[Politics] Brexit

[ManOfSussex]

She didn't use the word "direct" once in the entire speech.

You're really desperate to talk at me - how sweet. She didn't, but she has used 'direct ECJ jurisdiction' since Mansion House 1 and I was pointing out the shift in tone in regards to The ECJ from that to today, hence the red lines looking a tad pinker.

 

[CHAPPERS]

I'm afraid the Irish Border is still the elephant in the room

We really are looking for a technology solution that doesn't exist and everyone to just be really bloody honest.

Better speech than I expected, though did get the first real indication from the PM that Britain will be poorer after Brexit

Life is going to be different. In certain ways, our access to each other’s markets will be less than it is now

This is what I don't understand. The Irish border sitaution has to be resolved before we can move forward at all doesn't it? I've not seen one concrete plan for it. I don't get it.

 

[Baldseagull]

If I understand you correctly, (and I'm not sure that I do) you are saying that we should compromise on what we believe in a little, so that others will compromise on what they believe in a little, and that compromise both ways can help us progress. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If you are saying that, I would say that I'm all for compromise, but it doesn't have to involve anyone giving up on what they believe in. You simply come together on those areas where you find that you agree. You don't allow the areas of disagreement to get in the way of working together on areas of agreement. But this is the complete opposite of the back scratching arm twisting club. It starts from respecting those with whom you disagree, respecting that you disagree, and working together where possible despite those disagreements. That's how voluntary relationships between nations should work, and it's also how political parties should operate.

The point scoring game of kickabout and the back scratching arm twisting club are based on the same kind of mindset.

Not sure your thinking allows for compromise, you seem to be saying that where we agree we work together where we don't we don't, that is not compromise, that is agreeing to differ.

Unfortunately, that cant happen inside the single market, we can't have different rules in different places on issues concerning it, it ceases to be a single market. By disagreeing on one issue and not moving to find agreement, we and the EU are losing out, we never explored finding a compromise that works for everyone, we went asking for a special rule just for Britain, and this was described as an intransigent EU in the UK, that never listens.
It is like if Brighton said we want to be able to sign players any time of year register them and have them playing straight away, just for us, the rest of you can stick to windows. It is not realistic or fair. Asking all the other clubs in the league to support our motion for an always open window, might get somewhere though.

 

[dingodan]

You're really desperate to talk at me - how sweet. She didn't, but she has used 'direct ECJ jurisdiction' since Mansion House 1 and I was pointing out the shift in tone in regards to The ECJ from that to today, hence the red lines looking a tad pinker.

Anyone reading your post would have thought, from what it said, that she used the term "direct ECJ jurisdiction". I doubt you listened much to the speech, and I think you were probably relying on people reading your post to have not listened closely either.

I'm not desperate to talk to you, but if you are going to try to misrepresent something expect to be corrected.

Here is a quote from the actual speech, since I guess you weren't listening.

"...The EU treaties and hence EU law will no longer apply in the UK. The agreement we reach must therefore respect the sovereignty of both the UK and the EU’s legal orders. That means the jurisdiction of the ECJ in the UK must end."

 

[dingodan]

Not sure your thinking allows for compromise, you seem to be saying that where we agree we work together where we don't we don't, that is not compromise, that is agreeing to differ.

Unfortunately, that cant happen inside the single market, we can't have different rules in different places on issues concerning it, it ceases to be a single market. By disagreeing on one issue and not moving to find agreement, we and the EU are losing out, we never explored finding a compromise that works for everyone, we went asking for a special rule just for Britain, and this was described as an intransigent EU in the UK, that never listens.
It is like if Brighton said we want to be able to sign players any time of year register them and have them playing straight away, just for us, the rest of you can stick to windows. It is not realistic or fair. Asking all the other clubs in the league to support our motion for an always open window, might get somewhere though.

We want to trade with the single market but we don't want to be inside of it. There are many arrangements the EU single market has around the world which has peculiarities on the basis of the particular interests and circumstances of the countries involved.

 

[nicko31]

This is what I don't understand. The Irish border sitaution has to be resolved before we can move forward at all doesn't it? I've not seen one concrete plan for it. I don't get it.

Corbyn is taking a risk backing the CU horse, but I can see why.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Anyone reading your post would have thought, from what it said, that she used the term "direct ECJ jurisdiction". I doubt you listened much to the speech, and I think you were probably relying on people reading your post to have not listened closely either.

