For casual and foreign readers, ‘Brexit’ means ‘Britain to exit the EU’.
For some reason that he is not prepared to spell out, Cameron is in favour of staying in the EU. Let’s face it, if it were not for the furore about migrants and immigration, Cameron ET AL would be perfectly happy to go on enacting legislation produced by EU directives. Thus, I have no doubt whatsoever that the Tobacco Control Directive, which also controls substances which are not tobacco (being e-liquids), will be nodded through, as usual, by a compliant and ignorant Parliament. After all, if MPs are 80% non-smokers, what would they know about ecigs and ecig liquids? Why should they bother to find out? Far easier to avoid all that difficult reading and just vote as demanded by The Party. And The Party will demand that the directives must be enacted because the UK ratified some treaty or other.
Is that not the whole problem? That the UK ratified a treaty which required the UK to enact legislation with which it disagreed? Is that not a contradiction? If the UK is a Sovereign Nation, it can decide what to enact and what not to enact. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE for the UK to be forced to enact legislation with which it disagrees, if it is a sovereign nation. It is as simple as that. I remember that silly person, who somehow got herself promoted to a ministerial position (can’t remember her name), who said that our Parliament had no option but to enact legislation because the FCTC said so. She was quickly removed consequent upon that gaff (and possibly many others). Ah! Wait a minute, her name was MILTON! Anne Milton, to be precise).
After Milton was sacked, she was replaced by Soubry MP, who was just as bad if not worse. She opined in Parliamentary Committee, which was examining the wholly irregular commitment of the UK to some sort of EU abomination without that commitment being examined by the appropriate Parliamentary committee. During that meeting, she said that she thought that ecigs had been removed from the draft directive, which she had just voted for. Incredible, isn’t it?
But is that not precisely the same regarding Cameron’s ‘re-negotiation’? What is wrong with him? Why does he not see that he is being manipulated in just the same way that Milton MP and Soubry MP were manipulated?
It appears that there is such a thing as ‘The Vienna Convention’. That convention tried to make rules about treaties. By that I mean, international laws about treaties. Does anyone see the contradiction? The contradiction is that only a superior power can bind lower powers. For the UN (Vienna Convention) to make laws about treaties, it must be a superior power. It is nothing of the kind, and never has been. There is no One World Government with such powers.
What is really important about the UK breaking away from the EU is to re-establish National Sovereignty. I cannot understand why Cameron et al are so determined to destroy national sovereignty.
What it comes down to is this. The EU might have been a good thing had it been a ‘best practices’ organisation. Clearly, if a nation wishes to be part of a common market, it must abide by the rules of that market, otherwise it must leave. That does not mean that there are not aspects of the market with which it could engage. For example, it could engage with the common market in respect of agricultural products, but not in respect of electrical goods. That may sound silly, but that is the nature of treaties. Treaties are essentially short-term agreements. Essentially, they are, “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”. The idea that treaties could be the foundation of One World Government is laughable.
There are fundamental faults in the EU, and the same faults occur in the UN. A great fault is ‘equality of nations’. For example, the UK is probably the strongest nation militarily, followed by France. Or it could be the other way round.
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IS SAID BY EITHER NATION, UK AND FRANCE, about this imbalance. Is Germany secretly being re-militarised? Cameron does not mention it. Nor do the other Top People. They give enormous attention and publicity to smoking bans and ecig liquid bans, while ignoring militarisation.
As I see it, we have to get out of the EU. It is corrupt. I do not mean that only in a financial sense. I mean in a political sense. The People have no control whatsoever over it. The EU Parliament is a joke. Anyone who has watched videos of EU Parliament discussions can see immediately that the outcomes of votes have already been decided. But what is worse is that Nations have equal standing, depending upon population. In effect, the UK has 65 million votes, which is OK. But other nations have, in total, say, 300 million votes. Fine, but we must then come back to the nature of treaties. Treaties ARE NOT dependent upon votes. That is a huge fallacy, and is in fact historically false.
Any nation can abrogate any treaty whenever it wishes to. It does not have to explain to any World Government because their is no World Government. Nor is there any such thing as ‘International Law’. For example, there is the Geneva Convention about the treatment of prisoners of war, and, in a vague way, about the conduct of wars. Can anyone tell me how ISIS is complying with the Geneva Convention? It is not, and does not even know that it exists, or cares. Murder, mayhem, beheadings, smoking and alcohol bans, etc.
The Geneva Convention was a Treaty, and not some sort of One World Government law. In WW2, the Japs were not the least bit interested in such treaties.
If Cameron continues to support the EU, in its present utterly corrupt form, in every respect, then he is a fool.
The future of European countries depends upon SOCIAL integration. There will always be States which are tourist destinations because those States are warm and sunny, but have no easily accessed mineral deposits. Easy access is the key. In the UK, coal deposits were not far below the surface, and were easily accessed. Spain, at the moment, does not have such easily accessed deposits, and so it must rely upon imports.
These economic factors work themselves out. There is a ‘benefit’ merely by inhabiting a warm country like Spain. Spaniards (and Portuguese and Italians) do not suffer freezing cold sleet, and freezing cold rain.
Is it not weird that Tobacco Control hit the easiest targets first? By that I mean that indoor smoking bans were only likely to have an economic affect in places where most people were likely to be indoors, eg England. In Australia, the affects would be different, since most people there, like the Spanish, tend to favour the outdoors.
What I am saying is that artificiality has always failed. It seems like some part of the UK Gov has woken up. I wonder what that ‘part of the UK Gov’ is? It has been on the cards for a long time. We must understand that Economists in the UK Gov are not entirely stupid. It is a political decision whether or not to accept their views.
The FACT is that smoking bans have merely changed the habits of people. Frankly, I think that it is better to assess your political thinking by what you see on the internet than what you see in newspapers. That is, until newspapers like the Telegraph stop purveying Government propaganda.
But what is the justification of Gov propaganda? There is none.