No deal Brexit is a complete charade; the announced proroguing of Parliament is a deception; there is virtually no economic, political or social risk at all for the UK’s exit from the EU and the whole Brexit debacle has been a 4 year long ‘dog and pony show’ to keep the masses occupied and distracted. Meanwhile, the EU and the UK have finalised their long standing plans to create a European military superpower. Which the UK is unconditionally committed to, regardless of Brexit.
Many reading this will think this an insane claim. However, recent reports from Switzerland and comments from the Icelandic Prime Minister suggest there is every reason to suspect this is the case. Part of what I offer here is unavoidably speculative. However, it is based upon some conspicuous anomalies in the UK government’s statements, especially in regard to their claimed legal position.
A Quick History of the UK’s Ambition For European Defence Union
Speaking at the Munich Security Conference in February this year, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini said:
“Europe knows that military means are sometimes necessary and there is no ambiguity about that……..this is why we have, in these last two years, built – at last – the European defence. A dream that our founding fathers and mothers always dreamed of, but never managed to accomplish. Now it is done.”
The process of EU Defence Union has been an idea in the minds of the global elite (a.k.a “parasite class”) since at least 1948, with the UK a leading advocate for it to this day. There is an excellent timeline HERE which catalogues the steps the UK and other EU member states have taken, since the 1980’s, towards the goal of creating a new military superpower. However, the history of the UK’s desire to see this new global power emerge, with the UK, Germany and France (the E3) at the helm, goes back to the end of WWII.
The path towards modern European integration commenced with the support of the American Committee on United Europe (ACUE.) ACUE was created with seed money from the Rockefeller and Ford foundations. Henry Ford was awarded Hitler’s Grand Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle in 1938, for his services to the Reich, and the Rockefeller’s U.S. Standard Oil provided the Nazi’s with the resources they needed to build their war machine.
ACUE was a close partner of the European Cooperation Administration (ECA) whose leaders included the globalist financier Averell Harrimen. Harrimen also supported the Nazi’s, using his Union Banking Corporation (UBC) to manage the portfolio of the Nazi financier Fritz Thyssen. Speaking in 1940’s Harrimen, a Bank for International Settlements (BIS) central banker, expressed the globalist financiers hopes, stating:
“Our whole concept for the unification of Europe was that it would first contribute to an economic unification. Then we hoped to secure an economic, military and finally a political unity.”
The BIS is situated in Basel Switzerland, a key player is this story, as we shall discuss. the BIS is essentially the clearing house for the global network of state Central Banks and is privately owned. Its immense global economic power resides in the hands of private citizens, not governments. Their dynastic influence has been well documented throughout history. It is these dynastic families and nouveau riche globalists who not only shaped the EU but also many of the global institutions and think tanks which have set government and international policy throughout history, to this day.
ACUE was directed by senior figures from the American intelligence community. Created in 1948 by Allen Welsh Dulles (first civilian CIA director) and William J. Donovan (former head of the wartime Office of Strategic Services – OSS,) at the request of Count Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi and Winston Churchill.
Both Kalergi and Churchill were in favour of a European military union. Like Harriman, speaking in 1943, Churchill said:
“We must try to make the Council of Europe into a really effective League with all the strongest forces concerned woven into its texture, …….with forces, armed forces, national or international or both, held ready to impose these decisions and prevent renewed aggression and the preparation of future wars.”
Churchill was far from alone in his hopes for a militarised Europe, a concept which enjoyed cross party support in the UK. Speaking to cabinet in 1948 about plans for both a defence treaty and a European Affairs Committee, then Labour UK Prime Minister Clement Attlee said its remit should be:
“….to coordinate the working out of political practical measures for giving effect to the general policy of promoting political and economic integration of western Europe under four heads: Political, defence and security, publicity & propaganda and economic.”
It is clear that the push for European defence union has long been a joint project between the U.S. (deep state) intelligence services, the UK government (of all political persuasions) and the European movement federalists. This reality has been completely obscured from the British public for generations.
If the UK mainstream media (MSM) even allude to EU defence Union it is rarely, if ever, referred to as anything other than the EU army. The narrative is consistently that the UK government is opposed to such a move, as it would undermine NATO. This is total nonsense. Speaking in 2018 NATO Secretary General Jan Stoltenberg stated:
“There is no contradiction between a strong European defence and a strong NATO. Actually it reinforces each other.”
