Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Red Cliffs Of Dawlish
Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Wednesday, 30 March 2016

Article 50, Off Swiches & Nigerian Princes

All these electronic devices and appliances have the above common: ON/OFF Switches

When you buy a new modern electronic appliances usually it will come with an instructions manual. One of the most important commands you can input into the device is to turn it on and start using it after it starts using an energy source or else stop using it and turn it off where upon it stops using an energy source.

Let's think about this concept with respect to the European Union. When we entered the EEC we signed up to the EU Treaties and started using them. It seems very reasonable that when or if we decided to want to stop using the EU Treaties, then to turn the ruddy thing off, the off switch would need to be found in the Instructions Manual? Yes!

Reassuringly familiar! That 1 = On and that 0 = Off and the light acts as a secondary signal to inform it's status even more clearly.

It's true, the Off Switch for the European Union for any member is called Article 50 Lisbon Treaty, and more explanation here "Withdrawal Clause", it is:-

 I've added a nice flashing "BREXIT" logo alongside highlighted text: Press Here to "turn off".

Article 50 And Withdrawal: An explainer
To quote The Leave Alliance Explainer: "In summary Article 50 allows us to fulfil our international obligations, abide by our EU treaty agreements and allows for an orderly exit with minimum of disruption particularly with regarding trade."

EU Referendum: more angst on Article 50 

 Mysterious, Foreign Dignitary and their extravagant claims...

 You would do well to read Dr. RAE North's blog above and again also from Mr. Brexit GOD gets it largely right, yet Vote Leave offers a ludicrous response.

There's a couple of intuitive assumptions here:-
  1.  In a Referendum debate it should be clear what Signing up to EU Treaties means as well as how to "unsign" from EU Treaties.
  2. That this would not be the first time a member wanted to sign and unsign from some or other treaty.
  3. That such a process of "on/off" or unsigning is designed to work correctly towards that particular function!!! (or you'd want to use your warranty rights!!!).
Indeed. This is the case, Andrew Duff is an expert and reliable witness:-

The EU Bill and Parliamentary sovereignty - European Scrutiny Committee  ~ Written evidence from Andrew Duff MEP
11.   The establishment of the European Union is not irrevocable. Any state of the Union has always been able to secede from membership under the terms of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties by taking a unilateral decision according to its own constitutional requirements. In the case of the UK, abrogation of membership would be achieved by the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. Sensibly, the Lisbon treaty installed a mechanism for the orderly withdrawal from membership status and the negotiation of alternative arrangements between the states that go and those that stay (Article 50 TEU). 
One of the problems is that the people talking are infusing all sorts of bullshit and non-sequitur inferences:-
  • "New Relationship"
  • "Exit Agreement"
  • "Get a (new) Deal"
When these variable set names are given all sorts of fairies or goblins come flying out of the box and then the silly bitching matches starts with the commentators shouting "Oi REF!!!".

You can listen to Gus O'Donnell at the soundcloud provided at blog above, by Dr. RAE North. Dr. North suggests he provides at least "a more-or-less coherent rendition" and "That notwithstanding, he talks limited sense". I actually think this is overly generous, perhaps in contrast to the moronic Vote Leave it's x100 more sensible. But I am thinking to myself: This is one of the most experienced people in the UK who is on air to discuss the Rules of this game and not overly speculate but if providing commentary on scenarios to do so with sensible reasoning.

 Well, well, well... I really wish I could say, "I was learning how Article 50 works while you were still shitting yourself in your swaddling clothes..." to our Political Establishment, except the reality isn't quite like that! This has been available for >2+ years...

