An EU Constitution has been agreed, sort of, and now a powerful section of the political establishment will begin the process of spinning it as ‘a great victory for Britain’ because it will not immediately wipe out the ability of British people to have at least a little influence over the laws under which they live. And in other parts of Europe, the same constitution will be spun as ‘moving Europe closer to complete union’. It is like a vast edifice growing ever taller by the year, a great movable siege tower surrounded by a fog of graft and corruption and expense accounts.
But it is a constitution quite unlike the more famous US one. The EU constitution will incorporate, amongst other things, the essence of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which requires not that the state refrain from making laws in many areas of life but that laws be mandated to ensure ‘rights’. This includes such wonders as the ‘right to education’ including the phrase “this right includes the possibility to receive free compulsory education” (which is of course not in fact free at all and suggests we have a ‘right to be compelled’). And wonders of double talk such as:
Equality between men and women must be ensured in all areas, including employment, work and pay. The principle of equality shall not prevent the maintenance or adoption of measures providing for specific advantages in favour of the under-represented sex.
So the much awaited document will prohibit discrimination between men and women… unless it is decided to pass laws requiring discrimination between men and woman. Clearly the Charter of Fundamental Rights which the new EU Constitution will aim to enforce is nothing less that the ‘right’ to require all European states to maintain regulatory welfare states. The much vaunted priests of democracy want to make sure that the constitution ensures that all you can vote for is who gets to regulate you rather than whether or not you will be regulated at all.
It is not too late for Britain but the last bastion is indeed the one on which the battle will be fought. Perhaps, just perhaps, when comes time for the UK referendum, that vast and growing tower will be struck by lightning and come crashing down.
It’s not “perhaps”, it’s almost certain. The referendum can’t pass. I predict a huge turnout, and a 90% “no” vote.
Ironically, while TB and allies will be trying to present this as “a technicality not a referendum on the EU”, it is literally a referendum on the EU. They’ve bet the farm. When the constitution fails, the EU is going to start disintegrating under its own weight. The existing structures can’t cope with the new expanded membership. It has been a chore to put together the compromises in this version of the constitution, and when it’s rejected there will be no leeway to renegotiate and retry.
I predict the EU collapsing into a federalist core, kicking out Britain and any other state whose referendum or parliament says “no”.
Ever since I read brief snippets of the draft of this constitution, I’ve been worried by it. It’s simply a stepping stone towards a nation-state called Europe and to be frank I want little to no part in such a thing.
The fake headlines about Phoney Bliar battling for Britain, the pretend spat between valiant Tony and Chirac – all as daintily choreographed, and just as artificial, as a minuet. A minuet we know very well.
Perry, the wording and the trappings of this absurd document are irrelevant. It wouldn’t matter if it were as brief, lucid and elegant as the American constitution. I believe most British people – and perhaps most Danes and Dutch and others – do not want their roots to be dug up and transplanted into a new country called “Europe”. This has been the goal all along, as we now know, and now we have started the endgame. I believe with Julian that the British will reject it so that even Tony Dimwit can understand they have said, “No just no, but hell no!”
What horrifies me equally is the overweening – one might say almost lunatic – arrogance of Blair for signing up to such a grave document when he clearly had no mandate to do so. At the most recent elections, the people rejected him unequivocally. Of course, this may render his signature invalid.
It was obvious from the first day he was prime minister that Blair hated Britain and saw his personal future in Europe. For some reason, he has been intent on destroying Britain – mass illegal immigration; the GCE system trashed, and the entire education structure trashed along with it; the introduction of large scale casinos and slot machines; the encouragement of ever-earlier sex education to pique the interest of children, resulting in ever more underage pregnancies; the financial support for single mothers, resulting in hordes of them and tens of thousands of fatherless children; the incorporation of the Human Rights act into British law … and on and on.
In the history of the world, did ever a head of government loathe his own country more? Is this the first time in human history that the Fifth Column was actually the government?
Wow, looks like the religious fundies got input into the constitution as well. They have banned the cloning of human beings as well as ‘eugenic practices’. I assume when they are speaking of eugenic practices they are referring to modifying genes. Though, I wonder if this includes aborting fetuses that have a high chance of being severely handicapped in some way.
dr duck: The anti-cloning thing is not so much the evangelical fundis in Europe as the Catholic Church, which is mighty influential, even tho’ the Union is not as some would have it a Popish Plot. No to eugenic practices is a different shibboleth. It says: “We may control a Europe in which everything not illegal is compulsory, and where the only countenanced democratic process is plebiscite in support of what the state has decided is correct, but we’re not Nazis–honest.”