Openly discussed in Europe, EU Defence Union combines all European air, land and naval forces, their procurement programs and nuclear deterrents to create a vast European military industrial complex under the single point, command and control of an unelected EU bureaucracy. The fact that even leading Brexiteers, like Nigel Farage, are extremely sheepish on the subject tells you much about the establishments commitment to keep this hidden from the British public. Until it’s too late.
Why A No Deal Brexit Is the EU’s Preferred Option
It seems the EU and the UK have used the diversion of a phony Brexit debate, throwing the population into a media fueled frenzy, in order to finalise globalist plans to create a new European military superpower, while no one was looking. The UK’s departure from the EU carries little to no risk of any significant trade disruption. But only in the event of a No Deal Brexit. In part, this explains why UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s has announced the prorogation Parliament. A decision apparently designed specifically to deliver the necessary No Deal Brexit.
It appears that a No Deal Brexit is not the high risk strategy. Rather, following recent comments from Iceland and the Swiss, it appears to be by far the easiest, least disruptive exit plan. It suits both the UK and the EU.
To understand why, we need to look, not at the areas of disagreement, but rather at what has been agreed between the UK and its European state partners.
Following the Lancaster House Treaties, which created a number bilateral defence agreements between the UK and France, in January 2018, at the Sandhurst military academy, the UK & France Defence Ministerial Council was formed. This was closely followed in March by a meeting between then Defence Minister Gavin Williams and then German defence minister Ursula Von Der Lyon (the incumbent EU Commission President) to discuss closer UK – German defence cooperation. Almost immediately UK troops were serving under EU insignia in Operation Quick Response, taking their orders directly from EUFOR.
The UK government also released a technical note on Consultation and Cooperation on External Security which stated:
“the UK wants to develop a new security partnership with the EU that builds on the breadth and depth of our shared interests and values, and one that goes beyond any existing third country arrangements. Europe’s security is our security……the United Kingdom is unconditionally committed to maintaining it.”
The use of the phrase “unconditionally committed” is telling. One of the pillars of EU defence union, without which it cannot function, is Bi / Multilateral Cooperation Among Member States. With a firm bilateral commitment with France this clearly indicates the UK’s potential role in EU defence union. This was further outlined in the the 2018 UK Governments Proposal for a Future Security Partnership with the EU which listed many of the roles the UK ‘could’ (will) undertake. These include:
- Support for Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) operations and missions.
- Contributing UK personnel, assets expertise and capabilities and to assist with the mandate development and operational planning.
- For the UK to promote NATO—EU cooperation including in co-ordination of analysis and response to crises.
- The development of capabilities and promotion of stability and resilience.
- The UK’s participation in both European Defence Agency and European Defence Fund projects.
- A reciprocal exchange of foreign and security policy experts and military personnel.
- A classified information exchange to support external action.
In fact the EU’s leading ‘deep state’ think tanks (policy advisors) have openly acknowledged the necessity of the UK’s participation in EU defence union.
Switzerland & Iceland Ride to the No Deal Brexit Rescue
Despite the rhetoric, clearly it is in neither the UK’s nor the EU’s interests to suffer serious trade disruption following Brexit. However, both the UK and the EU face significant problems in facilitating the UK’s necessary participation in EU Defence Union, post Brexit.
For the UK government, any notion that they have failed to deliver Brexit would result in tumultuous political upheaval. Trust in the political establishment would be completely destroyed for a huge section of the population, creating potentially dangerous social instability. At the same time there is clearly a fear that Jeremy Corbyn could form a nominally democratic socialist government. This could threaten the UK’s and the EU’s relationships with its traditional defence partners, notably the U.S and Israel.
For the EU to realise it dream of becoming a superpower it requires UK defence cooporation. In addition, facing extreme economic difficulty itself, the last thing it needs is a potential tariff war with the UK.
What both parties require is a get out of jail free option which allows the UK to ‘exit’ the EU, keeping open the option for deeper Defence Union, while protecting European and UK trade. If that options also protects the British establishment from a Corbyn led government, even better.
That option is for the UK to remain a member of the European Economic Area (EEA) and sign up to the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). An option which, just as Boris Johnson announced the prorogation the UK Parliament, making a No Deal Brexit a real possibility, has (surprise, surprise) just been quitely suggested by the Swiss. At the same time support from the Icelandic Prime minister has also suddenly come to light. The EFTA states have suggested that the UK would need to rejoin both the EEA and then EFTA. We will shortly discuss why this may not entirely be the case.
