Methinks the Obama administration doth protest too much.
The scandal-ridden government of the Hopey-Changey one has certainly has developed more than just a passing interest in whether or not the UK remains a member of the EU, as per the American tendancy to stick its nose into the domestic matters of other countries.
As expected the US has taken a side to service its own interests and is spreading propaganda accordingly, with the latest flood of FUD from Obama’s officials saying that the UK would probably be excluded from a trade agreement with the US worth billions of pounds a year if we were to leave the EU. This follows on from January’s intervention by the US Assistant Secretary for European Affairs, Philip Gordon, who articulated the US view of the world as having the UK firmly inside the EU prompting this response from this blog.
On the face of it this threat is a serious impediment for the withdrawalist ‘No’ campaign. It certainly provides a killer blow to the badly thought-out and dangerous argument of some withdrawalists that we should simply repeal the European Communities Act 1972, reject all EU law and abrogate all EU treaties to which we are signatories so the UK can be sovereign – without having negotiated access to the single market for our exports, or established transitional treaties with countries whose trade deals with us are only applicable while we are an EU member state.
But scratching beneath the surface of the American warning, a look at the detail suggests this is just another piece of EuroFUD dished out from the political establishment in a crass effort to frighten the natives away from the notion of withdrawal from the EU and sovereignty for the UK. At the very least it underscores the absolute need to carefully negotiate trade and economic agreements before departure from the EU, via the provisions of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.
Breaking away from supranational entities such as the EU undermines the effort of the political elite to bring about a formal system of global governance (not global ‘government’, the two are rather different). The globalist vision is intended to reduce accountability to voters and centralise power within a small, more easily coordinated bureaucratic ‘elite’ that can serve corporatist interests of the uber wealthy at the expense of everyone else.
For the globalists it is frustrating enough that Iceland is unilaterally ending its EU membership ambitions. But a more significant economy and trading power such as the UK leaving the EU would actually reverse the direction of travel and potentially stimulate other countries to follow suit, which is why it is being resisted so doggedly by the political elite in Europe and elsewhere who should not have any interest in our domestic matters, but are becoming increasingly exercised by the growing clamour of voters to get out of the EU.
Their only answer is to flood us with FUD in the hope we don’t see the wood for the trees and lose confidence in being a self governing, independent nation state. Expect plenty more of the same and be ready with the counter arguments presented by those who ‘do detail’ and have deciphered the game and learned how it can be won.
Autonomous Mind 
Clearly the USA no longer wants its UK bases any more. But if it does, then any threat to deprive the US of these facilities should be enough to ensure their co-operation in any post-EU talks with Britain on similar, or better, terms to their US/EU ones.
XX as per the American tendancy to stick its nose into the domestic matters of other countries.XX
Just a matter of order. I would like to point out, that there are many Germans that are only too happy that the U.S did. (1942-45).
We thank you and your Fathers/Grandfathers!
Right! Carry on!
Furor Teutonicus, the Americans only got involved in WW2 because they were bombed and torpedoed into it at Pearl Harbour, then Hitler declared war on the US. Many in the US wanted Hitler to win, especially the Kennedy clan.
The US is re-orienting its forces towards Asia. So, no, they probably don’t care about having bases in the UK. But I bet they care very much about having bases in Diego Garcia and Ascension.
AN: “At the very least it underscores the absolute need to carefully negotiate trade and economic agreements before departure from the EU, via the provisions of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.”
No. The absolute need is to refuse democratic legitimacy to the Lisbon treaty. This step alone locates and confirms actual power to be in the UK demos. It being so, the EU only has a perceived power.
Article 50 is only an expression of this perceived power. As is the asymmetrical negotiation it requires.
Actual power refuses both. It would insist upon a symmetrical power relationship within the negotiating space – with the ONLY negotiation being the EU’s full and unequivocal surrender to that power.
I have come to the conclusion you are learning impaired.
Witter on all you like about the demos, but answer this…
HOW WILL WE TRADE AS A THIRD COUNTRY WITH NO TRADE AGREEMENT – SOMETHING THAT COULD TAKE MONTHS OR MORE TO RESOLVE – ONCE YOU ABROGATE THE TREATY?
AM – “I have come to the conclusion you are learning impaired.”
The risk is, you may have come to the wrong conclusion.