I'm not desperate to talk to you, but if you are going to try to misrepresent something expect to be corrected.

Here is a quote from the actual speech, since I guess you weren't listening.

"...The EU treaties and hence EU law will no longer apply in the UK. The agreement we reach must therefore respect the sovereignty of both the UK and the EU’s legal orders. That means the jurisdiction of the ECJ in the UK must end."

You're a special one, aren't you. You're quite right though, I didn't listen to it all - I had to take a phone call and then checked the Test score from Durban, which is far more interesting watching. The wanting membership, associate or otherwise, of EU agencies which I did hear, would have suggested indirect ECJ jurisdiction, which she has implied previously with her 'direct ECJ jurisdiction coming to an end' which she has said more recetly than Mansion House 1, but then she comes out with the nonsense you've posted above that shows shes just asking for the moon again.

So all-in-all, an even worse speech than I initially thought then - I can see why you and Arlene Foster enjoyed it though. Best of luck to her with those ECJ red lines and everything else in getting a deal because it's just same shit, different day as I said.

 

[dingodan]

This is what I don't understand. The Irish border sitaution has to be resolved before we can move forward at all doesn't it? I've not seen one concrete plan for it. I don't get it.

Here is the relevant part of the speech:

So we have thought seriously about how our commitment to a frictionless border can best be delivered. And last year, we set out two potential options for our customs arrangement.

Option one is a customs partnership between the UK and the EU. At the border, the UK would mirror the EU’s requirements for imports from the rest of the world, applying the same tariffs and the same rules of origin as the EU for those goods arriving in the UK and intended for the EU. By following this approach, we would know that all goods entering the EU via the UK pay the right EU duties, removing the need for customs processes at the UK-EU border.

But, importantly, we would put in place a mechanism so that the UK would also be able to apply its own tariffs and trade policy for goods intended for the UK market. As we have set out previously, this would require the means to ensure that both sides can trust the system and a robust enforcement mechanism.

Option two would be a highly streamlined customs arrangement, where we would jointly agree to implement a range of measures to minimise frictions to trade, together with specific provisions for Northern Ireland.

First, measures to ensure the requirements for moving goods across borders are as simple as possible.

This means we should continue to waive the requirement for entry and exit declarations for goods moving between the UK and the EU.

And we should allow goods moving between the UK and the rest of the world to travel through the EU without paying EU duties and vice versa.

Second, measures to reduce the risk of delays at ports and airports. For example, recognising each other’s “trusted traders” schemes and drawing on the most advanced IT solutions so that vehicles do not need to stop at the border.

Third, we should continue our cooperation to mitigate customs duty and security risks.

And fourth, measures to reduce the cost and burden of complying with customs administrative requirements, including by maximising the use of automation.

And recognising the unique circumstances in Northern Ireland, and our shared commitments to avoiding a hard border, we should consider further specific measures.

80% of North-South trade is carried out by micro, small and medium sized businesses.

So for smaller traders – who as members of the community are most affected but whose economic role is not systemically significant for the EU market – we would allow them to continue to operate as they do currently, with no new restrictions.

And for larger traders we would introduce streamlined processes, including a trusted trader scheme that would be consistent with our commitments.

Both of these options for our future customs arrangement would leave the UK free to determine its own tariffs with third countries – which would simply not be possible in a customs union.

I recognise that some of these ideas depend on technology, robust systems to ensure trust and confidence, as well as goodwill – but they are serious and merit consideration by all sides.

 

[Baldseagull]

An interesting and absolutely central conversation going on here.

For me, the issue is finding the appropriate level for decisions to be made.

For example, I would like my parish council to have more power so that I, as a villager, could have more influence over - say - planning decisions. At a level above, the responsibilities of district, county or unitary authorities needs looking at so that local people are more likely to participate in their processes.

Other decisions, involving things such as education, defence and social policy perhaps, are properly made in Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff or Stormont.

As the decision-making level rises, so the influence of the individual voter inevitably reduces. That’s a given - as a village parishioner I am obviously able to influence things more than I am as an English voter. (That would still be true even if we had a half-decent national voting system.)

People do not generally worry about this. Remainers and Leavers alike accept it.