According to the Swiss German speaking newspaper Blick, Hans-Peter Portmann, President of the Swiss Parliament’s EFTA delegation, has stated that there is renewed interest in the UK joining EFTA. He states by ‘joining’ the EEA, the UK would continue to have access to the EU’s internal market.
While this comes with some caveats that many Brexiteers won’t like, it is a solution of such stunning simplicity one wonders why it hasn’t supposedly been explored before. In fact, it is almost inconceivable that it hasn’t.
In a shock revelation Portmann reported that the EFTA delegation from Switzerland has discussed the EEA / EFTA option with the UK on numerous occasions, throughout the so called Brexit negotiations. According to Portmann, the UK is now considering this option. Yet not a word of these discussions have emerged in the UK MSM.
No matter, because Swiss Federal Councilor Guy Parmelin is due to attend the International Trade Dinner of the Mayor of the City of London where he plans to meet British Trade Minister Elizabeth Truss to discuss the EEA / EFTA ‘option.’ While the UK Parliament isn’t sitting.
Keeping this possibility firmly on the table, the Icelandic Prime Minister Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson stated:
“If you [The UK] want to avoid these short-term problems, I think you [should] take the same route that we’ve taken, by becoming temporary members of the EEA agreement. Which would more or less, in my opinion, resolve all your difficulties without the problems you’d face with having a bilateral agreement.”
It is notable that, apart from defence agreements, the only firm policy commitments announced by the UK government, regarding their future relationship with the EU, all fit with the EEA / EFTA model. The UK government has already agreed protection of EFTA citizens rights post Brexit. In addition the UK signed agreements that it will withdraw from the Common Agricultural and Fisheries policies. Again, both in keeping with the existing EEA / EFTA arrangements.
No Deal Brexit Boris The Hero and EU Defence Union To Boot
The UK establishment, and its compliant MSM, have been all but silent on the UK’s seemingly inextricable commitment to EU Defence Union. Parliament hasn’t said a word about, let alone debated, the UK’s agreement to a number of bilateral defence treaties and agreements which are stated core pillars of EU Defence Union.
While the British public have been sidetracked with what now seems a literally meaningless debate about an on/off No Deal Brexit, the UK state has continued to commit its entire defence into partnership with the EU. The UK isn’t opposed to EU Defence Union and it never was. In this, the UK and the EU are, and always have been, partners.
If you believe it is just a coincidence that the EU has finalised defence union (with the UK) during the maelstrom of the Brexit news cycle you are perhaps being naive. This plan has been long in the making and a pretext was needed to obfuscate the conclusion of the deal.
The UK public are now in a near state of mania thanks to Boris Johnson’s future prorogation of Parliament. The MSM is in full hysterical alarmism mode and any chance of a rational discussion has completely evaporated. All of which is absolutely perfect if you are a government hoping to bury bad news enraged voters will resist.
Without the extreme polarisation of views, born from MSM Brexit fearmongering, there could have been a far more expansive debate about the UK’s future EU relationship. Instead we have all been distracted with banal, political spin. Thus allowing the EU and the UK to complete their EU Defence Union without any scrutiny at all.
Boris Johnson knows full well what these plans are. In December 2017, as Foreign Secretary, he attended a NATO meeting of ministers to discuss EU defence cooperation. Following the meeting Jan Stoltenberg said they had talked about ways of expanding cooperation which was already at an “unprecedented level.”
In fact his commitment to EU Defence and European ‘security’ is unequivocal. This includes intelligence, policing, cyber and climate security. Speaking in Bahrain in 2016 (6 months after the referendum) he said:
“We are going to be part of Europe we will be part of Europe’s security architecture [EU Defence Union] we will be there to work for European peace and stability.”
(Note: Parenthesised text added)
The UK leaving the EU in a so called No Deal Brexit could be a relatively smooth transition using it’s ‘existing’ EEA membership. While the Swiss and the Icelandic P.M suggest the UK rejoin the EEA there is a very strong argument that the UK hasn’t left, regardless of triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty (TEU.)
Boris Johnson has made the Northern Ireland backstop his ‘red line.’ Extremely conveniently, once again, the EEA / EFTA solution would render any need for a Northern Ireland backstop superfluous. If the UK retains its EEA membership, and joins EFTA on a provisional basis, there would be no requirement for trade barriers between the EU and UK. Who among the other 31 EEA / EFTA states, including the Republic of Ireland, would object to such an arrangement in the name of peace?
