely. A Conservative Party, genuinely seeking a new settlement with “Europe” would leave Farage and his not-as-merry-men completely stranded, electorally isolated with nowhere to go.
However, there is another, perhaps more important reason why Cameron should take this line. Apart from the electoral advantages, which could guarantee him victory at the next general election, the constant bickering over EU membership is a dangerous distraction from the business of government. In order to focus on the issues at hand, this issue needs to be settled – and it will not go away of its own accord.
Invoking Article 50 and negotiating a new relationship with the EU is entirely compatible with Conservative Party policy, and with Mr Cameron’s personal aspirations. The fact that it is an option so hated by the eurosceptic groupescules could be taken as a bonus.
Richard North 26/11/2012
Regards,
Greg_L-W..
INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General Stuff ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com
TWITTER: Greg_LW
.
. Re-TWEET my Twitterings of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN
&
To Leave-The-EU
Related articles
UKIP Falls Foul of Its Self Inflicted Racist Reputation
Farage’s UKIP once AGAIN plays ‘Foot In Mouth’
A Snippet of FACTUAL COMMENT on UKIP
UKIP’s Dishonourable Dishonesty is Omni Present!
UKIP’s Partner & Farage’s Supporter’s Obscene Racism
UKIP Election Results Catastrophic – Independents 12 : UKIP 0
Farage & UKIP Forget Spin Is Based on Facts!
It’s war! Nigel Farage rejects election pact between Ukip and Tories
The lies of GLW
Ukip-vs-EUkip 
The danger however is that if UKIP were to have a radical prunning of roots and branches to get rid of the self enrichers, the corrupt, the liars, the cheats, the incompetent and the downright vile there would, it seems, be absolutely no one left.
It is clear that of those left in UKIP it is near impossible to identify an honourable individual of any morality much beyond Geoffrey Collier and possibly members of Team Junius as they would seem to be THE ONLY honourable individuals speaking out against the vile behaviour, the disjhonesty and the outright corruption of UKIP.
Let us hope that the widely discussed investigation being conducted by Channel 4 will expose them finally and even put some of its thieves and criminals behind bars, or at very least before the courts.
Sadly it seems UKIP’s present self serving low lifes and ne’r do wells have so over stayed their welcome that they may reasult in UKIP being nothing more than a befouled and grubby smudge in the history books regarding today – alongside their chums The BNP and the gutter politicians of The EU.
Sad as so many of us who supported the core claimed principles of UKIP found we were duped and had been lied to. We had such hopes of liberty!
Regards,
Greg_L-W.
12 November 2012 02:56
Regards,
Greg_L-W..
TO LEAVE THE EU
What is the Exit and Survival Plan for these United Kingdoms to maximise on the many benefits when we Leave-The-EU. It is the DUTY of our Politicians and Snivil Cervants to ensure the continuity, liberty and right to self determination of our peoples – they have a DUTY to protect against crime and secure both our food and our borders.
They also have a duty to put in place contingency plans for the collapse of The EUro & The EU or the wishes of the peoples of Britain to Leave-The-EU.
NONE of these DUTIES has a single British politician upheld for over 40 years. They have drawn their incomes fraudulently and dishonesty.
Politicians are failing to tell the truth, but so are almost all wanabe Politicians, the Main Stream Media and Snivil Cervants.
The fact is that even if EVERY British MEP wanted change in The EU it would achieve NOTHING, at very best if they ALL agreed they would then still have less than a 10% say in the governance of Britain by The EU.
Every single British Politician, of EVERY Party, elected since before we joined the EUropean Common Market, has promised to change The EU’s CAP – In 40 Years they have achieved absolutely NOTHING towards that unanimous promise!
To try to put a value on OUR Freedom is as futile as floccipaucinihilipilification and as odious as the metissage of our societies, as we rummage in the ashes of our ancestors dreams, sacrifices and achievements, the flotsam of our hopes and the jetsam of our lives, consider the Country and Anglosphere which we thus leave our children and the future, with shame!
Regards,
Greg L-W.
01594 – 528 337
PLEASE POST THIS TAG AS FOLLOWS: ON YOUR eMAILS & BLOGS, FORUM POSTINGS & MAILINGS – GET THE MESSAGE TO THE PEOPLE IT IS OUR BEST HOPE AS WHOEVER IS APPOINTED WILL MAKE NO DIFFERENCE AS PROVED!
I SUGGEST – since there is clearly no political party of repute, advocating or campaigning to Leave-The-EU for these United Kingdoms and restoration of our independent sovereign, democracy, with Justice & the right to self determination in a free country & minded that membership of The EU is sucking out the life blood and identity of our Country in a counter patriotic manner and at a cost in hard cash of some £53 Million a day we must consider:
Denying the self seeking & meaningless wanabe MEPs and the no longer relevant MPs the Mythical Mandate for which they clamour.
Diktat is imposed from The EU but Law should be made at Westminster, for our Country & our Peoples, by the peoples of our Country.
It is time that the entire mechanism of governance in these United Kingdoms, which has so clearly failed our Country and our peoples, was radically overhauled and updated to democratic status – failure to change will mean when we Leave-The-EU and/or it finally collapses, as it surely will, we will be no better off as the self same self styled, self enriching clique will be all too willing to betray us as they have done relative to The EU and its fore runners.
To achieve change support rational planning as with The Harrogate Agenda and similar thinking of gravitas.
Demand a Royal Commission on the cost benefits of leaving The EU and of remaining its vassals with a clear ‘Exit & Survival Strategy‘ for implementation OR responsible contingency planning dependent on THEN holding a Referendum on IN or OUT to Let-The-People-Decide!
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General Stuff ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com
TWITTER: Greg_LW
.
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN
&
To Leave-The-EU
Related articles