At last the moment we have been waiting for. For years, the No Nation Tories and Internationalist Socialists have been claiming that the press is misleading the public. The European project is in our interests, it is essential, and when you look at the facts you will understand.
The argument then refers to catching trains, not missing the boat, being at the heart and many other meaningless phrases.
Now for the first time, the EU is the agenda, not just a side show. Lets see how these empty phrases stand up against cross examination.
A refusal by the UK voters will almost guarantee that membership of the club becomes unfeasible in the long term, unless it leads to a different type of a club. Tony’s blunder could be the saving of us all.
I’m with you on this one Verity, Tony Quisling Blair hates the UK and all it stands for. He is unfortunately too intellectually challenged to understand the damage he is causing. Lets hope this is the end of him as well.
Jonathan L – Yes. One of the things about Blair that people have failed to grasp is, he’s not very bright. But he’s dedicated. To Tony Blair.
One sees this in corporations all the time, where someone with massive will but not much talent keeps on getting promotions. (Frankly, I don’t buy into the myth of Cherie Blair being a hotshot QC, either. She seems very mediocre to me. Hotshot QCs are earning millions a year, not got their gums clamped relentlessly round the taxpayer tit.)
From day one, Blair came across as someone who has absolutely no understanding of what Britain is all about. At first all he could say was, “Look! New! Modern!” And then, “Britain is a young country!” Whaaaa’? “Cool Britannia”. What was that all about? Britain’s society and incredible achievements over the centuries just didn’t stack up against pop music, deemed the pop star manqué. And little by little, unpicking the threads of the fabric of Britain.
He is curiously disconnected and empty.
Anyway, I do agree that this is the big mistake we’ve all been waiting for.
I’ve recently been wondering whether he’s realised (after seven years, facts of life sometimes manage to worm their way into thick skulls) that he doesn’t stand a chance in hell of being the annointed, non-democratic president of EU La-La-Land. I think he’s now angling for a job in the American administration. After all, he had his office in Downing St rebuilt to look like the set of the TV programme West Wing, so we know he loves the White House.
His loyalty to George Bush is terribly suspect, as was the attitude of this former keen CND-er to sending troops to Iraq. Personally, I think it’s a giant suck-up to President Bush.
Outlawing “eugenic practices” may have been at the behest of the Catholic Church but it could turn the European Court of Human Rights into a playground for fundamentalists. How long will it be before scanning a foetus for Downs is deemed unconstitutional under this provision?
What is passing strange is the attitude of The Telegraph, which is passing Blairite propaganda on to its readers unexamined.
The constitution was signed “after an acrimonious summit exposed deep divisions between Britain, France and Germany over the future of Europe”. Are they angling for crossover readers from The Guardian?
“The historic deal was concluded after two years of wrangling, culminating in a power struggle between Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac, the French president.” Oh, pulleeeze!
He was immediately contradicted by Mr Chirac … who had earlier clashed sharply with him. Funny how Mr Chirac never seems to “clash sharply” with anyone but Tony Blair, isn’t it? A real mystery.
“Mr Blair rebuked Mr Chirac and Gerhard Schröder…” Sure he did, this being the same Tony Blair who’s so emollient in Europe he can’t even walk across a wet pavement without skidding.
George Jones and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard are two seasoned and canny political writers, which tells me the tone of this piece on Tone was dictated from the top. Unless someone buys The Telegraph soon, it will have lost all credibility as a serious newspaper of record. Shame.
To my brothers across the water:
Good Luck!
Verity writes:
“Unless someone buys The Telegraph soon, it will have lost all credibility as a serious newspaper of record.”
Hear hear!
Having said which, It has been sliding downhill for so long that I suspect it may be irredeemable. The endless fashion, ‘celebrity’ and lightweight girly froth features are almost as insuferable as the drift Leftwards.
The problem in the UK is to find an aternative. The Mail is a disgusting rag (though not for the reasons the BBC thinks) and Murdoch has made the Times a laughing stock with his Tony-toadying.
As for the sycophantic coverage, the BBC’s news online (as one would have predicted) takes some beating.
Valiant little Tony stands up to the foreign foe and bravely wins a famous victory for Britain (cue Dambusters theme, cut to shot of Peter Mandelson with gammy leg and back labrador standing on an airfield ‘somewhere in Kent’ looking wistful and tearfully whispering “If only I could have gone with them…”)
The whole thing is entirely disgusting but for some reason I find myself less sure that we will win this one that I ought to.
