Cameron: "I think it is worth understanding what leaving would involve – there is the
Norway option. You can be like Norway – and you can have full access to the
single market but you have absolutely no say over the rules of that market. In Norway they sometimes call it ‘Government by fax’ because you are simply
taking the instructions about every rule in the single market from Brussels
without any say on what those rules are."
It was Witterings from Witney that alerted me via email to this Newsnight programme on Wednesday (copy going on youtube later today) in particular this comment (32:12) from Helle Hagenau, who worked as Secretary General in Norway's No to EU in 2001:
“No, we are not governed by fax because
the European agreement, the single market agreement, that has a clause
when we can veto a directive if we don’t like it; and we have done
that.”
In one simple sentence one of the long running and best known EU arguments for remaining members has been nailed for the lie that it is, yet the comment, dynamite as it is, seems hitherto have passed by unnoticed by a large number of euroscpetics.
Witterings has the details which is worth reading in full, the key one is this from the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (6.1.4) - the right of veto:
“According to the principle of unanimity
applied in the EEA Joint Committee, all the EFTA states must agree in
order for new EU legislation to be integrated into the EEA Agreement and
for it to apply to cooperation between the EFTA states and the EU. If
one EFTA state opposes integration, this also affects the other EFTA
states in that the rules will not apply to them either, neither in the
individual states nor between the EFTA states themselves nor in their
relations with the EU. This possibility that each EFTA state has to
object to new rules that lie within the scope of the EEA Agreement
becoming applicable to the EFTA pillar is often referred to as these
parties’ right of veto.”
In short if Norway doesn't like the fax it receives it can simply file it in the bin. Cameron has been exposed as a liar, and his key argument against a 'Norway solution' has been comprehensively holed below the waterline.
"Government by fax" is a wholly inaccurate yet powerful soundbite, but now we have powerful soundbite in response - "that's a lie, Norway has a veto".
This was always bollocks TBF, just the usual incoherent lefty ramblings.
If I want to sell something to you, it has to be attractive to you... If we deal, you must walk away feeling that you are in a better place, and so must I.
If in the place that I want to do business the government does not allow (say) banks to charge interest, but rather take a fixed fee for a service rendered, then I must follow their rules, this is not being governed by fax, it is being accommodating enough to enable trade.
@right_writes Absolutely I agree...the argument is easily dismissed by facts and logic as you quite rightly point out.
Trouble is in politics it's governed by soundbites...rather than the facts. Now we have an effective one in response...and we all know how Cameron likes his vetos :-)
There's also the Richard North argument that many EU directives are just EU implementations of regulations agreed by international bodies. Norway has representation in these bodies, but EU countries don't because the EU is their collective voice. So we really don't have much of a say now.
Part of the problem with the 'having a voice in the EU' argument is that it's hard to see where it's ever made a difference, therefore it's difficult to argue for the tragedy of losing it.
The debate takes place at an amazingly superficial level, and the idea that we will be reduced to the state of Norway or Switzerland already predisposes people to dismiss it.
@cosmic Indeed, I've read Richard's arguments - the 'fax' proposal doesn't have a leg to stand on. At least now we can also dismiss it in very easy terms as well as in the details.
You're spot on about "The debate takes place at an amazingly superficial level..." There's always with the British public of an element of 'leave it to the experts' with politics, but I've long come to the conclusion that 'aside from some deception' most of those in the establishment are just plain stupid.
"I've long come to the conclusion that 'aside from some deception' most of those in the establishment are just plain stupid."
I saw John Cleese explain that he'd taken to comedy because he saw it as an opportunity to show how idiotic politicians could be on occasion. He abandoned it in depression because it dawned on him that they really didn't have the foggiest idea what they were doing.
I think the main point of attack is to pin down the renegotiation codswallop; they have no answers, and so they are pushed to an Art 50 exit, not being able to join in the full union and not being able to accept not having a seat at the top table.
The Norway fax democracy and Greater Switzerland approaches are ridiculous on their face because of the state of Norway and Switzerland. The RN argument and the veto are slap down counters, like Bruce Lee casually deflecting a deadly kick with one hand before it's developed any power.
The facile nature of political arguments presented to the electorate works to our advantage in this case.
Civil servants may work at a deeper level but even then there are deep currents which don't go their way.
It was a major mistake to introduce Norway and Switzerland into the argument, although they could hardly be avoided
A blog about the anti-democratic and pernicious European Union with particular emphasis on its impact here in the UK. Also I'll cover British politics and occasionally chuck some whimsical nonsense in as well.
