Britain can reverse Article 50
According to a report in The Guardian, a leaked European Parliament resolution, in which EU Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier played a major role in putting together, says that the UK will be able to revoke Article 50 before it expires. The resolution states that the UK will be able to revoke its Article 50 notification but this process must be “subject to conditions set by all EU27 so they cannot be used as a procedural device or abused in an attempt to improve the actual terms of the United Kingdom’s membership.” However, the resolution makes clear that Britain cannot use the revocability of Article 50 as a means of improving the Brexit package it agrees with EU or for any other tactical purpose. The key line can be found on page four of the document titled Draft Motion For A Resolution. It’s highlighted here: Whereas a revocation of notification needs to be subject to conditions set by all EU-27 so they cannot be used as a procedural device or abused in an attempt to improve the actual terms of the United Kingdom’s membership http://uk.businessinsider.com/eu-brexit-resolution-article-50-can-be-revoked-2017-3
Could a new government reverse Article 50 and undo Brexit?
Most recently, a leaked European Parliament draft resolution has said that the UK will be able to revoke Article 50 before it expires if the rest of the EU agrees. That sounds tough and the UK would need 27 other countries to vote to let us back in. But in the scenario of a new prime minister who favours Remain, it would suit all parties just fine: It is highly likely that the other EU nations will welcome back the UK under the existing conditions of our membership. But the issue has not been settled in the courts, not even the European Court of Justice. Here is what various legal authorities have most recently said: THOSE SAYING ARTICLE 50 IS IRREVOCABLE: Justice Secretary Liz Truss has said, “my understanding is that it is irrevocable.” She made the claim on “The Andrew Marr Show.” The official position of the government is that it would never undo its decision. The UK Supreme Court, in its decision requiring the House of Commons to vote on a bill triggering Article 50, said, “In these proceedings, it is common ground that notice under article 50(2) (which we shall call ‘Notice’) cannot be given in qualified or conditional terms and that, once given, it cannot be withdrawn.” That, however, was merely a procedural assumption in the case. The court did not rule on the merits of the position. As a matter of law it remains undecided. THOSE SAYING ARTICLE 50 IS REVOCABLE: The EU-27 Article 50 negotiators say: “… a revocation needs to be subject to conditions set by all EU-27 so they cannot be used as a procedural device or abused in an attempt to improve the actual terms of the United Kingdom’s membership”. Lord Kerr, the author of Article 50, says “you can change your mind while the process is going on.” He told the BBC: “During that [two-year] period, if a country were to decide actually we don’t want to leave after all, everybody would be very cross about it being a waste of time … They might try to extract a political price but legally they couldn’t insist that you leave.” Speaking in the House of Lords this month, Kerr added: “When the government says as a matter of policy that they will not withdraw the notification … they implicitly confirm that in law they could withdraw it and they could. It is revocable.” European Council President Donald Tusk suggested last year that Britain could change its mind. “In my opinion, the only real alternative to a ‘hard Brexit’ is ‘no Brexit’” he said last October, adding that once exit discussions were over Britain must “assess the outcome of the negotiations and determine if Brexit is really in their interest.” The House of Lords was advised by its own legal counsel: “It is absolutely clear that you cannot be forced to go through with it if you do not want to: for example, if there is a change of government … There is nothing in Article 50 formally to prevent a member state from reversing its decision.” All of this sounds wildly implausible right now. But it’s worth bearing in mind that British politics currently consists of nothing but surprises. And two of the previously “unthinkable” conditions for reversing Article 50 have already happened: The government has called a new election and the Scottish parliament has voted for a new independence referendum. http://uk.businessinsider.com/can-article-50-be-reversed-after-general-election-2017-4
EURO MYTHS BUSTED
Download Euro Myths Busted here WHAT HAS EUROPE EVER DONE FOR US? Download what has Europe Ever Done for Us here http://www.lindamcavanmep.org.uk/how-the-eu-works/euro-myths-busted.php
Are the British simply different?
Yes, and so is every other country! All have their different languages, cultures, histories and laws. No-one joins the EU in order to lose their identity. The EU contains no majority language group or culture; we are all minorities. In fact, the EU’s motto is “United in Diversity”. Evidence It was Margaret Thatcher who said that being in Europe hadn’t made the French any less French, and on this she was right. Being in Europe hasn’t made us any less British either!