However, such a move would only be possible in the event of a No Deal Brexit. The only deal on offer, May’s disastrous EU treaty which guarantees the backstop, also means the UK would stay in the Customs Union. A position antithetical to EEA / EFTA membership. Therefore, if UK EEA / EFTA membership is to be used, a No Deal Brexit is the only possible option. Contrary to everything we have been told, a No Deal Brexit is logically the best option for both the UK and the EU under the current circumstances.
The Remainer parliamentarians have pushed to create a cross party anti – No Deal coalition. They are suggesting planned legislation to rule out a No Deal Brexit which, seeing as May’s deal is a dead duck, is effectively an attempt to put a policy of remaining in the EU on the statute books.
With the Parliamentary impasse seemingly insurmountable, the UK could well see a snap general election before the extended leave date of October 31st. Far from resulting in a coalition to remain, if Johnson suddenly pulls the EEA / EFTA option out of the bag, he could potentially turn the tables completely.
The election could be sold as a de facto referendum confirmatory vote. If the Conservatives offer a seemingly straight forward and relatively safe No Deal Brexit option, they will hoover up votes across the country.
The Brexit Party have said they won’t contest Tory seats if the Conservatives stand on a No Deal Brexit manifesto. More than 65% of Labour constituencies voted to leave the EU. The Brexit party could significantly erode Labour’s core vote while leaving Conservative seats uncontested. Johnson may well end up leading a majority Tory government with additional support from a nascent parliamentary Brexit Party. This would create an overwhelming No Deal Brexit mandate in the Commons. The precise opposite of the cross party Remain coalition’s intention.
Despite claiming they want an election, as a ‘meaningful’ alternative to a referendum, in these circumstances, with their popularity tanking in the polls, Labour will almost certainly block an early election. This will leave the existing WA deal as the only option.
In any event, if the Conservatives offers to leave the EU in an EEA / EFTA No Deal Brexit, if the UK accepts anything like May’s deal or if it remains, the EU and UK technocrats will still get everything they want. In the case of an EEA / EFTA election Boris will receive all the accolades of the conquering hero, both the UK and the EU will avoid any unnecessary economic disruption and Labour will get pummeled in the voting boothes.
A deceived voting public will be betrayed but also relieved to have the whole nightmare seemingly resolved. Corbyn will almost certainly be ousted as Labour leader for ‘losing’ the election and we might wonder how many inside the Parliamentary Labour Party would actually welcome this, despite the risk to some of their seats.
Is this a scenario unimaginable to the EU and UK establishment? Or is it what they both now want? For both the EU and UK, such a successful No Deal Brexit would maintain trade and allow the EU Defence plans to proceed, unhindered by Parliamentary or public scrutiny. Their eyes can stay firmly fixed on their military ambitions.
The alternative is for a compliant EU serving parliament of Remainers to block an election, while seeking to rule out a No Deal Brexit, and then go to the polls essentially with leaving the EU off the table.
Either way, it’s a ‘win win’ for the globalist establishment. Again!
Legal Ambiguity Leaving the No Deal Brexit Door Wide Open
While all the Swiss and Icelandic talk is of the UK ‘rejoining’ EEA/EFTA, a strong legal argument exists that, post Brexit, the UK won’t have left the European Economic Area (EEA.) It could potentially apply to continue trade as European Free Trade Association (EFTA) state. The triggering of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty does not signify the UK’s immediate exit from the EEA, as the UK government have opined. Both the UK and the EU do seem to have a get out of jail for free card they have yet to play.
In may 1992 the EEA agreement came into being, with the original signatories, including the UK, termed the ‘contracting parties.’ It created the European Free Trade Association (EFTA,) extending access to the single market to EFTA member states. It became UK law with the European Economic Area Act 1993.
Under EU law, the EEA is a mixed agreement incorporating two separate regulatory frameworks. The EU (then the European Economic Community – EEC) and EFTA. This is called a a two-pillar structure with the EFTA Court system representing a stand alone legal framework, running parallel to some aspects of the EU’s own legal system.
The EU members states are regulated by the EU Commission and EFTA members by the EFTA Surveillance Authority. The EU contracting parties obey the decisions of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the EFTA contracting parties obey the EFTA Court’s rulings. The EEA agreement itself is a binding agreement under European and International law between all contracting parties.