The UKIP turnout was encouraging. But I simply do not trust Bliar, his spin doctors and his pals in the BBC not to con a British public which has me near to screaming point in frustration at its willingness to be duped by this gang of Gramscian goons.
Time to go out canvassing for a No vote, I suspect. Perry de Havilland’s well-aimed post suggests to me that this is one battle which anyone who cares simply cannot leave unjoined. If we lose this one, we’re in deep, deep trouble.
G Cooper – That was funny! The Dambusters theme!
Right now, I think the Brits would vote against this hideous document, and if the people funding the ‘No’ vote hire a capable, slick team – frankly, I’d like to see a high-powered American operator running the show; this is gloves-off time – I think a No vote could continue to gather force.
But Blair has some dirty tricks up his sleeve, otherwise he wouldn’t have gone ahead and signed. He’s planning trickery and jiggery-pokery. If he lets dearest Peter be his guide, I think they’ll lose. If he has someone else up his fake sleeve, then who knows. But like you, I don’t think a No vote is a done deal.
Aside, even anarchists can campaign and vote against this one, it’s not proxy force to refuse an expansion of government. I’ll be voting “no”.
I reckon Tony is sure that someone else will reject it first. But just in case we need to be ready.
This is going to take everything we can come up with to counter the arguments of the other side. Lets just hope we can keep the obviously swivel eyed Xenophobes out of the spotlight, although I’m sure the BBC will do its best to give them as much coverage as possible.
I am looking forward with interest to what the Tories are going to do now. If they equivocate, they are finished as a credible future govt, IMHO.
Yes, Jonathan, and it demonstrates vividly how effective is talk fascism. Bludgeon someone with false accusations presented as truth remorselessly, and people will begin to regard it as perceived wisdom. “The Tories are tearing themselves apart over Europe!” Um, which Tories in particular, and how relevant are they? Oh, Slobby Ken Clarke, Mr Never-Was Michael Heseltine? And some nonentities interested in getting a headline. How b-o-r-i-n-g.
But the Tories allowed themselves to become intimidated by this mantra and actually started to rejig their agenda based on these false accusations. And, of course, the socialists have an ideal ally in the Gramscian BBC. The Guardian and The Independent wouldn’t matter, but the BBC is a propaganda tool of incalculable value, as we all know.
Michael Howard has seen the voters deserting the two main parties. He must know that “Tories are tearing themselves apart over Europe” has kind of lost whatever zing it once had. It’s going to be an awfully hard call for him, but he has to respond to the voters. And don’t forget, he will have very able assistance from the people organising the No vote. Once we see some of the mainstream big names involved (I’m assuming) a lot of Labour bullying will have nowhere to go.
If Michael Heseltine opens his yap one time, he should be cut off at the knees and expelled from the party. Same goes for Ken Clarke. Get rid of them. Let them make trouble unanchored to the party.
The Tories really need to listen to UKIP. They need to have a firm realistic position on the EU. It also has to be a position that is clear to the voters, something that UKIP did very well. It the Tories continue to wallow in the centre-right void they are in now they will get hammered again come next election.
UKIP is not stupid and will do their best to make sure Labour does not get back in. If the Tories have any brains they will let UKIP concentrate on Labour and Lib-Dems.
UKIP’s results were a kick up Howard & Co’s derriere something several of their senior Lords were predicting. They have a very clear choice…listen to the British people or listen to their bitter & twisted old
deepwet ones. If they choose the latter they may truly cease to be after the next election.Howard needs to attract the votes of UKIP supporters who are ex-Tories and the “free float” that decide general elections.
Before the radical right starts to bash Howard for equivocation (actually triangulation – the strategy promoted by Dick Morris) on Europe, they need to provide an answer to the developments that have sunk the Tories since 1992, namely divisions and factionalism. A tougher Eurosceptic line may open up greater divisions in the Tory party and, as we have witnessed, electorates do not vote divided parties into government.
The ball lies in UKIP’s court. They can play the role of the Referendum party and sink the Tories in their marginals, allowing Labour back in, or come to an electoral understanding with the Conservatives and target the Europhiles.
This does not mean I am holding a light for the Tories. Whilst Howard has done reasonably well, and has at least put the repatriation of powers back on the political agenda, the Tories remain less radical than they should be on the domestic front and may be missing the opportunity to promote good ideas because of their risk-averse politics.
