Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W)
UKIP vs EUkip – FlexCit offers the UK an EU Exit and Survival strategy
. Re-TWEET my Twitterings.
is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!
!!
UKIP vs EUkip – FlexCit offers the UK an EU Exit and Survival strategy.
Original Detail in context can be found at:
http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=89457&page=517&p=1812052&viewfull=1#post1812052
Details of FleXcit can be found at:
.
UKIP vs EUkip – FleXcit offers the UK an EU Exit and Survival strategy.
I make no apology for the length of this post as it is aimed for those who are seriously interested in leaving the EU and realise the need for a workable and ethical eXit and Survival strategy.
I believe the time is now right, with the passing of the Euro Elections, to refocus this thread, by adding to the title, to thus change the emphasis from the exploits of Nigel’s EUkip to the challenge of getting UKIP and others to adopt a workable eXit and Survival Strategy.My thanks to the moderators for facilitating this.
The reason for adding to the original title instead of a starting a new thread is to keep the post’s history, context and development as we refocus on the ‘HOW’ best we will actually be able to leave the EU without which I maintain we will never win the battle to leave the EU.
The important consideration now is to win any In/Out referendum ‘if’ and ‘when’ held and not forgetting the all important task of ensuring the outcome, assuming we win, is binding.
Currently I believe the only VIABLE ‘eXit and Survival Plan’ in the public domain is FleXcit as written by Dr Richard North, with contributions from many of those who read his blog EU Referendum blog. Even a recent review of the six finalists in the IEA’s BreXit competition acknowledged that they did NOT provide the definitive solution and another may well be needed.
What is abundantly clear is that without the ‘Outers’ mustering behind a WORKABLE plan the field will be left open to the Establishment and Europhiles to use Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) to maintain the status quo. The history of the 1975 referendum proves this point extensively and I highly recommend the well researched and authoritive book on the subject by two fellows of Nuffield College Oxford, David Butler and Uwe Kitzinger unsurprisingly called, ‘The 1975 Referendum’!
This thread was of course started on the 27th February 2011 with the intent of pointing out the differences between where UKIP should be heading and where I and others felt Nigel Farage was leading the party which, to differentiate, I called EUKip. As I asked within days of starting the thread ‘What is UKIP for’?
Despite the new title to this thread, it is still my contention, supported by many others who can see beyond his anti EU rhetoric, that Nigel’s EUkip is not fit for the purpose of helping navigate the UK safely out of the EU. In 21 years EUkip has NEVER put forward an ’eXit & Survival Strategy’ in support of their claim to be seeking an amicable divorce form the EU. Claiming you want something is the easy part but tackling the how and having the power to implement your plans is of course an entirely separate matters both of which Nigel’s EUkip doesn’t come close to – in terms of gravitas, competence or ability – as proved over the last 21 years.
Since the beginning of this thread I have learned a great deal and been able to hone my arguments over the whole EU debate and after a few faltering early comments and remarks, which I have acknowledged, my aim has been to see UKIP reformed but not destroyed. I have tried endlessly to explain and persuade others that UKIP will never be reformed under Nigel Farage’s divisive cult style leadership and as the apparent Eurosceptic brand leader we need UKIP to appeal beyond its relatively small core vote, shown recently to be a mere 9% of the electorate, to over 50% of the electorate, a level of support obviously needed to win that referendum when called.
Another point I have brought up over and over again is that Nigel Farage has never invested the intellectual effort and time to produce an eXit and Survival plan preferring to concentrate his efforts to achieve electoral success at the Euro and General Elections. However as I have also frequently pointed out UKIP MEPs are about as much good as an ashtray on a motorbike and Nigel’s plans, to concentrate on elections, currently shows no signs of getting an MP to Westminster, especially after the Newark result where they could not have been better placed to win. They were still on the crest of the wave, after their success at the Euro elections, the candidate was the ex-Tory Roger Helmer who was well known in the area, Cameron’s Tories are unpopular with many core Conservatives and finally the out going MP Patrick Mercer was exposed for corruption.
Despite all these factors in UKIP’s favour the Tories won handsomely with 17,431 to UKIP’s 10,020. By any serious analysis this result bodes ill for any prospect UKIP has of gaining a single MP let alone a workable number at the 2015 General Election.
As I have often said Nigel and his cabal have all gone native in Brussels and his latest ‘freebie’ escapade in Malta before the Newark bye election provides all the evidence you need that he always puts his own self interests above those of HIS party.
So how can FleXcit help us leave the EU and what does it advocate?