Article 2(c) of the EEA makes it clear that the UK is a contracting party to the EEA agreement both as a member of the EU (then the EEC) and separately in its own right.
“2(c): – the term “Contracting Parties” means, concerning the Community [EEA] and the EC Member States, the Community and the EC Member States, or the Community, or the EC Member States. The meaning to be attributed to this expression [contracting parties] in each case is to be deduced from the relevant provisions of this Agreement and from the respective competences of the Community and the EC Member States (…)”
(Note: Parenthesised text and highlights added)
The two-pillar structure and the UK’s position as both an EU member and (along with other states) a sovereign contracting party, means the EEA agreement is a mixed agreement. This concept was clarified under EU law by the legal opinion of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) Advocate General Sharpston in 2016 who noted, when assessing the EU’s proposed free trade deal with Singapore, the following:
“If an international agreement is signed by both the European Union and its constituent Member States, both the European Union and the Member States are, as a matter of international law, parties to that agreement. That will have consequences……Where an international agreement is signed by both the European Union and its Member States, each Member State remains free under international law to terminate that agreement in accordance with whatever is the appropriate termination procedure under the agreement. Its participation in the agreement is, after all, as a sovereign State Party, not as a mere appendage of the European Union (and the fact that the European Union may have played the leading role in negotiating the agreement is, for these purposes, irrelevant).”
Therefore, in addition to signifying its intention to leave the EU, as a sovereign contracting party to the EEA, the UK must also notify the other EEA contracting parties (including but not limited to the EU 27) of its intention to leave the EEA (agreement). To date it has not done so.
Former Prime Minister Theresa May notified the EU of the UK’s intention to leave the EU in her letter dated 29th March 2017. There was no mention anywhere in that letter of the UK’s intention to withdraw from the EEA agreement.
Without broader consideration, this is inexplicable. Article 50 TEU requires a minimum 2 year withdrawal notice whereas EEA exit, via Article 127 of the EEA agreement, just 12 months. So why not also notify the EFTA states at the same time?
Instead, the UK government have asked us to believe that withdrawal from the EU also means automatic exit from the EEA. This does not appear to be the case.
Article 126(1) of the EEA agreement states:
“The Agreement shall apply to the territories to which the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community is applied and under the conditions laid down in that Treaty, and to the territories of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway.”
The UK government have claimed that Artcle 126 of the EEA agreement, which simply specifies the original physical territorial scope of the treaty, implies that leaving the EU means the UK is no longer a separate contracting party to the EEA mixed agreement. This is contrary to the mixed agreement principle under EU law.
The UK government asserts it has no need to notify EFTA members under Article 127. This was exemplified by Baroness Goldie in her address to the House of Lords in April 2018 who simply stated, “article 127 does not need to be triggered for the agreement to cease to have effect.”
As an individual contracting party to a mixed agreement, in keeping with ECJ Advocate General Sharpston’s opinion, this is highly contentious. It seems the UK probably does need to use “the appropriate termination procedure under the agreement” (Article 127) or risk a breach of both EU and International law, as well as falling foul the entirely separate legal jurisdiction of the EFTA Court. Article 127 of the EEA agreement has to be observed, and it clearly states:
“Each Contracting Party may withdraw from this Agreement provided it gives at least twelve months’ notice in writing to the other Contracting Parties.”
Rather than legal clarity the UK government have offered a belief. They claim:
“….when the UK leaves the EU, the whole EEA Agreement will automatically cease to apply to the UK; the UK is a member of the EEA only by virtue of its membership of the EU. The UK has given no explicit notice under Article 127 and the Government believes that sending the Article 50 letter on 29 March 2017 also amounted to implicit notice of leaving the EEA.”
It is notable that the UK government makes reference to no explicit Article 127 notification. This appears to be an acknowledgment of the shaky legal ground. There is no need for any confusion, nor any necessity to mention Article 127, if legal doubt doesn’t exist. Obviously it does, so why not use Article 127 and be done with it?
The UK state isn’t alone in its belief. The EFTA Council has also stated that the UK leaves the EEA by default, under Article 126, when it exits the EU:
“All parties – the EEA EFTA States, the EU27 and the UK Government – agree that the EEA Agreement will not apply to the UK after its withdrawal from the EU. This follows from the two-pillar structure of the EEA Agreement and Article 126, which states that the EEA Agreement applies to the territory of the EU and the three EEA EFTA States.”