Those who think the fight for the European Constitution won’t be a tight one, think again. Expect this referendum to be held by electronic or postal means so the safeguards on fraud can be dismantled.
No explicit mention of non belief. Also, no RBKA (to be expected, I suppose), but not even any right to self defence.
The “eugenic practices” statement is utter rubbish. This has no place in a Constitution, let alone legislation.
No thanks. This one’s a definite NO for me.
The United Kingdom needs to submit its government and its law to a European Constitution. Why? To make the life of Eurocrats easier? To make our legal arrangements more consistent? To form a European State? None of these reasons are even close to being strong enough.
Do they believe our devotion to an organisation that takes our money, undermines our institutions, and promotes goals we do not even share, is so strong, so utterly overwhelming, that we are going to count our law, our political system, our nation as nothing?
Do they believe that we hold these morally corrupt utopian rent seekers in such high esteem, that we are so impressed with the way in which they have run the European Union institutions, that we are going to give them supreme authority simply because they would like to have it?
Do they believe that we are going to sell our freedoms, our birthright, our political system, so cheaply that we are not even going to be offered a mess of pottage only a bill.
They must be mad.
A right that includes the “possibility” of something “compulsory”.
Hmmmm.
Chris Goodman – Well said, sir!
I’ve just seen this. Here is how the British Home Secretary, the charismatic, witty and colourful Jack Straw (he’d be another Taki if only he could speak English), described this signing of this “European constitution” (which doesn’t mean there’s going to be a country called Europe with a constitution, or anything):
“Overall it’s a very good package,” he said.
So there you go, fellow Brits! In return for our ancient liberty to make our own laws according to our custom and trade how we choose, say what we will, measure how we choose and be free to do anything domestically except that proscribed by British law, we’re getting a free upgrade to semi-business class, a whole week in the Costa del Sol with meals and wine included, two queen-sized beds in our hotel room which also has high speed internet access and free cable, and vouchers for two dinners-for-two at 50% off at selected restaurants outside the hotel!
Sounds like a good package to me!
This is how Britain is being sold down the river? Our liberty gained over centuries of war and peace and laws devised by thoughtful individuals for over a thousand years in exchange for “a good package”?
Sylvain Gallineau wrote:
Of course, this is how Canada’s “right” to healthcare works. In practice, it’s a requirement to use the state-run system. Every time self-righteous Canadians tell this American how their health-care system is better, I point out that the right to take care of oneself is a fundamental human right, and that this includes opting out of a state helath-care system. You should see how this drives Canadians nuts. 🙂
As an American, I do not have a voice in this fight [unlike the Germans who seem to think they have a right to interfere in our presidential election]; but I want to say that I wish every success to you who are fighting to retain some portion of your liberty. You are the source of the culture that led to our conception of freedom, and it would be a tragedy of the first order if you were to fall. It would be the end of a long and special relationship if you were absorbed into a Fourth Reich. If you should lose, please consider coming to America. We welcome free people who wish to make a fresh start.
Roland Mar writes:
“If you should lose, please consider coming to America. We welcome free people who wish to make a fresh start. ”
Please don’t think me churlish for saying this (because I genuinely appreciate your sentiments) but I am told that the USA actively discriminates against would-be emigres from the UK.
If I have been misinformed, I apologise, but that does seem to be the position – or so I’ve been told. PC attitudes are at work everywhere. The theory was that you have ‘sufficient’ WASPs. Though why a country might seek people as unlike their prevailing population as possible escapes me.
On balance, I do suspect that this dopey old country will just about wake itself up in time to save itself.
Which means that the next time the world needs its arse saving, it’ll be down the the Anglosphere to do it together. As usual.
I love this! Heh. The EU constitution thing is a war we can win, in an immediate timescale, and with serious and immediate libertarian impact. Best thing to happen to us in years!
Mobilize and kick ass!
I think you’re whistling in the dark folks. You seem to be underestimating the primeval political urge to get the nose into a larger trough. None of the mainstream parties can be trusted with Britain’s sovereignty. We need a new party that is completely free of Europhilia. Neither Howard nor Blair has any intention of allowing the opportunity for political sinecures and downright venal corruption to be removed from their prospectus. Nor do they intend to decline invitations to strut on the European stage. I discount the Libdems completely because they are a joke.
The European Union has been the biggest fraud ever perpetrated upon its disparate citizens. Although UKIP is merely an embyonic party, with a bunch of rag, tags and bobtails running its current administration, maybe its time has come. If it were to get its act together as a viable alternative to the current Labour and Conservative party, it would surely replace the Libdems at least; and who knows? If some heavyweights were to defect from the Eurosceptic arm of the Tory party and some intelligent new blood garnered from outside politics and persuaded to join the game, we could have a whole new political scene.