Where the division happens is when we go beyond Westminster. Remainers are generally relaxed that the straight line described above continues - that policies affecting a group of like-minded and friendly nations are made at a level beyond. Naturally the level of individual influence continues to reduce, but only in the same way as it has since we left the parish council offices behind. There is no change of principle.

Leavers, on the other hand, become concerned when that final level is reached. They are relaxed as the process of increasing power and reducing influence rises from village and ward to town and city and onwards to the streets of London, but become alarmed at the last stage in the continuum.

They think it is different. As a Remainer I don’t think it is, apart from the fact that our neighbours are involved. I have no problem with that. Leavers do. That is one big difference between us.

This is the heart of it, it is where you draw the line between "us" and "them" and for what purposes.

 

[dingodan]

You're a special one, aren't you. You're quite right though, I didn't listen it all - I had to take a phone call and then checked the Test score from Durban, which is far more interesting watching. The wanting membership of agencies which I did hear, would have suggested indirect ECJ jurisdiction, but then she comes out with the nonsense you've posted above that shows shes just asking for the moon again.

From the speech:

...Associate membership could permit UK firms to resolve certain challenges related to the agencies through UK courts rather than the ECJ.

For example, in the case of Switzerland, associate membership of the European Aviation Safety Agency means that airworthiness certifications are granted by its own aviation authority, and disputes are resolved through its courts. Without its membership, Swiss airlines would need to gain their certifications through another member state or through the Agency, and any dispute would need to be resolved through the ECJ.

 

[ManOfSussex]

From the speech:

With the Swiss courts merely following ECJ rulings indirectly, or entirely different ones of their own making then?

 

[Lincoln Imp]

This is the heart of it, it is where you draw the line between "us" and "them" and for what purposes.

Agreed.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Mrs May predicts a hard border.

"And if you pulled out of... free movement, then how could you have a situation where you had an open border with a country which was in the EU and had access to free movement?"

Interesting rhetorical question from our Theresa, the summer before last.

 

[vegster]

The 'life will be different' line?

Probably meant to say " Life will be Difficult "

 

[dingodan]

With the Swiss courts merely following ECJ rulings indirectly, or entirely different ones of their own making then?

The Swiss are not in the EU, so the ECJ has no jurisdiction in Switzerland. When we leave the EU the ECJ will have no Jurisdiction in the UK either.

A court which has jurisdiction doesn't follow the rulings of courts which do not have jurisdiction.

...In Europe, the European Court of Justice has been given jurisdiction as the ultimate appellate court to the member states on issues of European law. This jurisdiction is entrenched and its authority could only be denied by a member nation if that member nation asserts its sovereignty and withdraws from the union.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction

 

[Baldseagull]

The EU Parliament also cannot initiate laws, so the EU Commission don't just suggest laws, if anything is to be considered it must come not from members of parliament but from the Commission. The Commission can also overrule the decisions of the EU Parliament.

It's a parliament for show, not in practice.

The Parliament asks the commission to formulate a law if it wants it, this is what has happened with the "tampon tax" issue. British MEP's raised it as an issue, found support in Parliament which then asked the commission for a change, which is on it's way. It is clunky and a bit slow, and needs a bit of tweaking, much like my van, which I also wish to keep, and get the work done on it it needs.

 

[CHAPPERS]

Here is the relevant part of the speech:

Sorry. In reality, what's the answer?

 

[ManOfSussex]

The Swiss are not in the EU, so the ECJ has no jurisdiction in Switzerland. When we leave the EU the ECJ will have no Jurisdiction in the UK either.

A court which has no jurisdiction doesn't have it's rulings followed by courts which do have jurisdiction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction

I'll ask the question again slightly differently so you might understand a bit better - do the the Swiss courts merely follow/copy the same ECJ rulings indirectly, or can they make up entirely different ones/laws of their own making then in regards to associate membership of the European Aviation Safety Agency?

 

[dingodan]

Sorry. In reality, what's the answer?

I'm sorry, I can't teach you to read over the internet.

 

[dingodan]

I'll ask the question again slightly differently - do the the Swiss courts merely follow/copy the same ECJ rulings indirectly, or can they make up entirely different ones/laws of their own making then in regards to associate membership of the European Aviation Safety Agency?

Sorry, I added to my post: "A court which has jurisdiction doesn't follow the rulings of courts which do not have jurisdiction."