Rushing to a conclusion without exploring at all the options along the way (especially when there’s plenty of time to do so) might feel like an”absolute need” (or, perhaps, a need for absolutes). But if such a destination turns out to be a mere brach line on a far bigger (and more vital) network of ideas… then you’ve left yourself rather stranded in the middle of nowhere.
As it is, the UK demos has already expressed its actual power in mandating the EU to include it in trade agreements (the last time that power was acknowledged and its will expressed). Once the EU has negotiated its surrender to the limits of its own actual power (where it begins and ends), all it has to do is clean up its law-books accordingly. The UK’s role would just be in overseeing that.
Peter S – I think AM is being kind about you. You are spouting rubbish … sheer, undistilled garbage, with not the slightest relationship with reality.
Turkey wants to be included in EU-US trade deal
http://euobserver.com/enlargement/120268
“For his part, European Commission spokesman John Clancy told EUobserver that Turkey should create its own US trade pact in parallel with the EU-US deal.
“[EU trade] commissioner [Karel] De Gucht has already instructed his services to provide … support to the Turkish authorities in this respect. [Our] services have already raised this issue with their US counterparts, at senior and political level, including at the level of chief negotiators,” he said.”
What on earth are you talking about?
Don’t bother answering that. Your last answer shows you haven’t got a clue or anything of sense to offer.
You clearly don’t know how trade deals are reached and have no idea of the consequences of the vision your schoolboy wisdom thinks can just be popped into place.
You’re following someone else’s argument without even understanding it. All it does is position you as a bullet maker for the other side.
AM – “All it does is position you as a bullet maker for the other side.”
That’s a useful analogy – and it may be worth unpacking.
Does it really matter how many bullets are made for “the other side” if they are only armed with a toy gun? A gun that may look real and to which people react as if it was real… but which is, in fact, only a replica? Clearly, its effectiveness – in holding people(s) to ransom – only lasts as long as the perception of its power is sustained.
If we are able to challenge our perception, we may recall that actual power – by universal consent – is located in a weapon known as the demos. Being so armed, we not only radically transform any negotiation to end the hold-up, but we also decide which side will be doing the surrendering and on what terms.
To give credence to Article 50, and its conditions, is to be dancing to the barrel of a toy gun.
Idiot.
AM – “Idiot”
Hmmm.
AM – you are going to get nowhere with this one. It is beyond shame and has no self-awareness.
I do insist those with an Article 50 fixation ARE intelligent – even if they want to go to great lengths to demonstrate otherwise.
The fact of the British prime minister’s stated intention to renegotiate the terms of Britain’s membership to the EU already falls outside of Lisbon Treaty mechanisms. At the very least this acknowledges actual power over perceived power – and, by giving any ground to Cameron’s demand, the EU will confirm where actual power resides.
An independent negotiation of exit is a logical progression from this starting point. It identifies the British government’s real authority and establishes a symmetrical power relationship between those around the negotiating table. As such, it would set firm boundaries to what is and what isn’t up for negotiation… with its goal being the EU’s unconditional surrender of any claim to political influence over British sovereign territories.
Cameron’s intention to renegotiate British terms falls outside the Lisbon Treaty because there is no renegotiation option. The acquis is take it or leave it. The French and Germans have already told Cameron to bugger off, in much the same way the EU can tell Britain to bugger off if we abrogate treaties in the way you, Wood and Perrin suggest then expect trade to continue, without any acknowledgement of EU law.
You equate using Article 50 to dancing to the barrel of a toy gun. While you are so wide of the mark it’s incredible your position sees you standing in splendid isolation wearing a bomb vest and demanding everyone accept your wishes else you will blow yourself up. When they shrug their shoulders and tell you to go ahead, what then?
If you have and need access to a safe in a shared house, and need and want to continue accessing it after moving out of that house, you wouldn’t just walk out and post the keys back to the owner in the hope they might talk to you about access at some undefined point, leaving you without access in the interim so you can’t get from it what you need to live on. Article 50 is the way of agreeing the access before handing over the keys and moving out.
You can blowhard all you like about authority, symmetical power, boundaries and any other buzz words you’ve heard used. There is only one defined process to leave the EU while preserving, uniterrupted, our access to the single market. If you choose a different path you are committing economic suicide and you will be the Europhiles’ best friend as they will rightly point out your vision is destructive and people will vote to stay in the EU.
If that now sets off a lightbulb for you, great. If not, don’t bother replying because I’m not going around in circles with someone who has even less knowledge and understanding of this issue than my cat.