Switzerland and Norway survive perfectly well outside the EU
Be careful what you wish for! Switzerland and Norway are both small countries with specialised and niche economies: Switzerland with its often-criticised banking system, and Norway with its massive oil reserves. But their industries have to follow EU rules as that’s their main market. As non-members, they have no say over the adoption of those EU rules. They cannot defend their interests. They have, effectively, lost sovereignty through their isolation â€” as the Norwegian government itself admits. Evidence Nor does staying out save money as the Norwegian contribution per capita to the European budget is about the same as that of the UK! For the Norwegians, being non-members, it’s taxation without representation. Evidence
We thought we were only joining a free trade zone
Not true. We were never hoodwinked. We actually left a free trade zone (EFTA) to join the EU, specifically because we felt free trade was not enough. The Wilson government, setting out its reasons for applying in 1967, stressed that Europe is now faced with the opportunity of a great move forward in political unity and we can and indeed we must play our full part in it. And before the referendum in 1975, national newspapers on both left and right were clear that political, not just economic, integration was proposed and would be a positive outcome. Evidence
The European Court of Human Rights is forcing us to…..
The European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU. It’s an entirely separate institution, with separate membership, set up by Britain after World War II to enforce the Convention on Human Rights which we helped to write. Britain has always been a signatory to this convention, and leaving the EU wouldn’t change that. Evidence Incidentally, despite the widespread myth that the European Court of Human Rights and the UK are forever at loggerheads, figures show that the Court rules against the UK in less than 1% of all the cases we are involved in! Evidence
EU health tourism costs the NHS billions
In fact, official figures from the Department of Health show that the opposite is true! The cost to other European countries of treating Brits abroad is more than five times the cost to the NHS of treating EU visitors here. In other words, we benefit enormously from the EU rules, without which the NHS would be £125 million worse off each year. Evidence This is not really a surprise. Brits who travel abroad tend to be older and so the healthcare they get abroad is more expensive. Other EU citizens who come to the UK are relatively younger and healthier, so they are less likely to need medical treatment while they’re here.
British businesses are drowning in EU red tape
Not true. When we get it right, EU legislation is an exercise in cutting red tape! After all, we need common rules for the common market to protect workers, consumers and the environment. When we replace 28 divergent sets of national rules with a single set of pan-European rules, we can cut duplication and compliance costs. Just one example: it’s now possible to register a trademark once, valid across 28 countries, instead of having to do 28 different sets of form-filling, registering, troubleshooting and fee-paying. Evidence EU technical standards are generally drafted and agreed by the industry themselves. This means that most standards are based on the national regulations that they replace, rather than brand new requirements. Of course, we would need those rules anyway, but sharing them across the entire market means businesses only have to work to one set of standards rather than 28. Evidence Simplifying the compliance framework for businesses in particular has been a major priority of the European Commission in recent years. The REFIT programme is a rolling scheme to evaluate, simplify and repeal rules. Evidence
The European Parliament is a rubber-stamp parliament
Not true. In fact, the European Parliament is much better than national parliaments at saying no to controversial proposals. And of the proposals that it accepts, very few go through without significant amendment. Evidence In this way, the European Parliament is much more effective than national parliaments such as Westminster, as there’s no compliant government majority to ensure that proposals are whipped through. Just think about it: it’s headline news if MPs ever vote against the government’s wishes!