The complacency of the Tory commentators is nauseating. They assume that Tory voters who voted UKIP in the European Parliament elections will automatically revert for the General Election. Well here’s one who won’t, because Howard is not listening and has no intention of carrying out the wishes of the vast majority of English voters who want to scotch the seemingly inexorable drift to a Federal Socialist Republic of Europe. If ever there was an opportunity for a new party to take root, it must be now, during this period of disaffection of so large a percentage of the populace. We should think UKIP, thank UKIP and demand from them viable policies for government, not just disruption of the EP. I’m pissed off with the Tories, they are behaving stupidly when they should be capitalising on the decline of Blair’s popularity.
Verity, I’m curious, what is it about the Human Rights Act that you list it as evidence of Blair’s hatred for the UK?
James Hammerton – It was incorporated into British law, and supercedes British law, without being debated in Parliament. In other words, it is a foreign construct overlaid on our ancient English Common Law. It has many faults in and of itself, but to limit myself to answering your question, it is because Blair hammered foreign law into Britain without the by-your-leave of our Parliament.
Also, by an uncanny coincidence, Blair’s wife earns her brioche purely from cases presented before the European Court of Human Rights. Spooky or what?
James Hamnerton: it is not ‘hatred for the UK’ but a desire to lock in a certain range of collectivist policies, putting them beyond the power of some future Thatcher figure (by which I mean a politician willing to upset the apple cart, not her specific policies) to reverse regardless of the parliamentary calculus. That is what I think is the underpinning motivation for many on the Europhile left and right. It is a move to make rolling back the state unconstitutional.
This was on the front page of last Wednesday’s Independent and it is worth reading in full. I showed it to an aquaintance who voted UKIP and he didn’t know any of it!
The £23bn question for Europhobes
After UKIP’s shock successes in the European elections, Tony Blair said yesterday withdrawal would be ‘extraordinary foolishness’. So what would it mean for Britain?
Economy
Britain would suffer a permanent loss of £23bn a year if we pulled out, says the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, an independent think-tank.
Economic growth would be lower by 2.5 per cent, according to some leading economists’ estimates. Withdrawal could trigger a loss of confidence in UK economic prospects, possibly causing a run on the pound, leading to a rise in inflation through higher import costs, unemployment and interest rates.
More volatile interest rates would add to the risks of boom and bust in the housing markets.
Travel
100,000 Britons work in EU countries and 450,000 Britons live in them, including 200,000 pensioners.
British holidaymakers have the right to free health care in any member state with the E111 form.
EU airline deregulation has halved the cost of flights, causing a massive travel expansion. EU rules now mean airlines must offer compensation if they overbook.
Cheaper flights – and a strong economy – have contributed to a massive increase in British people owning second homes in EU countries. Withdrawal could make house purchasing more difficult.
Social reform
Withdrawal from the European Union would reverse fundamental employment and social welfare rights that UK citizens have enjoyed for more than 30 years.
Workers would be unable to bring sex, race or disability claims against their employers.
The 48-hour working week, regular breaks between shifts and a minimum 11-hour rest between shifts would also be obsolete. There would no longer be a statutory four-weeks annual holiday.
EU directives give two weeks’ statutory paternity leave and increased maternity leave.
Trade
British businesses enjoy tariff-free access to the largest market in the world; 55 per cent of the UK’s trade is with the EU. Every year the UK imports £129bn worth of goods from its EU partners and exports £105bn to them; the total is more than half of all our global trade.
In contrast, trade with the US is £52bn annually, about 12 per cent of the total. Not in these figures are services, such as banking and insurance, worth £160bn a year, which might be hit by withdrawal.
Some 3.2 million jobs are directly associated with the export of goods and services to the EU. About 750,000 businesses trade with our EU partners.
We need the EU more than it needs us: 9.5 per cent of the UK economy is trade with the rest of the EU; the reverse figure is 2.4 per cent. If Britain withdrew, businesses would have to obey EU regulations to trade with Europe, without power to amend them.
Inward investment, which has fallen since the UK stayed outside the euro, would fall further outside the EU.
Law & the constitution
An army of lawyers and two or three full parliamentary terms would be needed to disentangle Britain from Europe.No one has any idea of the cost.
The Government would have to repeal hundreds of EU directives in UK law.