"The EU is the old Soviet Union dressed in Western clothes" (President Gorbachev)
“I have lived in your future ….and it doesn’t work” (Russian dissident Vladimir Bukovsky on the EU)
"Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe" (Treaty of Rome 1957)
"This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union..." (Maastricht Treaty 1992)
"Now we've signed it - we had better read it" (Douglas Hurd, former Foreign Secretary on the Maastricht Treaty)
The supremacy of Community Law when in conflict with national law is the logical consequence of the federal concept of the Community" (H P Ipsen, 1964 - 9 years before we joined)
"[Norway] held a referendum [on the EU] that went the wrong way" (Douglas Hurd, former Foreign Secretary on the Maastricht Treaty)
"The Tories have been indulging in their usual double talk. When they go to Brussels they show the greatest enthusiasm for political union. When they speak in the House of Commons they are most anxious to aver that there is no commitment whatever to any political union." (Labour MP Hugh Gaitskell, October 1962)
"The Constitution is the capstone of a European Federal State." (Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian Prime Minister)
'If it's a Yes we will say "on we go", and if it's a No we will say "we continue".' (Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Council)
“The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact.” (German Chancellor Angela Merkel on the Lisbon Treaty)
"I have read some of [the Lisbon Treaty] but not all of it." (Caroline Flint, former Minister for Europe)
“They must go on voting until they get it right.” (Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission)
"If you go through all the structures and features of this emerging European monster you will notice that it more and more resembles the Soviet Union." (Russian dissident Vladimir Bukovsky)
"The European Union is a state under construction." (Elmar Brok, Chairman of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs)
“I have never understood why public opinion about European ideas should be taken into account at all,” (French PM Raymond Barre)
“I believe neither the French nor the Dutch really rejected the constitutional treaty.” (Jean-Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg)
“The 'no' votes were a demand for more Europe, not less.” (Romano Prodi, former President of the European Commission) "I don’t want an ‘in or out’ referendum because I don’t think out is in Britain’s interests.” (David Cameron, who won't hold a referendum because he thinks he'll lose)
"...there are constitutional innovations." (Mr Patrick Jenkin, former Tory MP during 2nd reading of European Communities Bill 1972)
"No government dependent on a democratic vote could possibly agree in advance to the sacrifices which any adequate plan for European Union must involve. The people must be led slowly and unconsciously into the abandonment of their traditional economic defences, not asked…" (Peter Thorneycroft, former Tory MP)
"[Bailouts are] expressly forbidden in the treaties by the famous no-bailout clause. De facto, we have changed the treaty." (French Europe minister Pierre Lelouche)
"The transfer by the States from their domestic legal system to the Community legal system of the rights and obligations arising under the Treaty carries with it a permanent limitation of their sovereign rights... against which a subsequent act incompatible with the concept of the Community cannot prevail" (ECJ Case 6/64)
"[The EU Constitution represents] a visible move in only one direction...from intergovernmentalism to supranationalism...and this should be explained to the people of Europe" (Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus)
"European integration is fortunately a train moving too fast for anyone to stop it." (Vaclav Havel, Czech Politician)
“Millions of people in this country will feel as I do, that legislation passed in this way, with no consent, cannot command the assent of the country and would lack moral and constitutional validity”. (Douglas Jay MP during 2nd reading of European Communities Bill 1972)
"It is an illusion to think that [EU] states can hold on to their autonomy." (Hans Tietmeyer, head of the Bundesbank 1991)
"...within ten years 80% of our economic legislation, perhaps even fiscal and social as well’ would come from the EU." (Jacques Delors, President of EU Commission 1988)
"...we must now face the difficult task of moving towards a single economy, a single political unity." (Romano Prodi, President of EU Commission 1999)
"The day of the nation state is over." (Roman Herzog, German president, 1996)
"The European system of supranationality comes at the cost of democracy." (Lord Leach of Fairford)
"A European currency will lead to member nations transferring their sovereignty over financial and wage policy as well as monetary affairs." (Hans Tietmeyer, head of the Bundesbank, 1991)
"The single currency is the greatest abandonment of sovereignty since the foundation of the European Community: the decision is of an essentially political nature" (Felipe Gonzalez, a Spanish former PM, 1998)
"The [EU] Council of Ministers will have far more power over the budgets of member states than the federal government in the United States has over the budget of Texas." (Jean-Claude Trichet, current head of the European Central Bank)
"One must never forget that monetary union, which the two of us were the first to propose more than a decade ago, is ultimately a political project. It aims to give a new impulse to the historic movement toward union of the European states" (Giscard d’Estaing, who drafted the EU Constitution 1997)
"The process of monetary union goes hand in hand, must go hand in hand, with political integration and ultimately political union. EMU [economic and monetary union] is, and always was meant to be, a stepping stone on the way to a united Europe" (Wim Duisenberg, first president of the EU Central Bank)
"I like the English style of life. I feel more at home here in London" (Tintin creator, Belgian born Herge)
"We are not forming coalitions between States, but union among people" (Jean Monnet 'Father of Europe')
"The sovereign nations of the past can no longer solve the problems of the present: they cannot ensure their own progress or control their own future. And the Community itself is only a stage on the way to the organised world of tomorrow." (Jean Monnet 'Father of Europe') “There is no question of Britain losing essential national sovereignty” (Ted Heath)
But...
