An EU without the UK

Under embargo until 1:00 pm, 27 October 2016

The Rt Hon Lord Owen speaking to the Swiss Civil Society Association in Zurich on ‘Which Europe?’, Thursday 27 October 2016

Excerpts only below. Read the full text here: ‘zurichspeech1

It is very difficult in October 2016 to point out all the possible consequences of Brexit since the British government has wisely decided to research carefully its next steps and announce its policy no later than the end of March 2017 when it is expected to trigger Article 50. By then the EU and the UK must have reached an agreed interpretation of Article 50.

I draw a distinction between negotiations under Article 50 which I see as flexible and exit arrangements which are fixed and need a firm timetable. The leave vote is not a conditional instruction. Under Article 50 the UK will leave as a member of WTO if there is no EU bespoke agreement.

The government will introduce UK legislation on the European Communities Act 1972 (ECA). If they are wise through one clause they will carry over all EU law into UK domestic law. That means at the outset of the negotiating process nothing will change. There will be a political commitment to not make any changes in the EEA Treaty on trading and Customs Union issues without the agreement of the EU Council of Heads of Government prior to the exit procedure being put in place.

Yet this ECA UK legislation under a fair-minded interpretation of Article 50 must enshrine the legal right for negotiations to start with other countries now on these matters. The exit timetable can, therefore, accord with the French President saying on 30 August 2016, “For France, everything must be concluded by 2019, preparation and negotiation.” but that cannot be a cliff edge.

The UK has to be able to start negotiating international trade agreements before exit. This is a non negotiable issue. So is the UK having full WTO membership in our own right. To fail to have these two issues put into operation and sanctioned under UK law in the ECA legislation would be gross negligence. Under any of the options for negotiating we must have these safeguards or we otherwise face being pushed over a cliff edge after waiting for an EU decision in 2018-9 which might prove to be unacceptable. An EU attempt to ban such arrangements while trade agreement negotiations proceed with the EU would necessitate the UK refusing to proceed under Article 50 but to exit instead under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties ‘Part V: Invalidity, Termination and Suspension of the Operation of Treaties’ (Article 42- Article 72) pp. 342-349.

Separately the ECA legislation must enable other provisions after prior EU discussion to provide for a staging of the UK exit. At a minimum the UK has to have some staging on non trade issues.

For example, Legislative Provision:

  1. to cut off all European Parliamentary Election expenditure and participation for UK MEPs well in advance of the election date in 2019. Also detailed financial matters relating to existing UK MEPs’ future pension arrangements and other matters which should be a UK responsibility.
  2. for UK citizens currently employed by EU institutions where contracts are terminated directly related to UK exit should be an accepted UK cost and having that clarified will start to create a mood of trust in Brussels.
  3. settling all matters relating to the right of abode of existing EU citizens in the UK to remain in the UK as soon as possible.
  4. settling all aspects of fishing and agriculture not involved in trade treaties. If we can reach agreement before 2019 why not implement? Fishing is not a bargaining counter in the way that fixed tariffs may well become. It would be helpful, in particular, if the Scottish Parliament and other devolved Assemblies were involved as soon as possible in the exercise of what must be for them devolved powers over fishing and agriculture. There are also issues in UK waters, particularly with France and Spain, over historic fishing rights. They too would be better made sooner rather than later and would help to change the atmosphere in Paris and Madrid as we start to act as good neighbours under Article 8. Also respect historic rights to self-determination as over Gibraltar.

Read the full text here: zurichspeech1

Turkey should be helped to intervene over Aleppo.

“The humanitarian imperative is for the region to act and the world to help.”

Read the full piece as carried by the WorldPost section of the Huffington Post here: syriahuffpost27-9-16

Extracts: In repeated interviews and articles on the deepening tragedy that is Syria, many carried by the Huffington Post, I have argued that a necessary element for peace in Syria is an initial partition or zones of influence from neighbouring states.

This has not been a fashionable view in diplomatic circles in most countries wedded to the concept of keeping Syria as a unified country. Turkey in particular was understandably very reluctant to move militarily across the border into Syria.

When Russia extended an airfield close to Latakia not far from the naval port they had had in Syria since 1971, and put sophisticated airplanes in to protect the Assad forces, everything changed…..

Only Turkey is in a political and military position to intervene on the ground in Syria and they have demonstrated this by a limited cross border initiative this summer against ISIL. But Turkish tanks were also pre-empting a planned Kurdish advance. Turkey can now because of changed circumstances create a crucial balancing factor in Syria by taking urgent humanitarian action with their troops and air power in relieving the siege of Aleppo…

Potentially in NATO there is the necessary support for such an intervention by Turkey. But since the failed military coup against President Erdogan in Turkey, a very damaging strain emerged in NATO’s relations with their fellow member, namely the role in this latest coup of the Iman Fethullah Gulen.

…..On Friday 23 September Turkey’s Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag announced in Istanbul that US Vice President Joe Biden had accepted that there is “concrete evidence” that Gulen was behind the failed coup. Assuming there is substantive evidence in relation to Gulen the political path is therefore open for early and decisive action over Syria between Washington and Ankara.

Turkish military action should and could be mounted within hours of a decision by President Erdogan to move a considerable number of Turkish tanks, artillery and ground to air missiles into Syria within range of Assad forces around Aleppo. They would have the power to implement a No Fly Zone crucially given what is already happening in the air from the ground with protected land corridors for humanitarian aid and the flow of people both ways into Aleppo. This should be accompanied by a demand for the withdrawal of Assad forces to a line between Hama and Aleppo..