Britain would have to recall its judges from the European Court of Justice, losing a forum for settling arguments.
British representation at the European Parliament and Commission would end. Trading laws that would affect us would be passed without consideration of their effect on British interests
In October 2000 Britain incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law. By withdrawing from the convention and repealing this legislation British citizens would no longer be protected by a set of fundamental human rights
Environment
There are more than 200 EU laws on the environment, ranging from recycling to clean beaches.
Catalytic converters would not have been made compulsory without the EU and there would have been no ban on leaded petrol.
The 1994 EU habitats directive bans interference in breeding places of endangered species. It has been used by campaigners to prevent roads, housing and industrial projects.
Wild birds in Britain are protected by the EU birds directive.
The EU bathing water directive has led to a big improvement in beachesMore than half now meet European standards.
EU curbs on sulphur emissions from French and Spanish power stations limit acid rain that falls in Britain.
Consumer
The cost of phone calls has halved thanks to the EU’s liberalisation of the telecoms market.
The cost of electricity to consumers fell by 6.5 per cent between 1996 and 2001.
EU deregulation has introduced competition on airline routes once jealously protected by national airlines.
The European Commission has taken action against the British Government over customs officers stopping travellers bringing unlimited amounts of alcohol and tobacco for their own use into the UK.
Defence
Withdrawal would exclude Britain from future peace-keeping in crisis-hit regions.
It would deal a heavy blow to Britain’s influence in military planning.
Contracts for military hardware, including the troubled Eurofighter, would be threatened, as would thousands of jobs.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=531995
A.F.:
The Independent has as much credibility as my cat when it comes to EU. (Or most other issues for that matter). And the “National Institute of Economic and Social Research” sounds like another statist propaganda tool to me.
These dooms-day scenarios if the UK were to withdraw frotm the EU is utter non-sense.
My own country (Norway) is not a member of the EU. Trade with EU-countries have not been impededed because of this, and neither is our ability to travel and work in other EU countries.
The UK should of course reject the new EU constitution. It is a horrbile pretext for socialist tyranny unlike anything we have seen since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Verity,
What is the basis of your claim that the Human Rights Act was not debated in Parliament?
The Human Rights Act 1998 is an Act of Parliament and required Parliamentary assent before it could go on the statute books. It was debated by both the House of Lords and the House of Commons before being passed, just like any other Act of Parliament.
Also it did not give the courts the power to strike down primary legislation, merely the power to state it is incompatible with the ECHR.
Finally ISTM that the bill made the ECHR part of British law, it didn’t “supercede” British law. AIUI prior to the HRA the European Court of Human Rights (not an EU institution incidentally and not to be confused with the EU’s Court of Justice) could enforce the ECHR on the UK anyway
I take your point regarding Cherie.
Perry,
Verity earlier cited the HRA in a list of measures given in support of the idea that Blair hated Britain, hence my use of the phrase “hatred of Britain”.
Also, ISTM that Parliament has the power to repeal the HRA and moreover the HRA did not give courts the power to strike down Parliamentary legislation, so I don’t think you can include the HRA 1998 as an example of a move that cannot be undone by Parliament.
A.F., the list you give is interesting. The first 3 items are opinions, the basis for which we do not know.
There seems to me to be no reason why withdrawl from the EU would entail reversing the deregulatory measures mentioned or to reverse the social and employment legislation. If we wish to keep these things we can.
Also, OUR OWN legislation enables workers to bring cases on grounds of racial or sexual discrimination as it stands.
Regarding trade, why should withdrawal from the EU prevent us trading with the remaining EU states?
Also why would we “have to” repeal any EU directives we’ve incorporated into British law? Surely we can pick and choose, seeing as it is BRITISH law (albeit implementing EU directives) we’d be dealing with?
About the only thing I can think of is that some EU directives may relate to how we deal with the EU or other EU states, where such laws might need to be modified if not repealed, but that’s about it.
Withdrawing from the EU need not entail withdrawing from the ECHR. The ECHR is an entirely separate matter — note that the European Court of Human Rights is not an EU institution and the European Convention on Human Rights is not an EU document.
Regarding defence, what on earth would our withdrawal from the EU have to do with our ability to contribute to peace-keeping forces? We do that sort of thing mainly through the UN and NATO!
As for military planning, ISTM the EU’s done sod all in this area.
Finally, as the fourth largest economy in the world, ISTM that our withdrawal from the EU would lead to a situation where we pass trading laws without the EU’s interests being considered…