Instead listening to the tone of his voice he sounded liked a trembling, frightened bunny-rabbit and did not structure the order of things.
  1.  Leave Vote >51%
  2. From Referendum Day Result + N Days of preparation (>1 year likely) before triggering Article 50 Officially.
  3. Article 50 gives up to 2 Years to as quickly as possible tidy up renegotiations.
  4. During 2 Years UK remains EU member.
  5. Negotiations:-
  • Single Market entry
  • Relationship with EU
  • Trade - He even gets this wrong as per Mr. Brexit:-

"This is where O'Donnell went wrong, with his comments about trade treaties with other countries. We are not under pressure to negotiate trade treaties with other countries, only make a deal with the EU to maintain single market membership to ensure British trade and economic interests are not damaged by Brexit. There is provision in international law for the continuation of treaties by parties who were not parties to the original agreements, i.e. those made by the EU on behalf of the UK.
This means the UK would not have to renegotiate trade deals and agreements which already include us. The continuance of the existing agreements in their current form needs only to be agreed by both parties and assent to this lodged with the United Nations, in line with the conventional practice in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This was borne out by the separation of the Czech Republic and Slovakia into independent nation states."

 All this is covered in FLEXCIT. What is a complete non-sequitur is the concept of "haggling" over German Cars or "my stick is bigger than your stick" or "tough negotiator" or any of the rest of that Silver Spoon Dinner genteel, horseshit snobbery (!). This attitude that's rife in the Politicians and News-Media that then always ends with an over-the-top gracious and dull "Lord X, Tharnk YOO very much... ." This ends up substituting for the actual arguments and no one learns anything. That is the problem. By all means indulge in the above, so long as it does not get in the way of the actual significant communication - but it invariably, always does.

Yes the deficiencies of Article 50 are real, but no they are not an insurmountable barrier to post-hoc Democratic Mandate and secondly Expectation Setting as per The Market Solution ("not a penny more, not a penny less"). In context to it's opposite:-

 it does not seem so scary, it seems equivalent and even sensible.

I think possibly because I've read FLEXCIT it seems much clearer to me, and it borders on frustration (that emotion where you feel you can normally or should be able to do something very reasonably but for whatever present reason are unable to):-
"Here we are then, less than three months from the referendum and the leave campaign as a whole has not settled on the basics, with one of the main players offering a crass perversion which opens the door to the likes of O'Donnell and the "remain" campaign to put the boot in.

We also see a counter from justice minister Dominic Raab who declares O’Donnell "wrong", saying – not without merit – that: "O'Donnell isn't a diplomat or an international lawyer. I used to negotiate treaties and tell you we could get an exit agreement", he says.

But what we don't get from Raab is any intimation of how this apparent miracle is to be achieved. Apart from Vote Leave's insane proposal that we by-pass Article 50, trawling the newspapers leaves us none the wiser."

 I've personally always been suspicious that the foundation rules are not made clear, there's inevitably going to be cheating; and nowhere has this been more apparent and more consistent than Vote Leave's rejection of Article 50 as well as the Government's own attempts to avoid too much clarity on it as well:-
  • Transparency
  • Possibility
  • Expectation Setting 
  • International Law (a big world above the little EU)

 Not a perfect fit but useful: Replace "Anonymity" with "Unclear Rules" = "Total Fuckwad Polician or Journalist"

how it works and so this leaves the conclusion that if this is the best we get as people from the people running the Establishment then the next best is x100 worse from the major lead Leave Campaign run by more of the Establishment, what the problem really is is I think similar to these:-

 The behaviour of so many politicians and journalists in this Referendum is little better than Prince Jones Dimka or Prince Isa Ahmed!!!

If you can't get the basic ground rules established, we know the consequences:-
"And that is why, with the referendum closing by the day, we have not settled issues which should have been long resolved, and why this campaign has degenerated into one of the worst-managed displays of incompetence that I can ever recall. But then is is far more important that us serfs know our place, than doing what is necessary to win this referendum." 

 AIRBUS A320 cockpit and autopilot panel

The UK Establishment summed up:-
"Modern man lives isolated in his artificial environment, not because the artificial is evil as such, but because of his lack of comprehension of the forces which make it work- of the principles which relate his gadgets to the forces of nature, to the universal order. It is not central heating which makes his existence 'unnatural,' but his refusal to take an interest in the principles behind it. By being entirely dependent on science, yet closing his mind to it, he leads the life of an urban barbarian." ~ Arthur Koestler