Skip to main content

A referendum on the EU does need to happen, but not yet.

The issue as to the UK's relationship with the other countries in Europe is being discussed publicly again. It is worth displaying the following image again:

This is the current structure for the various European Bodies. It is now recognised that the Eurozone requires a banking union. I think it is also clear that the UK will not be part of this. It may be that the Eurozone moves further, but the situation is so volatile at the moment that it cannot be clear. What should, however, be clear is that the UK should not aim to be part of the core Eurozone countries.

If there were to be such a proposal then the law now is that the UK would have to hold a referendum.

My own view is that there will become a time when there is merit in having a referendum as to what the relationship should be between the UK and other European Countries. There will only be a limited range.

I don't think there is anyone suggesting that we should not be part of the Council of Europe. It is, however, the membership of the Council of Europe which leads to us being part of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. Much of the criticism of the ECtHR is unfair. However, it is clear that it should be accountable to special resolutions of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. That would resolve the issue of the remoteness of ECtHR. If the UK were not part of this jurisdiction then one would expect it would fall to be part of the jurisdiction of the United Nations Committees on Human Rights. Here are more details about the UN bodies to which there is an individual right of petition.

We then have the EEA. The EEA is governed by the rules of the EU, but is not part of the CAP or CFP. The EEA gives the rights of free movement within the countries of the EEA. This is another issue about which there is some stress.

Then is the EU itself. My own view is that given that we would not wish to leave the EEA it is better to take part in deciding what the rules of the EEA are. Hence I think being part of the decision-making body is best.

At the point at which it becomes clear what the future bodies in Europe will look like (which is not clear today) then there is a good argument for a referendum as to where the UK should rest within this. It is quite likely that this will happen within this parliament, but it has not happened yet.

The difficult question is that as to what the question should be. Do we have a range of options including leaving the Council of Europe or do we have a more limited range of options? Should we have the option of joining the nucleus of Europe or not?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…