Irrespective of EU law, Article 54(b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) states that any party can withdraw from a treaty with the agreement of all other contracting parties. So initially, this seems pretty clear cut. It is clear, the EFTA council’s proposed agreement with the UK hasn’t been ratified. It says the EEA agreement, “…..will not apply to the UK after its withdrawal.” Indicating that currently it does apply and will continue to do so until the UK leaves the EU. The EFTA Court adds:
“The EEA EFTA States and the UK are ready to finalise an agreement which will mirror the relevant parts of the EU-UK withdrawal agreement.”
Therefore this future mutual agreement between all EEA contracting parties, upon the UK’s exit from the EEA, is entirely dependent upon a ratified EU withdrawal agreement. In the case of a No Deal Brexit, there won’t be one. The proposed EEA withdrawal agreement won’t stand. Further it would make little sense for the UK to sign the EEA departure agreement absent an acceptable EU withdrawal agreement.
In addition, the legal basis for the proposed agreement is contrary to the advice of the European Court of Justice Advocate General and conflicts with Article 2(c) of the EEA agreement. As highlighted by the chief barrister to the President of the EFTA Court Michael-James Clifton.
The EFTA Council’s statement on the proposed agreement doesn’t address the legal uncertainty. Though, unlike the UK government, they have at least avoided mentioning it.
This unfathomable legal ambiguity is hard to understand. Why allow a debatable legal position to continue when a simple letter would clarify the UK’s intention to leave the EEA under Article 127? Something doesn’t add up.
Adding confusion, it is evident that the UK government also believes it must make the appropriate Article 127 notification to withdraw from the EEA. In 2018 it published its EEA EFTA separation agreement. This is a draft treaty which again has only been agreed in principle.
Why does the UK need a withdrawal agreement treaty from the EEA, post Article 50, if triggering A50 automatically removes the UK from the EEA agreement, as they and the EFTA Surveillance Authority claim? Do they believe their own legal advice or not? Moreover, from a UK perspective, why create a dormant treaty, potentially undermining your own future negotiation position?
Once more, to date, the UK government has not signed (ratified) this proposed EEA separation agreement. Unless the ECJ is clueless when it comes to European law, the UK, as a separate contracting party, has not formerly notified anyone of its intention to leave the EEA. Without a deal on the withdrawal agreement, it has only left the EU.
If Boris Johnson’s No Deal Brexit occurs this means the UK would potentially have little problem continuing to trade with its European neighbours. There would be minimal business disruption, protecting UK – EU markets. Leavers will be largely satisfied and Remainer fears will be assuaged. Most importantly, from the globalist’s perspective, EU Defence Union with full UK cooperation will be free to surge ahead.
The Nonsense about the UK ‘Joining’ The EEA.
The SwissRFTA delegation and Icelandic PM aren’t the only ones to suggest the UK would have to renegotiate entry into EEA agreement. However, this notion is entirely predicated upon the assumption that the UK would automatically leave the EEA following a No Deal Brexit.
It is important to be clear here. There is no cross treaty provision between the EEA agreement and the Lisbon Treaty (TEU.) Contrary to the claims made, leaving the EU under Article 50 TEU has no bearing upon the UK’s unilateral commitment to the EEA agreement. Those who maintain that the UK, as a non EU state, must consequently apply to rejoin the EEA reference Article 128(1) of the EEA agreement. This requires any state joining either the EU or EFTA to apply to become a party to the EEA agreement.
The UK is not ‘joining’ anything. It is an existing EEA contracting party leaving the EU. The Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) gives itself full jurisdiction over European Law and those who suggest the UK must ‘rejoin’ the EEA cite various aspects of EU law in their arguments.
What they overlook is that a No Deal Brexit would immediately place the UK under the sole jurisdiction of International, not EU Law. Under International Law Article 27 of the VCLT stipulates:
“a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.”
Therefore, as sovereign existing parties to the EEA agreement, neither the EU, UK nor EFTA member states will have legal authority to simply renege on their mutual obligations arising from an international treaty (the EEA agreement.) The UK, leaving the EU under A(50) TEU, which has no cross treaty provision with the EEA agreement, remains party to the EEA agreement under International law. Unless it issues a formal notification to leave the EEA, which it hasn’t. This leaves the door wide open for a fairly simple ‘provisional’ EFTA arrangement.
