Richard North: useful idiot or Europhile wolf in Eurosceptic’s clothing?

Campaign for an Independent Britain meeting 4th May 2013

Dr Richard North: The way forward

His  contribution was very odd indeed for someone who is supposedly strongly Eurosceptic.  His “way forward” is for the UK   to remain entwined in coils of the EU for the foreseeable future.  Of course, North does not describe his suggestions as leading to this, but that is the practical consequences of what he advocates.

North’s strategy for the UK’s departure from the EU is this:

“….invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, leading to a negotiated exit based on UK membership of the EFTA/EEA as an interim settlement. To ensure short-term continuity, we would have all EU law repatriated, giving time for examination and selective repeal, and the enactment of replacement legislation as necessary – all over a period of some years.”

He wants the UK to sign up to the type of arrangements Norway and Switzerland have with the EU. This requires them to  adopt a large proportion of  EU regulations (not least because of the ever broadening bureaucratic demands of the EU obsession with competition and harmonisation ), pay large annual sums to the EU to subsidize the poorer members of the EU and,  worst of all, subscribe to the four EU “freedoms”, the free movement of   goods, services, capital and labour across not only the EU but also the larger European Economic Area (EEA).

That would be bad enough but his naivety  over what Article 50 entails is startling. Here is the article in full:

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49. (

It is strongly implied in in  para 3 of  the Article that unilateral withdrawal is possible :

“ The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2”.

However, the clause does not explicitly  give the right of unilateral secession and could be interpreted as merely referring to how any agreement might be scheduled to take effect. The other EU members could adopt this interpretation to thwart the UK leaving without declaring UDI.

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties cites two legitimate  instances where a party wants to withdraw unilaterally from a treaty which does not make any provision for withdrawal : (1) where all parties recognise an informal right to do so or  (2) the situation has changed so substantially  that the obligations of a signatory are radically different from that which was originally agreed to.   The informal right patently does not apply in the case of the EU. As for radical changes to the obligations of a signatory, that would be difficult to sustain. It is true that the organisation (the EU) the UK belongs to now is radically different from that which they originally joined in 1973 (the EEC), but the  UK has signed  new treaties to agree to the new circumstances as they have arisen.  Hence, there would be no radically changed obligations which had not been taken on formally by the UK.

The only precedent  of any sort for withdrawal is Greenland’s  secession  in 1985 from the European Economic Community (EEC).  The was facilitated by the Greenland Treaty. However, it is not  an obviously relevant precedent because Greenlanders retain Danish citizenship for  Greenland has home rule not full independence from Denmark. They are consequently full  EU citizens.  Because Greenland is also one of the  Overseas Countries and Territories of the EU it  is also subject to some EU law and regulations, mainly those relating to the Single Market. .

Even if it is accepted by the other EU members  that there is a unilateral right of secession,  the fact that it  could only  take place legally after two years would give the remainder  of the EU the opportunity to run the UK ragged before the UK left.

As for getting an agreement which would allow the UK to generally re-establish its sovereignty, especially over the control of its borders, this is most improbable.  A  Qualified Majority in the European Council  is required  and even if such a majority is obtained the European Parliament can block the secession. The potential for delay and blackmail by the EU of the UK is considerable. In any event it is likely is that the EU would  drive a bargain which is greatly to  the UK’s disadvantage because the  Eurofederalists would be terrified of creating a precedent for any other EU member which might wish to radically change their relationship with the EU.  That would make them demand conditions of the UK which were so unappealing it would deter other member states from following suit. There is also  the danger that  the Europhile UK political elite  would take the opportunity to agree to disadvantageous terms for the UK simply to keep the UK attached to the EU in the manner that Norway and Switzerland are attached. The stay-in camp could use Article 50 to argue that whether the British people want to be in or out, the cost of leaving would be too heavy because of this treaty requirement.