The FleXcit paper, which I recommend is the sort of document you need to read several times to really start to understand it, is due to be published in the Autumn but you can still read the latest version as it is developed at :-
http://www.flexcit.org/In summary the plan, which is a play on the words FleXible, eXit and Continuous Development, is just that a FleXible and Continuous Plan to help us Exit safely from the EU, after 40 years of integration, whilst upholding all our international treaty obligations which we are legally and morally obliged to honour, under the terms of the Vienna Treaty on International Treaties. This will allow us once again to gradually take our own seat at the global top table rather than, as we currently are, being represented by an unelected EU official. As we negotiate ourselves out of the EU we will be free to act directly, on the world stage, for our own interests, unfettered by membership of the EU. It is a given, as advocated by any serious commentator and even the recent IEA Brexit competition, that the start point for beginning the process of Britain’s withdrawal from the EU will result from us implementing Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.
The absolutely vital fact to grasp is that FleXcit advances a flexible continuous process that will crucially neutralise the Establishment’s use of FUD and their promotion of the false safety of remaining with the status quo, which can be seen, has not been successful especially in the EU! In the initial stages this is what has become known as the Norway Option, involving joining EFTA to retain our membership of the EEA, but it is only the start of the flexible and continuous process we will be on until we regain our complete independence from the EU. FlexCit will help fight classic FUD like the scare that ‘3 million jobs will be lost if we leave the EU’, which is simply NOT the case as we have no intention of leaving the Single Market (SM) made up of 28 countries until, further down the line, something better can be negotiated between the other 22 countries in Europe that are not members of the EU’s SM.
So FleXcit is a multi layer solution where the Norway Option is only an interim step along the way to establishing something much larger which will be achieved via the eight point plan explained in it.
Interestingly there is no strong economic case that can be made for leaving the EU and we will always struggle to argue for withdrawal on those grounds just as conversely there is equally no economic case for staying in the EU. However there are strong democratic and humanitarian reasons for leaving the EU related to the advantages of Self Determination and taking back control of our own destiny from undemocratic and unrepresentative Euro politicians and the unelected bureaucrats and of course, as already mentioned, the benefits of representing our own self interests on the world stage.
It is after leaving the EU that we would be free to concentrate on pushing forward with the introduction of The Harrogate Agenda’s (THA) six demands, which are based on the principles of Direct Democracy, as while leaving the undemocratic EU is a start we would still be faced by a corrupted and undemocratic Westminster. THA aims to give ‘Real Power to the People’.
Having left the EU an integral part of the FleXcit plan is the realisation that the democracy at Westminster must not only be greater and more responsible but more closely responsive to the peoples of Britain, to avoid them ever again being duped, as they were over the Common Market, by the MPs they have elected to serve them. Our political elite are increasingly a law unto themselves and only by the people being recognised as sovereign over our Parliament will things change. As a reminder THA’s six demands are:-
1. Recognition of our sovereignty:
The peoples of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland comprise the ultimate authority of their nations and are the source of all political power. That fact shall be recognised by the Crown and the Governments of our nations, and our Parliaments and Assemblies;
2. Real local democracy:
The foundation of our democracy shall be the counties (or other local units as may be defined), which shall become constitutional bodies exercising under the control of their peoples all powers of legislation, taxation and administration not specifically granted by the people to the national government;
3. Separation of powers:
The executive shall be separated from the legislature. To that effect, prime ministers shall be elected by popular vote; they shall appoint their own ministers, with the approval of parliament, to assist in the exercise of such powers as may be granted to them by the sovereign people of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; no prime ministers or their ministers shall be members of parliament or any legislative assembly;
4. The people’s consent:
No law, treaty or government decision shall take effect without the consent of the majority of the people, by positive vote if so demanded, and that none shall continue to have effect when that consent is withdrawn by the majority of the people;
5. No taxation or spending without consent:
No tax, charge or levy shall be imposed, nor any public spending authorised, nor any sum borrowed by any national or local government except with the express approval the majority of the people, renewed annually on presentation of a budget which shall first have been approved by their respective legislatures;
6. A constitutional convention:
Parliament, once members of the executive are excluded, must host a constitutional convention to draw up a definitive codified constitution for the peoples of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It shall recognise their sovereign status and their inherent, inalienable rights and which shall be subject to their approval.For more on THA see:
I still believe it will be important, in this thread, to continue to link to what others are saying about UKIP, as I originally set out to do, and generally comment on such links while adding my own thoughts as necessary and applicable. This of course helps to expose the incompetence at the heart of Nigel’s EUkip and of some of his supporters as demonstrated on this forum.
So by adding to my original aim, of highlighting EUkip’s need to reform, I will now use this thread to seek to explain the importance to UKIP of the FleXcit plan as currently the only workable and honourable ‘eXit and Survival plan’ from the EU which helps neutralise the Establishments use of FUD and will thus help us to win the referendum.
