LEAVING The EU now seems inevitable, or at very least a massive restructuring of our relationship with The EU is. LEAVING is NOT a simple matter of enacting a simple law to LEAVE - This site is to highlight the difficulties and suggest solutions, to ensure we derive the full Benefits when we LEAVE-The-EU.
. Clean Politics up NOW make Politicians Responsible for their actions!
The antics of some self serving Politicians
is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!
THE AIM is to consider the difficulties of leaving The EU and seek solutions so that we may maximise THE BENEFITS of a Free, Independent, Sovereign Nation Trading with all they choose around the world at liberty with minimal Government control and intervention.IF YOU have ideas you believe worth publishing please comment and mail them in!!
UKIP’s Lack of an Exit & Survival Strategy relative to the EU, after 20 years, Exposed!!
“Laws are like sausages, it
is better not to see them being made”, said Bismark. And he was right,
but only after a fashion. It is now no longer possible to observe our
laws being made and the process has got to the stage where it is beyond
human comprehension. Take, for instance, the classification, packaging
and labelling of dangerous substances.
Although these issues are currently controlled by EU law, specifically Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, there is much more to the law than meets the eye.
For a start, one should note that UK was actually one of the first in the field, as this website
helpfully shows: we go back to the Petroleum Act of 1879 and the
Petroleum (Consolidation Act) of 1928. The latter remained (with
subsidiary regulations) the major legislative control on the transport
of all dangerous substances until the 1980s.
By then, EU had got into its stride and
the issue had long been an EU “competence”. The original laws from that
source was Council Directive 67/548/EEC, which was modified several
times up to and including Commission Directive 86/431/EEC.
In 1978, however, there had been an appalling tanker disaster
in Alcanar, near Tarragona, in Spain. A tanker truck loaded with 23
tons of highly flammable liquefied propylene had blown up, killing 217
people (including the driver). Some 200 more had been severely burned.
This triggered a period of legislative
hyperactivity and by the early ’90s, there had been so many amendments
that some tidying up was badly needed. The European Commission thus
proposed consolidating law in 1993, and again in 1994, but the proposal
was withdrawn on 9 January 2004 when it had become obsolete.
The reason for this is that global
governance had taken over.
In 1992 the lawmaking responsibility had been
transferred to the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED). It was coordinated and managed under the auspices
of the Inter-Organisation Programme for the Sound Management of
Chemicals (IOMC) Coordinating Group for the Harmonisation of Chemical
Classification Systems (CG/HCCS).
Just to make it interesting, the
participating organisations of IOMC were the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Labour
Organization (ILO), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD), the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP),
the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), the
United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) and the
World Health Organization (WHO).
However, once work got underway, The
Global Environment Facility, the United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP) and the World Bank joined the IOMC participating organisations.
The joined with the International Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS) in a
steering committee established to oversee what became known as the
Strategic Approach to International Chemical Management (SAICM).
To ensure this process ran on track, the technical focal points
for completing the work were handed to the ILO, the OECD and the United
Nations Economic Social Council’s Sub-Committee of Experts on the
Transport of Dangerous Goods (UNSCETDG). Once completed in 2001, the
work was transmitted by the IOMC to the new United Nations Economic and
Social Council’s Sub-Committee of Experts on the Globally Harmonised
System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (UNSCEG/GHS).
UNEP and WHO took lead roles in the
secretariat in their respective areas of expertise and the Transport
Division of the UNECE provided secretariat services.
With their assistance, the first
version of a Globally Harmonised System (GHS) was approved by the
Committee of Experts in December 2002 and published in 2003. It was
this, plus revised editions published in 2005 and 3007, which is more or
less the definitive version of the law.
This, as we all know, forms the basis
of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 16 December 2008. And, being a European Regulation, it takes
direct effect, automatically passing into British law. It doesn’t even
need the agreement of the Westminster Parliament.
Once we leave the EU, though, we can
scrap this horrid EU law, wave goodbye to the New World Order and dust
off the Petroleum Act of 1879 and the Petroleum (Consolidation Act) of
1928. Then, we can go back to Scammell tankers, Morris Marina vans and
corner shops. All will be well with the world.
Interestingly this Law, Edict, Convention, Agreement or what ever you
wish to call it is thus a new version of Britain’s 1879 Petroleum Act
as amended as a Consolidation Act of 1928 as nacted by global agreement
and signed into law by The Uruguayan Housing Minister and The Swedish
Environment Minister on behalf of its global assentors! All this without
so much as a murmur of British input to the new version and given the
visible imprimatur, meaningless as it may be, of The EU!
It does rather put in perspective the naive and crassly irresponsible
claims of Farage’s Party and his delusional fan club in the UKIP cult
when they simplistically claim that Article #50 is a trap and that all
Britain needs to do is pass some half baked three line paving act and
send a bus to Brussels to collect our staff!
The staggering misunderstanding of their sometime economics spokesman Prof Tim Congdon is astonishing!
Granted he is an economic theorist and since economics is not a
science but a mish mash of theories it is maybe not so surprising that
he has so little understanding of the realities of international
treaties as displayed in his writings and publications.
I happily concede I tend to read his papers and also his think tank
web site not infrequently but I find it seems more to sell his viewpoint
than to solve the problems of our nation or offer solutions for UKIP.
Let us not forget Congdon did try to gain the leadership of UKIP at
one stage but seemed to be being sabotaged by his so called agent!
It would be interesting to watch the squirmings of both Farage and
his clique and Tim Congdon as thery tried to address the outline of the
enactment of law on a global basis! To date they have never come
anywhere close to having a strategy for exit from the EU and the
complexity of surviving the withdrawal.
Do not forget that UKIP has failed totally to address policies on a
grown up basis endlessly coming up with half thought out policies where
cutting their losses they never seem to competently cost their plans nor
address the issues with any degree of gravitas tending to take the
childish and irresponsible course of populism.
Fear is always a popular tool in the hands of the self obsessed and ambitious!