NATO forces would guard Turkey as they conducted this humanitarian operation. Air activity outside the NFZ would continue against ISIL in Syria and Iraq by Russia, NATO and Assad forces. A Kurdish area of influence in Syria in relation to ISIL would continue de facto. Areas of influence would apply, if they are prepared to exercise them, by Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Jordan over the borders of Syria predominantly against ISIL. This whole initiative should be discussed at the highest military level in the NATO-Russian Council before going to the Security Council.

When the time is ripe, UN supervised elections should take place in Syria and a single government be chosen for a unified but probably federal country. To try to anticipate when this can happen is at present impossible given the complexity of the conflict between anti-Assad Syrian fighters and the nature of ISIL. The humanitarian imperative is for the region to act and the world to help.


Outside a dysfunctional EU with its common defence agenda, we must champion and strengthen Nato

Lord Owen writing for the website

….The EU policy paper Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe. A Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy was presented to the Heads of Government Brussels summit meeting on 28th June 2016 quickly followed on 13th July by the publication of the German White Paper on German Security Policy and the Future of the Bundeswehr. Both papers had been held back deliberately to avoid debate during the UK referendum. These documents are likely to be the defining moment in the creation of a continental United States of Europe and the deepest political reason for the UK voting to leave the EU.

….There are people in the UK who take a largely French view that Europe alone can deal with its own defence, that we do not need the US and need not worry about a decline in NATO. The facts simply do not bear this out in terms of the money EU countries spend, the numbers in the military and the quality and total armaments held. Indeed, it is questionable whether some of our European neighbours have the necessary will and resolve in foreign affairs to make the difficult decisions.

Read the full text here: brexitcentral

“For the first time in 14 years we have the leader of the Labour Party unequivocally committing the party to reversing the legislation which has created in England a broken down, market-based healthcare system

Statement issued by the Rt Hon Lord Owen following Jeremy Corbyn’s announcement that he would ‘remove’ private provision within the NHS as part of plans to renationalise the health service.

“For the first time in 14 years we have the leader of the Labour Party today unequivocally committing the party to reversing the legislation which has created in England a broken down, market-based healthcare system: one which is unrecognisable from that which was introduced in 1948 and which still exists in the rest of the UK.

“Surely now the whole Labour movement can combine together, left, right and centre to make this official party policy at this year’s autumn conference.”


“Jeremy Corbyn’s statement means that the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 and the Health and Social Care Act 2012 under these proposals are, in effect, rejected and will be replaced. This surely must end all Labour’s troubled equivocation over a marketised NHS and provide a political route on which party members and supporters can campaign together. Already in Scotland this is in effect government policy.

“The Campaign for the NHS Reinstatement Bill has been campaigning on a cross party basis for this outcome through successive Private Member’s Bills in both the Lords and the Commons ever since I presented the first National Health Service (Amended Duties and Powers) Bill [HL] in January 2013.

“It is a triumph for learning together, with cross party grassroots organisations working closely with health and legal professionals with persistence and dedication.”

“I mourn the loss of a great Frenchman and fine internationalist.”

Statement by the Rt Hon Lord Owen following the death of his friend, former French Prime Minister Michel Rocard, on 3 July 2016.

“Michel was my friend of the heart and the brain for fifty years. We agreed on a social democracy for the 21st Century. We believed in Europe as an enriching entity in all its many manifestations. For him Europe would be a supranational political design; for me a grouping of states. On that difference there were many arguments. In Paris this Spring on a European Mouvement political platform we spoke together in unison. The time had come for the EU and the Eurozone to be a United States of Europe and for Britain to leave the EU but with our friendship with France enhanced by that process. I am glad that he lived to see that British decision. But I mourn the loss of a great Frenchman and fine internationalist.”

For further French citation available here: Michel Rocard : Un grand Français et un internationaliste subtil

Lord Owen on the Chilcot Report. “Let us be courageous enough to face the need to examine this issue in Parliament.”

Read the full speech here: HLIraqInquiry12.7.16

Extracts: It would have been much easier if the former Prime Minister had made an open confession that he had made many mistakes. Unfortunately, on the day of the report, having no doubt had access to it for some time, he produced a written statement of defiance. That defiance – the only word to describe it – cannot be left unchallenged.

He said: “If I was back in the same place with the same information, I would take the same decision”.

If that is left to stand unchallenged, Chilcot will have failed. Let us be quite clear: that statement is unacceptable and it is no honest reading of the Chilcot report.

Some people say that there should be no scapegoating. No, there should not, but it is the duty of Parliament, and particularly the House of Commons, to examine this report and make judgments.

… We now have a body of civil law to represent a civil society. It is for the courts to decide on that for the families of the soldiers who tragically lost their lives, or those suffering appalling injuries, much of which we still do not really know about.

There is the question of bringing Parliament into disrepute. That is why in another place they are perfectly right and proper to examine whether this represents contempt of Parliament.

Otherwise, what do we do? Do we just leave it? How many people ever knew, years on from the Suez crisis, that we had colluded with the Israelis and the French to occupy the Suez Canal? It is absolutely essential that this much is learned, because I am one who believes that we may have to intervene in the future.

I do not want what happened in the aftermath of this war to condemn all military interventions in the future. Let us be courageous enough to face the need to examine this issue in Parliament.

“At Lunch With … Lord David Owen”

Lord Owen talks candidly and engagingly over tea with reporter Becky Milligan for BBC Radio 4 series “At Lunch With …”

Or visit the BBC website for “At Lunch With….”