That UKIP members and branches still potentially have some clout, with their county coverage, is not in doubt but they will need to start to think for themselves and therefore must look beyond Nigel Farage and his cabal’s poor leadership and to push and promote the FlexCit plan. Nigel’s current focus on anti EU rhetoric and attempts to win seats next year will NOT on its own help us to win the all important referendum. I don’t hold out much hope that Nigel is capable of changing his ways and the behaviour and quality of output of his 24 MEPs will, in a relatively short time, give us all the evidence we need to see if they are really serious about wanting to leave the EU.
I hope you will join constructively in this new phase of this thread, working to assist in supporting and improving the FleXcit plan, in the spirit of continuous development, between now and the referendum ‘if’ and ‘when’ held. Also I hope you will do all you can to spread the word that the FleXcit plan helps counter the Establishments use of FUD to maintain the status quo by answering the all important question as to ‘HOW’ we can safely leave the EU. This is a plan that does NOT get in the way of party allegiances and so should provide no barrier to any real ’Outer’ supporting it.
Don’t forget that no political party is permitted to lead on either the Yes or the No side in any referendum so those who are really serious about seeking a safe and honourable exit from the EU should be able to gather around this plan.
So FleXcit it has to be if UKIP or anyone else for that matter really wants to win the battle to successfully leave the EU.
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
Ukip-vs-EUkip 
That really turns UKIP into a bed-blocker. Far from educating the voting public at large, Farage isn’t even reaching his own members. This is the response of a branch chairman to a question on UKIP’s policy to Art 50:
“My understanding is that Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is designed to prevent the sheep leaving the fold. We must leave on our own terms, even though we know the technocrats will try to make it as difficult as they can”.
I suppose, though, that if this is the level of ignorance in the party, it is better if UKIP keep away from EU issues and leaves them to the grown-ups.
It’s a fork – bank on about the EU and stay on the outside, quieten down on that subject in order to increase your vote and get accused of abandoning your principles. The question is, do you really think Farage has given up Brexit as a goal?
A couple of points. Where is the sense in going quiet on the EU just as the ‘in’ campaign is dominating the debate? And surely the question to ask is if Farage has Brexit as a goal, what is he doing to bring it about? Finding evidence to support his exit credentials is getting harder all the time. I believe he is leaving EU withdrawal behind for personal reasons.
In answer to your question, I think Farage will do anything that helps him realise his ambition. If that means turning UKIP into just another mainstream party to help him into Westminster, then I have no doubt he would do whatever suits him.
The reality of the hustings may have been overlooked in this piece. Connecting with the voter and backing up the EU withdrawal case with other policies that appeal is important and probably necessary to attract votes.
It works like this, “That Nigel Farage who wants the UK to leave the EU, well he talks a lot of sense on HS2 (etc. etc. etc.), so maybe he’s onto something when it comes to Europe”.
Furthermore the complexities of withdrawal, via Article 50 or indeed any other means, will remain opaque until the process of withdrawal begins. No one in Brussels or London ever imagined Article 50 would ever be used in anger. Nobody, whether that be the Commission, Council or indeed UKIP can second guess this one. It is simply uncharted territory.
This is not to say that this issue should not be discussed, and that the possible options, mechanisms and pitfall analysed; but I suggest that for Mr. Farage to publicly raise this issue, at the present juncture, would be both foolish, unnecessary and counter productive.
First we ideally need the settled will of the people to be firmly in favour of withdrawal and for that to be demonstrated democratically and unequivocally. At this point the UK will presumably play its hand (badly or otherwise).
However, today we are not even sure if Lisbon will be politically or even legally the most important Treaty. Indeed if Cameron’s timetable is followed, it does seem possible that by 2018 a fully federalised Eurozone could be in-place (assuming that insolvency and civil unrest hasn’t put paid to the centralist agenda). This may well change the dynamic in Europe so that it is a new Treaty, not Lisbon, that federalists will rally around.
The criticism of Mr. Farage’s strategy is rather harsh, his job is to attract voters and at this stage not to inform them about the technicalities of the possible mechanisms of withdrawal. This is made especially so at this time when even the most prescient would be hard pressed to offer a credible forecast as to how things might actually pan out.
In light of that Farage, and UKIP’s over all approach of weakening the Conservative Party in its Europhile form at least (and of course to a lesser extent the others) and raising UKIP’s profile on EU and non-EU policy areas is working. So much so that even the President of the United States (whilst remaining philosophically a Europhile) raised the Referendum issue on the steps of the White House. It is UKIP’s rise that has forced the issue onto the agenda. So far their strategy not only looks relatively successful, it is also the only democratic game in town.
That does not mean those with more in-depth knowledge should not continue to debate, explore, and advise on the consequences, mechanisms and possible outcomes. Or that UKIp’s approach should not be criticised, as it has been consistently done on this site and at both a credible and intellectually coherent level .
Never-the-less there comes a time, especially as support and electoral success increase, when the politics of analysis and election separate.
