I suspect that at least some of The Boiling Frog's motivation for this blog posting is down to my own comment, under the posting title of "Two Years To An EU Referendum", which I made around Fri 08 May 2015 at 17:05. That comment was unfortunately delayed by BF's decision to switch to Disqus comments and the (I hope) temporary absence now of my and other comments on that original blog posting.

As BF's view only hints at the concerns that I there expressed, I am adding below, the entire text of my earlier blog comment.

------------------------
START OF EARLIER COMMENT
------------------------

Beware: an in/out referendum will almost certainly result with an 'in' vote.

What you (we) really need is a 6-way set of options:

1. Stay in on the current terms (ongoing ever-closer union), and join the Euro
2. Stay in on the current terms (ongoing ever-closer union); avoiding the Euro
3. Stay in on the newly negotiated terms; avoid the Euro
4. Withdraw to EEA-like status (most like Norway) with free movement of EU citizens and goods/services
5. Withdraw to EFTA-like status (most like Switzerland) with free movement only of goods/services; no free movement of EU citizens.
6. Totally withdraw from any EU-oriented trading arrangements.

The vote should be conducted along Alternative Vote lines (ie every voter ranks the options).

The decent reason for doing it this way is to say what you (we) want, rather than what you don't want (which is too negative an approach). Also, with AV, what you prefer - even if you cannot have exactly what you want.

The other reason is to avoid being stitched up by a forced bad choice, which is just what Cameron and company want.

----------------------
END OF EARLIER COMMENT
----------------------

As, I think can be seen from my view, I agree with BF that the wording of the referendum question is of overriding importance. From his current blog posting, IMHO, he strikes me as much less concerned that there has been great movement in the definition of European Economic Community / Common Market, to what we have now. One of the 6 options that I suggest should be on the ballot paper is substantially equivalent to that voted for in the 1975 referendum; another (Richard North et al's Flexit option) is, I think, the next closest.

In my list of six, I think 3 can be interpreted as covering the 'In' vote of David Cameron, and 3 can be interpreted as covering the 'Out' vote of David Cameron. Thus I don't think my itemisation (not an equivalence of exact wording) makes any attempt whatsoever to swamp the Cameron proposal with In/Out bias.

I remain deeply suspicious of the shorter wording of the Cameron In/Out approach. It defines a question on what we run away from; not what we do in the future.

The In/Out vote clearly allows the 'in crowd' to argue: beware, stay close and hold nanny's hand all the time. IMHO, we have recently seen it twice, from the same source.

But we are grown up!

Best regards

I share your concerns that an in/out referendum presents us with a very difficult challenge. Unfortunately, as with all referendums, we don't have much of a say. The terms of reference will be decided by Parliament and approved (or not) by the Electoral Commission.

Ideally I would prefer we leave, via Article 50, negotiate the terms of a new relationship with the EU which would for the time being mean being in the EEA (single market) and then put that deal to the electorate.

Basically the referendum will then be approval of the new terms or we re-apply to rejoin the EU which would include joining the Euro (because we lose the opt-out). Not only is it a more honest referendum, but it shifts very significantly the status quo effect in our favour. We couldn't possible lose that one.

As an aside, I have tried moving comments over to Disqus from Blogger, but Disqus is not having it. So instead I have moved them over to my backup blog on Wordpress.

https://thefrogsalittlehot....

I will try to upload them from there, or feel free to copy and paste and resubmit them into Disqus if you prefer.

Congratulations on the new blog, TBF. It looks very smart - although I would suggest you give your main banner a bit of attention - the effects applied to the typographic styling look rather weak, giving the impression that your name is somehow melting into the background.

Ideally I would prefer we leave, via Article 50, negotiate the terms of a new relationship with the EU which would for the time being mean being in the EEA (single market) and then put that deal to the electorate.

Basically the referendum will then be approval of the new terms or we re-apply to rejoin the EU which would include joining the Euro (because we lose the opt-out).

I wonder on what information you base your preference? Although the EU clearly provides the space and mechanisms for exploring and building a new post-exit agreement between itself and a country acting with the intention to end its membership, I can find nothing at all in the EU's literature (including the Lisbon Treaty) which implicitly or explicitly states that any country wishing to trigger this process automatically forfeits its EU membership in doing so.