The British Government Knew The Consequences In 1971
...the transfer of major executive responsibilities to the bureaucratic Commission in Brussels will exacerbate popular feeling of alienation from government. To counter this feeling, strengthened local and regional democratic processes within the member states and effective Community regional economic and social policies will be essential. Parliamentary sovereignty will be affected as we have seen. But the need for Parliament to play an increasing (if perhaps more specialised) role may develop. Firstly, although a European Parliament might in the longest term become an effective, directly elected democratic check upon the bureaucracy, this will not be for a long time, and certainly not in the decade to come. In the interval, to minimise the loss of democratic control it will be important that the British Parliamentarians should play an effective role both through the British membership in the European Parliament and through the processes of the British Parliament itself.
This was always bollocks TBF, just the usual incoherent lefty ramblings.
ReplyDeleteIf I want to sell something to you, it has to be attractive to you... If we deal, you must walk away feeling that you are in a better place, and so must I.
If in the place that I want to do business the government does not allow (say) banks to charge interest, but rather take a fixed fee for a service rendered, then I must follow their rules, this is not being governed by fax, it is being accommodating enough to enable trade.
@right_writes Absolutely I agree...the argument is easily dismissed by facts and logic as you quite rightly point out.
ReplyDeleteTrouble is in politics it's governed by soundbites...rather than the facts. Now we have an effective one in response...and we all know how Cameron likes his vetos :-)
There's also the Richard North argument that many EU directives are just EU implementations of regulations agreed by international bodies. Norway has representation in these bodies, but EU countries don't because the EU is their collective voice. So we really don't have much of a say now.
ReplyDeletePart of the problem with the 'having a voice in the EU' argument is that it's hard to see where it's ever made a difference, therefore it's difficult to argue for the tragedy of losing it.
The debate takes place at an amazingly superficial level, and the idea that we will be reduced to the state of Norway or Switzerland already predisposes people to dismiss it.
@cosmic Indeed, I've read Richard's arguments - the 'fax' proposal doesn't have a leg to stand on. At least now we can also dismiss it in very easy terms as well as in the details.
ReplyDeleteYou're spot on about "The debate takes place at an amazingly superficial level..." There's always with the British public of an element of 'leave it to the experts' with politics, but I've long come to the conclusion that 'aside from some deception' most of those in the establishment are just plain stupid.
"I've long come to the conclusion that 'aside from some deception' most of those in the establishment are just plain stupid."
ReplyDeleteI saw John Cleese explain that he'd taken to comedy because he saw it as an opportunity to show how idiotic politicians could be on occasion. He abandoned it in depression because it dawned on him that they really didn't have the foggiest idea what they were doing.
I think the main point of attack is to pin down the renegotiation codswallop; they have no answers, and so they are pushed to an Art 50 exit, not being able to join in the full union and not being able to accept not having a seat at the top table.
The Norway fax democracy and Greater Switzerland approaches are ridiculous on their face because of the state of Norway and Switzerland. The RN argument and the veto are slap down counters, like Bruce Lee casually deflecting a deadly kick with one hand before it's developed any power.
The facile nature of political arguments presented to the electorate works to our advantage in this case.
Civil servants may work at a deeper level but even then there are deep currents which don't go their way.
It was a major mistake to introduce Norway and Switzerland into the argument, although they could hardly be avoided
To quote you, TBF:
ReplyDeleteTa muchly for the link!
"...we will be reduced to the state of Norway or Switzerland..."
ReplyDeleteWhat, wealthy people living peacefully in a beautiful country and managing their own affairs?
Well clearly that would be awful.
@weekend Yachtsman Quite...and I thought the wording was actually rather rude as well - very demeaning to Norway and Switzerland.
ReplyDelete