The Gordian knot of Article 50 can be cut  simply by passing an Act of Parliament repealing all the treaties that refer to the EU from the Treaty of Rome onwards. No major UK party could  object to this because all three have, at one time or another,  declared that Parliament remains supreme and can repudiate anything the EU does if it so chooses.

If the stay-in camp argue that would be illegal because of the  treaty obligation, the OUT camp should simply emphasise  (1) that international law is no law because there is never any means of enforcing it within its jurisdiction if  a state rejects it and (2) that treaties which do not allow for contracting parties to simply withdraw are profoundly undemocratic because they bind future governments.

The OUT camp should press the major political parties to commit themselves to ignoring Article 50. If a party refuses that can be used against them because it will make them look suspicious.

How much of the vote does UKIP command?

North also addressed the question of UKIP’s  share of the vote in the recent council elections. This he represented as  trivial because although they took 25% of the vote  the turnout was very low (around 30% overall).  He ignores one important fact about turnout: if the turnout is shrinking then the potency of those who vote rises. UKIP voters and those willing to vote to come out of the EU at a referendum may be much more inclined to vote than those who want the status quo or at least are not motivated to vote for the UK’s independence.

Based on objective facts North  is far too pessimistic about obtaining a vote to leave. There are two great  differences between now and the 1975 referendum. In 1975 the British public had only two years’ experience of the EEC which was a vastly less intrusive body than the EU is now. If a referendum is held in the next few years the electorate will have 40 odd years of ever greater interference by Brussels with British politics and in  the lives of Britons.  To this can be added the growing number of prominent voices, both political and from the media and business , which are calling for either an outright campaign to leave the EU or at least a reshaping of the EU in such a radical  fashion that it has no chance of success. Both factors  will lend vastly greater potency to the OUT camp campaign now than was the case in 1975.

North’s  tactics before a referendum

Much of this was driven by fear, fear that a the British electorate would not vote to come out.  The consequence is that North proposes a complex, expensive and above all time consuming schedule of preparatory work before any referendum is held.  There are also conflicts between his desired ends and proposed means.

North  addressed the subject under five separate heads. I comment separately on each.

Reassurance for business

North argues that because the EU is first and foremost a political construct, business has no right to have a say in whether the UK is in or out of the EU. I have sympathy with that view, but North  immediately capsized this position by stating:

“…business has a right to expect a predictable and stable regulatory and trading environment, the status of which is affected by our membership. Therefore, we need to be able to assure the business community that, should we leave the EU, there would be no adverse effects.

“In effect, that would mean “protecting” membership of the Single Market – which could be achieved through EEA membership. And, as long as that membership is assured, business has no locus in the broader debate.”

By taking this position on the Single Market North is effectively granting business a very large say in how we are governed,  because continued membership of the Single Market will require at the least subscription to the four “freedoms”  and the acceptance of  EU laws relating to the Single Market. That will greatly impinge upon the UK’s sovereignty.

An alternative to the EU

North believes that we should not merely take back power from Brussels but also stop the power regained being grabbed by Westminster. He starts from the claim that  the UK has never been a democracy.   That is true in the sense that there has never been direct democracy – that is no more than a commonplace – but for a century before the UK was signed up to the EEC in 1973 there was a good deal of democratic control because the UK’s politics were national. British politicians then could not routinely hide behind supranational agreements such as those  governing the EU to avoid responsibility for unpopular policies or be forced to adopt policies which were in the interest of foreign powers and to the UK’s disadvantage  simply because of  Treaty arrangements.  If the UK leaves the EU utterly and  our relationship with the EU becomes the same as we have with any other foreign power British politics will again become national not supranational. That is the most certain way of re-democratising the UK.