In fact, all legal information available concerning both the EU and the treaties its members are the signatories of, states that a country is at liberty to engage in a process of seeking to arrive at mutually agreeable terms for a future relationship (that is, a relationship replacing a currently running one) and that the country can also revoke this process at any time and continue in the existing relationship - as governed by the treaties it is a signatory of.

We can see both logically and legally the necessity for the inclusion of such a mechanism in the EU's treaties and the formal frameworks those treaties are bound to. The EU categorically states (in Article 50 of its Lisbon Treaty) that the ultimate authority determining the adoption of any new agreement in place of existing arrangements rests in the hands of that country's own 'constitutional requirements' - ie: the will of the people expressed either for the new concluded agreement or for existing EU membership.

As there is nothing at all in any of the literature suggesting the structures of a withdrawal process would be anything other than those I have outlined above, I would think that anyone who wishes to make themselves a part of a campaign for Britain's withdrawal from the EU would be most effective in securing that desired outcome by firstly making themselves fully conversant with the actual options available towards that end - rather than guessing or relying on someone else's superficial and erroneous reading of those options.

The key to controlling and winning a battle is to know every last inch of the terrain upon which it is to be fought.

Thanks for your comment, I'm still tqeaking a few thing here and there, so I'll take your suggestion on board.

Thank you for writing this so clearly and in such a well documented way.

I want to add that I campaigned for staying in the EEC, like it said on the ballot paper. I am still very much in favour of doing just that. (EEA). I am not in favour of remaining in the Fourth Reich/EUSSR.

Thanks Mike

Political credibility with the media and his own party. Obviously I don't mean with you and me.

TBF You state that ideally I would prefer to leave the EU via Article 50 of the LT. This is quite a common view, but regrettably IMO it has very little if any, hopes of realisation in the short or longer term.. As we know there is not a single politician of any party, or any party manifesto over the past few years which even mentions this as a route to take. It did not arise at all in the recent GE.
On the contrary, all three main parties (by 'three' I refer to the SNP instead of the LibDims) are in favour of the UK remaining in. So logically we cannot expect an appeal to Art. 50 in this parliament or the foreseeable future, and certainly not any move towards it by Tory "rebels" who still vainly look for DC to "reform" the EU as a basis for a possible winnable 'out' referendum verdict .

In my previous post in response to Nigel Sedgwick (which appears to be lost on Disquis) I suggested an alternative approach as an objective to aim for along the lines:

I posited as a first step an amendment of the ECA together with an Act of Parliament declaring our own Supreme Court to be a higher authority than any other court (by implication of course the ECJ).
Once amended, that should include a firm policy by which a UK government would monitor, and if necessary reject, all EU laws/Directives & etc which at present are obligatory to pass into domestic law under the Act. (already being mooted by some Tory MPs I understand). The criteria need only be the higher priority of British national (as opposed to "Community") interest.

An amended ECA would be perfectly legal, and more important, in line with our own many Constitutional Acts which remain in force, not least our Bill of Rights of 1688/89 still enforceable in our courts should the occasion arise.
This would of course in itself be a first step towards a Brexit as it would break the power of EU hegemony over our governance. This could then lead on to final repeal of the ECA as the next logical step as by then it would in any case be rendered superfluous for all practical purposes.

There is no power on Earth that could make me want to remain in the EU. I am completely unpersuadable to vote to stay in.

Incidentally, how are you doing with Disqus? I checked back and dumped it because I can't get Blogger comments transferred over. I tried IntenseDebate as well.

Of course you could port the entire blog over to Wordpress ;-) I run a copy over there (just in case)...

I'm having the same problems with porting over comments. It doesn't work from blogger so I uploaded them to my backup blog on Wordpress and am trying from there.

On the whole though I prefer Disqus (I seem to be getting more comments as a result so far) it embeds much better than it did a few years ago when I first tried it.

Your posts, BF, are so thorough and always make a compelling case.