Britons lose out because of EU migration
Not true. British people are the EU’s biggest beneficiaries of the right to settle anywhere in the EU: more British people live in other EU countries than any other nationality! And there are about as many Brits living elsewhere in the EU as there are other EU nationals in Britain. Evidence In reality, only 3.6% of the UK population is from another EU country. Most migration in the UK is from outside the EU, which means freedom of movement rules don’t apply and it’s completely up to the British government how to manage this migration. Evidence And EU migrants are net contributors to the economy. Between 2001 and 2011, they contributed 34% more in taxes than they took out in benefits and services. Evidence Compared to the UK average, EU migrants are more highly educated, more likely to be employed, and much less likely to claim benefits. Evidence
Our most important markets are China and the US, not the EU
Not true. The EU is the worldâ€™s biggest single market, and itâ€™s far and away our biggest trading partner, amounting to well over half of our world exports. Indeed, we export more to Holland alone than to the entirety of the Commonwealth. Evidence The same applies to our imports, with European countries providing about two thirds of our incoming goods and services. Evidence
The EU accounts have never been signed
Not true. There is a persistent myth (reliably recycled every year by UK newspapers) that the European Court of Auditors has refused to sign off the EU’s accounts, but this is entirely false. In the most recent audit year (2013), the Court gave a clean bill of health to the accounts for the seventh time in a row. This means every euro spent from the EU budget was duly recorded in the books and accounted for. Evidence According to the European Court of Auditors, around 0.2% of the EU budget may have been subject to fraud. Any amount of possible fraud is unacceptable and needs challenging. But it’s worth noting that the figure of 0.2% is much lower than most national budgets! Evidence
EU membership costs us a fortune
Not true. In fact, our own (rather eurosceptic) government estimates that EU membership is worth Â£3000 a year to every British family. And the budget for the whole EU is just 1% of GDP, compared to about 49% spent by national governments. That’s just 2% of our public spending each year. Evidence Each country pays a contribution to the budget proportional to its wealth, so wealthier countries pay more. The exact amount varies each year, but over the seven-year cycle 2007-2013 our net annual contribution was £3.8 billion, or about £63 per person. The UK’s contribution is actually much lower than other similar sized economies such as Germany and France, partly because we get a special rebate. Evidence This contribution must be weighed against the financial benefits of our access to the single market. In 2011, the UK government estimated this to be between £30 billion and £90 billion per year €” so a return on investment of between 800% and 2370%. Evidence Many thousands of projects in the UK benefit each year. Detailed lists
The EU forces its will on member countries
Not true. Firstly, we don’t decide anything at EU level unless all member countries have explicitly agreed by treaty to do so and even then, each piece of legislation is agreed by national governments. For sensitive matters like tax and foreign affairs, the requirement for this agreement is complete unanimity, and in other areas, there is a very high qualified majority threshold. As a former Conservative UK minister admits, “It is very hard to find an EU regulation of significance that has been forced on an unwilling British minister who voted against it” Evidence
Most of our laws come from Brussels
Not true. The independent House of Commons library found that the real proportion is just 13.2% of our laws. And these figures include everything that even mentions the EU, even if it’s just a passing reference or a definition, according to the researchers! Evidence
European laws are made by unelected bureaucrats
Not true. The European Commission doesn’t make laws. It only makes proposals, which are then debated, amended and passed (or rejected) by elected national governments and directly-elected MEPs. In any case, Commissioners themselves are accountable to the European Parliament, which elects its president, approves its appointment and can dismiss it.
British businesses are clamouring for us to leave the EU
Not true. You wouldn’t believe it from the eurosceptic rhetoric, but in fact, both British businesses and inward investors have been emphatic that Britain must stay in!
- 85% of British manufacturers want us to remain in the EU, according to a 2014 survey by the British manufacturers’ association EEF. The association represents 600,000 companies of all sizes. Evidence
- Small businesses support EU membership. The Federation of Small Businesses argued in 2014 that the EU is good for business, and 20% of its members trade overseas. Evidence
- The Confederation of British Industry is a strong advocate for EU membership. British industry argues that the benefits significantly outweigh the costs and that it’s vital to our global competitiveness that we stay a member. Evidence
- The head of the UK government’s export credit guarantee agency reports EU membership is â€œcriticalâ€ for exporting around the world. Evidence
- British Chambers of Commerce members overwhelmingly want the UK to stay in the EU, and think withdrawal would have a bad impact on their future. Evidence
- Members of the Institute of Directors strongly support EU membership, with members voting more than three to one against UK exit in 2013. Evidence
- An independent poll of the top 500 British businesses in 2015 found that only 1% of boardroom bosses wanted to leave the EU. Evidence
- The financial sector in the City of London thinks that EU membership is an “enormous benefit”. Evidence
- A group of top free-market economists pointed out in 2014 that UK withdrawal from the EU would be a “grave threat” and would cause foreign investment to dry up. Evidence