What does North want?  He is much taken with the Harrogate Agenda  (HA) (  This has six demands which are similar in tone to those of the 19th century Chartists and the 17th century Levellers before them.  Here are a couple of the demands to give a flavour of the HA:

2. local democracy: the foundation of our democracy shall be the counties (or other local units as may be defined), which shall become constitutional bodies exercising under the control of their peoples all powers of legislation, taxation and administration not specifically granted by the people to the national government;

4. all legislation subject to consent: no legislation or treaty shall take effect without the direct consent of the majority of the people, by positive vote if so demanded, and that no legislation or treaty shall continue to have effect when that consent is withdrawn by the majority of the people;

Whether or not these are practical (which I very much doubt if put forward in this extreme form) , there is irony in the fact that North espouses such ideas  because his proposals for a new relationship  between the UK and the EU would utterly undermine  the thrust of the HA demands  for a  UK  entangled in an EFTA or similar arrangement would still be subject to decisions being made by foreigners with,  doubtless,  the willing complicity of Westminster politicians.  The Europhile British political class is not going to vanish overnight so the only realistic way of making them behave reasonably is to force them to operate within  a national context.

 A network for dissemination

Here are North’s proposals:

“ Spreading the message is an essential part of any campaign, but reliance on the media is not going to be sufficient. Formal and informal networks will have to be built, some not dissimilar to direct marketing networks. Activities should include formal training and education, as well as more general propagandising.

Many revolutionary organisations have acquired their own newspapers, or news magazines, as a means of better spreading the message.”

Even if all this was possible, which is very doubtful  because it would need serious money as well as willing hands,  it would take far too long to establish as an effective propaganda tool.  A referendum if it comes will not be that far in the future.   What is needed is a simple readily understandable message such as “Are we to be masters in our own house” repeated as often as possible through the national and local media. With more and more politicians, mediafolk, businessmen and various celebrities making Anti-EU noises this is not a forlorn hope.


North proposes a campaign of civil disobedience, including the late payment for “Council Tax, water bills, BBC license fees and other such fees” and  visiting every “agency, every employment office, etc. and remove all information (leaflets, brochures) not in English”.  He goes on to say that there are “A very wide range of activities is in fact possible, many entirely risk-free and totally within the law”.

I doubt whether in these politically correct and increasingly authoritarian times that there would be  many which are “entirely risk-free and totally within the law”. Late payment of the BBC license could get you a criminal record; removing information leaflets not in English would probably get you investigated for  racial harassment because there would not be much point in removing them without running a campaign saying what you were doing and why;  failing to pay many official bills on time could result in late payment surcharges.  If civil disobedience is urged it is important that the possible consequences are spelt out to prospective candidates for such action.

Nonetheless that is not my main concern with civil disobedience committed in this random fashion. Civil disobedience is only effective if it is (1) focused, (2) publicity worthy (3) does not greatly inconvenience or disgust the general public and (4) does not make the protestors look ridiculous.   A good example of a serious single issue campaign blighted by clownish antics is that of Fathers for Justice. Leaving people to engage in acts of civil disobedience (particularly on a local scale) as they choose will not meet those criteria.  If it is to be used, civil disobedience must be a national act. The Poll Tax disobedience is the best example in modern British history of such action. A readily understandable single issue: we won’t pay the tax. It was perfect because it blocked up the magistrates courts and brought the everyday system of justice to its knees.

Sovereignty and opposition to  immigration are the two strongest cards the OUT camp has  to play. If it is used , civil disobedience should be designed to focus public interest on those two issues.

 A coalition of allies

North tried to make a distinction between umbrella groups (bad) and coalitions (good).  In practice the two are indistinguishable.  What determines the unity of purpose of  any coalescing groups is not what they are called but the nature of the groups and their leaders.

North’s response to being challenged

During questions from the audience I said that North’s proposals were an excellent recipe for remaining within the EU for the reasons I have already given. North became very animated and spoke at considerable length to refute what I was saying.  People only behave in such a manner during debate if they feel their position is under real threat.

The kindest interpretation of North’s position is that he is acting as a useful idiot for the Eurofederalist cause in the mistaken belief that things can be resolved to the UK’s advantage  by talking, by being “reasonable”; the unkindest interpretation is that he is a Eurofederalist wolf in Eurosceptic clothing attempting to undermine the campaign to remove the UK from the grip of the EU.