All signatories to the EEA are either EU or EFTA members. As a former EU member state, remaining in the EEA post Brexit, providing no WA ‘deal’ is in place, a comparatively simple transition to provisional or temporary EFTA membership would be by far the easiest path forward, for all concerned.
Continuing membership of the EEA / EFTA wouldn’t sit well with some hard line Leavers, who want to be immediately free of EU legislation. It would mean accepting some EU laws without any say in their formation. However, it does represent a rational compromise and need only be for a limited duration. It is difficult to envisage much support for hard line objectors among the majority of Leave voters.
Both the UK and the EU could easily utilise the existing mechanisms within the EEA agreement to facilitate a smooth parting of the waves. If business stability is their primary concern, and they say it is, why wouldn’t they take this option?
Does this explain the UK’s weird reluctance to openly declare EEA withdrawal? Certainly if we look at the potential impact following a No Deal Brexit it could, because it renders a No Deal Brexit virtually a moot point.
Currently, if the UK leaves the EU on October 31st, under anything like the terms of Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement, the UK will effectively remain a member of the single market until December 31st 2020. During this transition period the UK and the EU can potentially agree a future trade deal.
The unacceptable drawback is that it ties the UK into a perpetual EU customs union, insists upon the creation of a Northern Ireland backstop arrangement, based upon the dubious necessity for a hard border, and ensures the EU gets every penny it wants in exchange for absolutely nothing.
Trapped in the common market, the UK will derive none of the potential economic benefits of leaving the EU, will continue to hand wads of cash over to the EU, subject itself to EU laws, while surrendering all influence and virtually hand part of its territory (Northern Ireland) to EU regulatory control. May’s deal wasn’t the result of a negotiation. It was complete capitulation by a Remainer led UK government to the demands of the EU.
Little wonder the EU insist this is the only deal on the table. However, the deal is so bad it has already been rejected three times by the UK Parliament and led to May’s justifiable downfall. There seems virtually no prospect of getting it through the house. Especially with the backstop intact.
The difference between a No Deal Brexit and leaving with a so called withdrawal agreement is that a No Deal Brexit would not include any transition period. “Falling off an economic cliff” being a popular way to describe this allegedly terrifying prospect.
Yet, as we have discussed, it would be relatively straightforward for the UK to leave the EU in a No Deal Brexit on October 31st, remain a contracting party in the EEA and apply for provisional or temporary EFTA membership. Switzerland and Iceland have already indicated they are open to such a move from the UK.
The EEA agreement was designed for the express purpose of providing single market access to European countries outside of the EU. Moreover, unless the other other 31 EEA states want to renegotiate an international treaty, UK EFTA membership is pretty much the default position. If it’s in the EEA it has to be a member of either the EU or EFTA.
This may not be entirely to the EU’s liking as it would reveal a painless withdrawal strategy to other member states, especially Italy, who also feel trapped by EU diktat. Yet it is difficult to see what possible grounds the EU would have under International law to attempt to thwart a UK request to join EFTA, even if some member states object.
EFTA is administered by the EFTA Court and the EFTA Surveillance Authority, so the EU Commission’s ability to stop a the UK joining, even if they wanted to, is limited. Yet, as an obvious compromise, with no deal in place, it is surely far more appealing to the EU than a potential trade war with the UK.
In 2013 Croatia joined the EU. A prerequisite of EU membership is to apply to become a contracting party to the EEA agreement. Since 2014 Croatia has been a provisional member of the entirely separate EEA. Croatia is not yet fully compliant with all aspects of EU membership. Passport controls, freedom of movement and EEA membership are still to be finalised. A situation which has continued for 5 years.
The UK’s planned repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act, via the the European Union Withdrawal Act , is a matter of domestic legislation over which the EU has no control. It would be very simple for Parliament to amend it to maintain provisional EEA status with a view to joining EFTA. All other aspects of EU legislation are being copied onto the UK’s statute books. The domestic legislative pathway is clear.
This would place the onus upon the EU to accede to the UK’s request to remain provisional EEA (and EFTA) members following a No Deal Brexit. Given Croatia’s provisional EEA status other EEA member states couldn’t legitimately refuse this move. Especially in light of the fact that the UK hasn’t actually withdrawn from the EEA agreement. International law applies.