The most important thing is votes cast in the direction of the UK’s withdrawal. With those votes comes moral authority, a force that may prove to be more powerful than Article 50, or indeed any other piece of ill thought out EU legislation (for in reality Lisbon was never designed to be a Treaty but a law within which the powers and functions of the EU were re-codified and increased).
It seems not unlikely that if, when and indeed how the UK leaves the EU, will be most influenced by the number of votes UKIP can attract in 2014 and the threat to repeat any success in 2015 and then ultimately on the size of any majority in favour of exit, should an IN/OUT be held and won.
It would seem that without UKIP none of this would be even a faint possibility. I might add that I am not a UKIP member, but it seems to me that you are asking them to jump a relatively distant fence when the electorate are still undecided at the water jump.
I am sure AT is right in all that he (and Richard North similarly) says about and criticises UKIP/Farage. For me, Farage has provided a valuable service in promoting EUscepticism and having brought it or helped to bring it to public attention. The success of UKIP now gives concern to the Conservatives and others and it was Farage with his tub-thumping who largely achieved this. For this I am appreciative.
But that, I know, does not mean he has the ability to lead a mainstream parliamentary party. The difficulty is that we have no alternative at this stage. Just for whom do I vote in the coming European elections and in the subsequent UK GE? None of the main 3 parties is worth considering so it just leaves UKIP or my not voting at all.
If AT or others have any helpful suggestions. my thanks in advance.
Sorry, I meant “AM”.
LeoSavantt,
Things can be seen that way.
However, the view you take depends on how much faith you have in Farage’s initial intent and then steadfastness to remain true to UKIPs primary purpose of leaving he EU.
I think Leo has put more strategic thought into one post than Farage has into one year of UKIP activity.
People don’t seem to grasp that Farage’s priorities are Nigel Farage and money.
Leo’s argument reminds me of the hundreds of comments on Conservative Home arguing Cameron was only pretending to be a social democrat Europhile and that once in power he would suddenly reveal his inner conservative. We all know what happened there. Why suppose Farage has any more depth than Cameron?
AM,
Yes, I was thinking about Cameron the supposed eurosceptic wolf in europhile sheep’s clothing, playing his cards close to his chest. He turned out to be a sheep and a lot of us thought he was nothing else from the outset.
Being a political party carries temptations and compromises.
In UKIP’s case it was argued that if they got MEPs they’d ‘go native’ and there’s certainly an argument to be made for that.
In the case of representation at Westminster, especially with no immediate prospect of power, there has to be the temptation to fit in with the social-democratic consensus and occupy the LibDem niche of being a general protest party – and letting the question of leaving the EU fade into the background.
Most UKIP supporters are I fear politically naive so it is not that they don’t care it is that they just simply don’t know or haven’t worked out what makes Nigel tick.
@Dufyken
“…For me, Farage has provided a valuable service in promoting EUscepticism and having brought it or helped to bring it to public attention. The success of UKIP now gives concern to the Conservatives and others and it was Farage with his tub-thumping who largely achieved this…..”
Well, you’re not wrong. Farage has, to an extent {promoted] EU-scepticism, but what has he done to advance it?
Can you name a single crowning achievement of any UKIP MEP since 2009?
No, neither can I.
No MPs, some county councillors (unless disgraced and resigned), sabotaged mayoral and London Assembly elections… at what point do you wake up and realise it’s a personality cult?
@Nailer
Thanks for the response. I do not take issue with anything you have said but I still have no answer as to how I should vote in forthcoming elections – who else but UKIP?
@ Dufken
I vote for them as by far the least worst remotely credible option, but I don’t believe in them as it were. They’re a political party and while we’re stuck with electing one team or another of dictators, there’s no reason to believe UKIP are immune to the forces which made LibLabCon what they are.
Actually, I don’t even see LibLabCon as elected dictators, more like the current suit worn by the permanent government of civil service, local government, the EU, NGOs, QUANGOs etc., all untouched by elections every five years. The answer I’d say, is some measure of direct democracy where political parties are much reduced in their role, and we’d be far less likely to have the likes of Blair and Cameron taking very unpopular and far-reaching actions on a whim or for completely self-serving reasons.
The other problem we have is the major players in the political party game having a gentlemens’ agreement not to address certain issues of wide concern, and then fighting over a middle-ground which they feel comfortable with. Is it heretical to suggest that UKIP could be drawn into this if they had enough tribal support?
@Nial Warry
Most (enter political party) supporters are I fear politically naive so it is not that they don’t care it is that they just simply don’t know or haven’t worked out what makes (enter first name of leader) tick.
Admittedly, we do expect far higher standards of UKIP, notionally the outsiders seeking radical change.
Dufyken don’t vote for any of them it only encourages them!!