North  has condensed the   views  espoused in his speech into  written form on the CIB website – see

And ).

Robert Henderson

This entry was posted in Economics, Immigration, Nationhood, Politics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Richard North: useful idiot or Europhile wolf in Eurosceptic’s clothing?

  1. David Brown says:

    A few years back Lord Tebbit said that known agents of M16 had infiltrated the UK independence Party . Why would they do this ? is this party seen as subversive by the establishment . The entire liberal elite all the three main political parties and the BBC embrace the EU -European unification project. TV show Spooks was a lunatic fantasy version of M15 yet there was at least one episode in which its agents seek to subvert a thinly disguised BNP from within.

    • Englisc says:

      ‘Why would they do this?’

      They infiltrate ALL ‘radical’ [i.e. off-message] groups. Where necessary they even create them. You discredit a movement by tarring it with an ‘extremist’ brush or simply use it to siphon off support when threatened by a drift toward ideological coherence. UKIP is the bastard child of think-tankers over at the LSE [I’m assuming you know the reason the LSE was founded]. The EDL is another example. Both are shill organizations. The BNP backed down over its membership rules when it could easily have fought and won. There are deep suspicions attaching to Griffin too in that regard. The game of divide and rule is the oldest of all. Our alien political class have been getting us to play it for centuries.

  2. Peter Cole says:

    Robert.   Have you had a reply yet from the A.G. to your letter on the trial of Norris and Dobson?.


    • I did not email the Attorney General. I think you are confusing that idea with my emails to the defending barristers from whom no reply came,, viz:
      I have emailed a copy of my article to the barristers representing Dobson and Norris.

      Stephen Batten QC’s chambers can be contacted at
      Timothy Roberts Q.C chambers can be contacted at

      • David Brown says:

        on Facebook is – Justice For Gary – case on attempted murder in New Addington. All in case where white. When i posted questioning quality of police investigation family members responded. The claim that DNA of some perps, who are well known to people in New Addington has been found, However this alone seems not enough to charge anyone. Think i am reading this right. Am i correct in thinking the only “solid” evidence against Dobson and Norris was DNA.
        PS re Emma West Transport Police Head Andy Trotter was in The Sun 20/05 saying that its wrong to keep people on bail for more than six months

      • David Brown says:

        update to this The Daily Mail has uncovered the amount this case cost in legal aid at over 200,000 per client it was not in the commercial interests for them to make a case against it going to trial. Of course they will not respond they will just plead client confidence.

  3. CanSpeccy says:

    Any news on the Emma West Trial. It was supposed to be begin on May 10, I thought. But I have been unable to discover any news reports. So is it being conducted in camera or what?

    • The hearing on 10th May was what is known as a mention. This is a hearing before a judge to decide a matter of law, for example, whether evidence will be admissable. It is not a trial hearing as such. I have been unable to find any further information on this. Croydon Today is normally the place to go to but nothing has appeared there.

      • David Brown says:

        Daily Mail 19 May -transport police head said keeping people on bail for more than six months is wrong. Associate of mine has posted comment on DM . Keep this case before the public also the names of the magistrates who refused her bail for own protection

  4. Englisc says:

    Richard North is an ‘Identity Christian’. To fit this delusion he conveniently, even necessarily perhaps, insists on a ‘celtic’ identity for the English. Richard North is ‘British’, ergo a self-hater and ‘assimilationist’ on Anglo Saxon identity. North has a long association with journalist Christopher Booker. Booker’s ‘anti-racist’ credentials [his son has an Indian wife] are unequivocal if very often obscured by his mainly writing about energy and social policy. I trust neither of these individuals and, after reading an earlier North article on the need to accommodate all manner of legal technicalities before even attempting to escape the EU, I can only thank you for bringing this latest example to my attention.