BF. You say: "Even more so given that unlike 1975 we have an exit plan in the form of Flexcit"
I think you are mistaken in describing Flexcit as an "exit plan". My reading of this very long and highly theoretical document is that it is for, in its own words, a "post exit world". So it is not an exit plan per se is it?
Furthermore, its hardly bed-time reading and who is likely to wade through 392 pages describing possible complex policy scenarios in order to find this exit plan? Its definitely not for the faint hearted!
That it may well have much by well researched suggestions to direct UK policies AFTER we leave the EU others must judge, but let us not confuse FLEXCIT with an actual policy process of leaving the EU.

Flexcit makes the case for leaving the EU, it describes exactly how to do it, and what would become if we did. It paints a very clear picture of life post EU. That is an exit plan. I guess it could add at the very start "if we have a referendum and the vote is to leave then.............

What it does is shows what out is, which is what will be voted on in the referendum. I cant see how it could be anything other than a very comprehensive exit plan.

Yes its theoretical, because its Flexcit - Flexible approach and continuous development. which means its got to be, there are too many if's and buts for it to be anything else, its flexible. It details what can be done if "plan a" does not work.

"Flexcit makes the case for leaving the EU"
Jim. I don't think Flexcit does this at all - it is specifically a programme for a POST EU scenario as you say which is a very different thing entirely, and that being so is not an exit plan per se.
That leaves the burning question as to what would trigger an actual exit. Presumably there are but two options:
1. Invoking Article 50 of the LT, or
2. Amending and eventually repealing the ECA.
Dr North and others advocate the first option, but as I have pointed out there appears not to be the slightest inclination on the part of the government, or any political party (UKIP apart) which has, or is, considering this.
Would you not agree therefore that the opposite is likely to prevail for the foreseeable future given that the Con/Lab/SNP consensus is to stay in the EU?

Flexcit does exactly that, and does not go into repelling the ECA as its not a viable option. If we want to leave the EU then using article 50 of TEU (a treaty we are like it or not, signed up to, then article 50 is the way out. Flexcit never mentions repealing ECA as its not Viable. Flexcit is an acheiveble and workable exit plan

Jim. I am aware that Flexcit does not mention repealing the ECA, but why do you say it is not viable?

Graham - it’s a widely held misconception that invoking Article 50 of the LT ‘triggers an exit’. It doesn’t. All it does trigger is a period of exploratory talks towards formalising an agreement to be used (in place of membership) should the expressed intention to exit become realised. What subsequently triggers an actual exit will be (and can only be) the consent of the British public to end its existing relationship with the EU and begin a new one - and it is the contents of that preprepared agreement which defines exactly what that new relationship shall be (should the majority of the public opt for it in place of the membership). Why Article 50? Because the EU and any country holding the intention to leave know that it would cause near-total mutually destructive chaos to realise that intention without first having a framework ready to replace membership.

Article 50 takes a bit of unpicking (and can seem frustratingly contradictory and blind-alleyed in some of its subclauses) - but its well worth the effort in understanding its function and the mechanisms it makes available for a safe and highly attractive route out of the EU.

Peter. I don't share that misconception. The point I have been making is a practical one, namely that invoking Art. 50 can only come about as a result of the political decision by government being formally made to the EU. I also pointed out that the likelihood of this happening is extremely unlikely given that no main political party will campaign for it as they all wish to remain in the EU.
So Art. 50 remains only a remote concept politically, although available if the political will is there. Likewise amendment of the ECA is also available to parliament.
I am suggesting that a two stage approach of amendment by which all EU law is subject to parliamentary scrutiny and potential rejection if not in the national interest. The second stage involves actual repeal, so returning parliamentary sovereignty to the British people where it rightly belongs.
It is a matter of law and remains in our own hands to take back powers (we) have unconstitutionally given away.

Graham, I too am frustrated that the use of Article 50 as the mechanism for exiting the EU appears to be remote. One obstacle to its use can indeed be identified as the main political parties. But a far greater and more immediate obstacle (as far as the general public is concerned) is that the misconception of Article 50 - as triggering an exit - is shared by many of those groups claiming a stake in the campaign for UK independence. Were these groups to apply a more patient and diligent examination of the Article’s various clauses, I think it would become apparent to them that its use is limited only to initiating a round of non-committal talks towards a mutually desired agreement - for use in the event of the UK public (in keeping with their constitutional requirements) actualising an exit (a decision, of course, which can only be governed by the public’s foreknowledge of the terms of that agreement).