As recently highlighted by Lord Owen and others, by accepting provisional EEA membership, the UK could declare it’s intention to leave the EEA, pending conclusion of a mutual trade deal with the EU, no later than the already agreed date of December 31st 2020. Giving both the EU and the UK more than a year to conclude a deal. At which point the UK could trigger Article 127 of the EEA agreement and withdraw from the EEA and EFTA.
So, given that the Swiss have openly stated that they have already floated this option on numerous occasions, the question we should all be asking ourselves is why neither the UK government, the EU nor the MSM have even mentioned this possibility.
The No Deal Brexit Charade
The MSM in the UK, the UK treasury, leading business figures, the Bank of England, global investment banks and more or less the entire British and European establishment have been systematically flogging project fear since David Cameron announced the Brexit referendum in February 2016. All the scaremongering has seemingly been designed to frighten people into either pressing to remain in the EU political and economic union, via the banker proposed People’s Vote for example, or accepting the suicidal, EU placating, withdrawal treaty.
Terms like ‘crashing out’ or ‘despite Brexit’ have been consistently used as weaponised language to convince a fearful public that leaving the EU would destroy both the UK and their livelihoods. At the same time there has been virtually no UK mainstream acknowledgment of the huge economic problem Brexit presents the EU. This problem would be minimised by an EEA / EFTA No Deal Brexit.
The EEA solution eviscerates the absurdly simplistic narratives we have been given. It is quite possible for the UK to embark upon a No Deal Brexit and provisionally continue to trade within the EEA under existing EFTA trade arrangements.
As provisional EEA members many of the objectives of the leave campaign would be met. The UK would withdraw from the common agricultural and fisheries policies, exit the customs union, walk away from the common trade policy, leave the jurisdiction of the ECJ and extract itself from the concept of ‘ever closer union’ implied by numerous EU treaties.
Freedom of movement would continue but only until the UK finally exits the EEA, whereupon the UK would be free to set its own immigration policy. There would be no pressing need for any hard border in Ireland, thereby removing Boris Johnson’s ‘red line.’ Full withdrawal negotiations could proceed in an orderly manner. Something of great importance to both the UK and EU, or so they say.
Far from being the nightmare scenario the establishment would have us believe, an EEA based No Deal Brexit minimises trade disruption, provides an impetus for a trade talks and secures business continuity until a deal is concluded. Surely this is acceptable to both sides? So why has the UK government allowed the No Deal Brexit charade to continue?
Why hasn’t the UK government (the cabinet office) focused upon this seemingly simple and straightforward solution to facilitate the UK’s relatively easy exit from the EU, as suggested to them by the Swiss on numerous occasions? Why have they presented a No Deal Brexit as if it were some sort of economic apocalypse without any apparent justification? Why hasn’t the EU stepped up and pointed out this obvious solution for it’s own continued stability? Why has the UK pretended to negotiate a withdrawal agreement ‘deal’ when that can all be done after the UK leaves the EU with No Deal?
It appears the easy solution has been deliberately sidelined in order to maintain a high state of needless public anxiety. Now that Boris Johnson has indicted a prorogued parliament and the No Deal Brexit narrative has been established, suddenly, as if by magic, voices have emerged discussing the EEA / EFTA solution. I suggest this is no accident.
An EEA No Deal Brexit has always been by far the best outcome for the UK to leave the EU. While the EU would undoubtedly prefer a ‘we take everything’ deal, like May’s monstrosity, with and EEA / EFTA No Deal Brexit they too have a strong fall back position. To imagine that neither party ever recognised this is untenable.
In light the Swiss amd Icelandic comments, it seem the whole thing has been a massive divide and conquer, distraction operation. All designed to ensure the UK and the EU had an opportunity to conclude their plans to create a new military superpower. Without UK voters even noticing.
Please consider supporting my work. I really need your help if I am going to continue to provide the research and analysis that you value on a full-time basis. You can support my work for less than the price of a cup of coffee via my donor page or alternative become a paid subscriber to my Substack.
I extend my gratitude to my editor, who has provided invaluable contributions to my articles since October 2021 (but who, for personal reasons, prefers to remain anonymous).
Please feel free to share anything from iaindavis[.]com excluding any and all third party content. I use a Creative Commons License. All I ask is that you give credit to the author and clearly mark any changes you make. Please share my work widely. Censorship is increasing and we need to get this information out there. If you value what I do then please consider supporting my work. Many thanks.
Be the first to comment on "The No Deal Brexit Charade No Backstop No Problem"