    • David Brown says:

      I have read many articles by Booker – he has books against the EU and the global warming hoax. The reviews on Amazon are a good summery of the content. Not saying he has never writing anything concerning immigration into the UK but i have never read any article by him on it. If anything he avoids the subject entirely in his books and newspaper articles. So his son has an Indian wife does that mean that he supports the deconstruction of this our or any nation state.

      • Englisc says:

        I too know Booker’s works. I’d say his son’s example is perfectly relevant. It’s a testament to his upbringing, as Booker’s excellent relations with his race-mixing offspring are a testament to his own, not to mention several years among left-liberal university chums over at Private Eye. Anyone at ease with miscegenation supports ‘deconstruction’ of this and all nation states. The problem the besets us is that so few seem to know what a nation is anymore.

  5. Englisc says:

    What if Scotland votes to leave the union? Salmond, with his usual arrogance, says they’ll just restore UK membership if ‘independence’ doesn’t work out, but in the meantime why would a decision to leave Europe taken in England necessarily have implications for places no longer part of the union anyway – or have I missed something?

  6. Harry J says:

    Englisc, I’m intrigued. What do you mean by ‘Identity Christian’ and can you point me towards anything that details North’s beliefs in this regard?

    • Englisc says:

      I too know Booker’s works. I’d say his son’s example is perfectly relevant. It’s a testament to his upbringing, as Booker’s excellent relations with his race-mixing offspring are a testament to his own, not to mention several years among left-liberal university chums over at Private Eye. Anyone at ease with miscegenation supports ‘deconstruction’ of this and all nation states. The problem the besets us is that so few seem to know what a nation is anymore.

    • Englisc says:

      Sorry about the other reply. That one was meant for someone else. ‘Identity Christianity’ is the modern name for what used to be called ‘British Israelism’ – the belief that Jesus and his family got away to France and then settled in and around these islands. It’s a 19th century fantasy concocted to serve the needs of imperial ‘Britain’. More recently it’s been commandeered by the ‘celts’, to whom lying comes naturally anyway. I’ve googled it – very quickly – it but can’t find anything. I suggest you search more thoroughly. Sorry I couldn’t be more help. Good luck.

      • Harry J says:

        Thanks for the response. Strangely enough I’ve only recently looked into the whole ‘British Israel’ thing. It began with the intention of debunking it but the more I researched the subject the more I realised there was something to it. That’s not to say that, inevitably, it’s been manipulated and misinterpreted in many quarters. At the very least I cannot in all honesty dismiss. It certainly goes way further back than the 19th century.

        Although I’m aware of one site that claims that most northern Europeans are ‘Celts’ (as opposed to Angles, Saxons, Danes etc), even then there are various ‘Celtic’ tribes within that definition. I haven’t come across any site that speaks of the need to ‘assimilate’ the English and the Scots. If anything the movement is led largely by Anglo-Saxons essentially because England is identified as Ephraim and the USA as Manasseh.

        It’s a complex subject, too much for a blog comment. What interested me was evidence for North’s involvement with it. Thanks again anyway.

  7. jazz606 says:

    I’m glad that someone has decided to have a look at North. I also think he might be some sort of plant. He delights in strewing bureaucratic obstacles into the path of proposed independence from the EU. I used to post a bit on his site until I got fed up with his posturing and continual clinging to Booker’s coat tails.

  8. John Alexander says:

    The coming economic meltdown in Europe will be painful for all, but provides us with a once in a lifetime’s chance to break away from the EU.

    Another prerequisite would be the Conservatives retaining Cameron and his disastrous progressive makeover.

    there’s a great take on the opportunity in: “On a Hiding” at:

  9. DICK R says:

    Using article 50 implies subservience a simple act of Parliament is quite enough

  10. Pingback: Brexit: contempt for Parliament - Wake Up UK

  11. Pingback: EU referendum: the genie is out of the bottle - Wake Up UK

  12. Pingback: A terrible secret - Wake Up UK

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s