Article 50 is designed to thwart the Brexit vote, not enable it.
When EU countries got together there was never any thought that those same countries would ever want to leave. As time passed and people became more frustrated with the EU, they decided to include a mechanism for people to leave. It all sounds good so far.
However Article 50 was designed by the EU as a device to thwart any country wishing to leave by making the process so convoluted and difficult that all but the most ardently opposed nation would give up before they ever got started. For example it gives all the decision-making power to the EU and these decisions are made behind closed doors without the ‘outgoing’ nation being involved in or party to any of the discussions.
This means an endless and expensive round of ‘we want’ ‘you’re not getting’ for possibly the next 2 years. At the end of which, if there is no deal, we exit the Single Market and the EU applies tariffs of up to 6% under World Trade Organisation rules (or not, if they want to keep all the German car makers and French wine producers in business).
This means we potentially waste 2 years of our lives:
- arguing with an organisation that has shown already for the last 40 years that it does not wish to listen
- having to accept ever increasing numbers of EU migrants many of whom are a continuing drain on taxpayer funds
- giving the EU £13 billion every year that we BORROW from the international monetary fund and other large international banks while they have us locked in by Article 50 negotiations
- being unable to take advantage of any free trade deals other countries outside the EU wish to have with us.
Many people don’t know this, but after 31st March 2017 it would appear the EU goes to a system of qualified majority voting on any country wishing to leave the EU. That means if a qualified majority refuse to let us leave, we don’t leave? Theresa May is saying she will trigger Article 50 before the end of March 2017. But what if she doesn’t?
To add insult to injury, Theresa May has said that she will enshrine all EU law into UK law using her ‘Great Repeal Bill’ which is designed to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act. Eventually. When she gets round to it. That doesn’t sound like repealing anything, nor what we voted for when we chose to leave the EU.
This is really why Article 50 really is a red herring though. Our membership of the EU would appear to be entirely illegal.
The 1972 European Communities Act and the signing of the 1957 Treaty of Rome by Edward Heath were illegal acts. These acts were perpetrated against the sovereignty of the crown and without the people being allowed to have their say. This was done BEFORE the referendum on being a member of the then European Economic Community in 1974. And Heath had the temerity to go on television to state there was no erosion of sovereignty from a vote to be in it.
The 1688 Bill Of Rights states that sovereignty cannot be given away to a foreign power (except as a result of losing a war) unless the people of the country agree to it. But Heath took that decision himself with his government by passing the 1972 Act and signing the 1957 Treaty of Rome, the founding document of the EU.
A letter from Lord Kilmuir to Ted Heath at the time laid this out clearly enough but most people don’t even know it exists. Many years later when Heath was challenged about his actions, he said the UK public was effectively too stupid to understand what was good for it. This situation was then compounded by John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown also giving away sovereignty to the EU without the people’s specific assent in signing the Maastricht Treaty, the Nice Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty. David Cameron himself campaigned to get a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty because of the removal of sovereignty it represented!
In effect it means these treaties are therefore illegal and null and void. Taken to its logical conclusion, our membership of the EU is in fact illegal in its entirety and if this government wished to it could simply declare that fact and walk away.
The information supporting the above is well documented on the internet should any politician interested (or any person) wish to find out.