As we have it, the misconception these groups share of Article 50 - as triggering an exit - has resulted in them frantically competing to overload their so-called ‘exit plans’ with preempted quasi-agreements... believing - in error - that the public needs to digest the whole lot as a precursor to their making a decision on triggering the Article.

Should the penny ever drop with these groups as to the mechanisms Article 50 actually provides, they would immediately be able to unite in a single, powerful voice calling for a national boycott of Cameron’s referendum until he properly utilises the Article as a means to presenting the public with a choice of concluded and safe options to vote between in deciding their future.

Peter thanks for your sane and practical comment with which I wholly agree. Interestingly a further comment and quote has just appeared on David Phipp's site - 'Scribblings from Seaham' (under article 'Just who knows what?', in which he links to a further very long piece by a Jean Claude Pirie about the legalities of Brexit and life after. Worth skimming quickly if you have a few days to spare! Once again it presupposes that invoking Article 50 of the LT is the desired objective.
A quick scan of this will soon reveal just how complex some commentators view future prospects for an orderly Brexit.
IMO both this and Flexcit deal mainly with theoretical POST EU membership management, and are far too long and complex for anything but a brief attention span by most people concerned about an actual Brexit policy.
Both are interesting and at some stage may well be important, but not right now in the political calendar as far as eurorealists are concerned.
I am much more interested as to who or what will generate the mechanism to leave, and personally, having entirely discounted the Article 50 route as "remote" as you say, then my view is, as already stated, the only alternative - amendment followed by repeal of the ECA 1972.
I see amendment as being a relatively innocuous step - quick, decisive, doable and cutting the Gordian knot of EU law making hegemony, but without the politically "sensitive" step of a threat to leave
I take your point above therefore "if the penny drops ....etc.
Finally I believe we would lose the referendum if it ever took place, if for no other reason that DC and the Tories wish us to remain in and will fanatically fight for that objective - as indeed they always have on their track record re EU treaties.

Well said, Graham. The whole purpose of exploratory talks (AKA negotiations), of course, is to explore how many and how big are the concessions one party can wring out of the other, and how few and how small the concessions that other party is willing to surrender. To announce in advance that one is turning up to these talks armed with a fully concluded quasi-agreement - aping a real agreement used by a relatively tiny northern European state - misses the whole point of the negotiating process and makes completely redundant the very provision with which the EU both anticipates and accommodates that process... Article 50 of the LT.

In the proper exercise of this diplomatic brinksmanship, the number and size of concessions won is commensurate to the power and status of the negotiating party. Great Britain, for example, would expect to wring infinitely more out of the EU in Article 50 negotiations than, say, Lithuania would - for no other reason than the shared knowledge that Britain’s exit without an agreement in place would be akin to an atomic bomb detonating over much of continental Europe, whereas Lithuania’s departure in the same circumstances would be felt as no more than a hand grenade blast up a Brussels side street (although both countries might suffer equally, of course).

In my opinion, Article 50 is central to achieving EU exit. But attempting to lumber it with rambling, grossly under-ambitious, quasi-agreements not only shows a failure to grasp what the article is and does - but terminally cripples any campaign which so misuses it.

Hmmm.....the Referendum Question....I'd like to see a tricky one....

"Do we, the decent, moral, upstanding people of the United Kingdom, a place where the flames of liberty have burned brightly for centuries want to either....

(a) "Run away from the European Union like retreating Italians.....leaving our friends the Dutch at the mercy of the Germanic hordes that wish to recreate a New German Empire whilst making Mademoiselle France kneel and submit to what ever indignities her German masters demand as they stride around Europe like strutting barbarians."

YES / NO

(b) Stay in the European Union and provide a guiding light to the small friendly nations like the Dutch and those like the Poles that look for a strong ally in the West whilst by staying in we also getting to annoy Germany on a daily basis whilst also pointing out to Mademoiselle France that every day she bows her head and kneels like a mere chattel at the feet of her German master."

YES / NO