[Politics] Brexit

[biddles911]

Well, having said 'prepare to be unimpressed' in advance of May's speech, I have to say that it is better than I anticipated. There: how about that as a break from the reflexive point-scoring?

1. It avoided the awful 'Brexit means Brexit' rubbish that characterised previous speeches

2. It did embrace some details - I think we are beginning to see the meaning of 'deep and special'

3. It did articulate what 'we' want with specificity on key areas and issues

4. It did show some thinking about solutions

5. It did open up the possibility of give and take

6. It did address the Northern Irish border issue

7. It did acknowledge the fears of the race to the bottom

8. It did make a reasonable stab at saying that there are sensible grounds for the UK arguing that it is a special case i.e. not just another off-the-peg trade partner


The big issues - and of course this will now be picked over by people with brains bigger than mine both within and outwith this thread - seem to me to include

a) will the EU play ball?

b) is there enough here to open up sensible and constructive negotiations?

c) are we as special as we think we are?

d) would leaving both the SEM and the Customs Union make us poor candidates for frictionless trade?

e) if we are to remain as wedded to the EU as this implies (in terms of regulatory standards for good) will this make us a less attractive partner for other trade partners?

f) is this a government that has the credibility and ability to negotiate?

g) just how much does the EU want to be seen to help a leaving member to a soft landing?

h) is there enough time to get this implemented?

and

i) will it bloody work and will it be worth the trouble??

I'm sure this will be the subject of some lively contributions.......... eg 'tick tock'

Spot on.

By far the best of her three speeches and seemed to be aimed as much at the swivel-eyed Brexit loons as the EU? Suggests that the pragmatists in the Cabinet might be holding sway over the hard-liners?

Think the DUP are likely to be concerned though as there was a hint of a “special” arrangement for Ireland that may be incompatible with the DUP’s own requirements?

Given that there was a pretty clear recognition that some (many?) of the promises made regarding Brexit are not achievable maybe strengthens the case for a second referendum too?

Lots of questions still but at last a little substance!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ManOfSussex]

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

I'm wasn't asking for a dictionary definition of the word 'jurisdiction' copied and pasted from the internet, though thanks anyway. I was specifically referring to Switzerland and it's associate membership of the European Aviation Safety Agency.

Try again - 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]

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.

It makes me laugh, if I described the way the EU Parliament and Commission works but I said I was talking about the Federal Assembly in Russia there would be no hesitation to characterize it as undemocratic.

Imagine I said the Russian Parliament can ask Putin to propose a law, but they can't propose a law themselves. Putin can decide whether and how to propose the requested law if he wants and can decide to accept the decision of the parliament or not.

 

[Baldseagull]

The EU must like our current arrangements, that's why they constructed them that way, and that's why they would rather we didn't leave. The only reason they would be opposed to things remaining very similar would be as a form of spite and punishment. I think you underestimate the pragmatism usually required in a negotiation.

When you say, "A little more formal" what you really mean is that we be bound by law to EU regulations. That would be no change to our current situation, it wouldn't be leaving the EU, and to demand that would be to sabotage any negotiations before they have started. I don't deny they might actually try to do that, but it wouldn't get them very far.

The swiss do this, they vote every time something new from the EU pops up, once in a while they vote against, the EU reminds them that their participation in this that and the other depends upon alignment, the swiss vote again and pass it.

 

[dingodan]

I'm wasn't asking for a dictionary definition of the word 'jurisdiction' copied and pasted from the internet, though thanks anyway. I was specifically referring to Switzerland and it's associate membership of the European Aviation Safety Agency.

Try again - 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?

An understanding of what jurisdiction means would help you be able to answer your own question.

If you are serious I can't compensate for your inability to understand what I've said already. I don't think it matters what I say anyway, I don't think you are really interested in the answers to the questions you are asking.

You'd make a good politician.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Try again - 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?

An understanding of what jurisdiction means would help you be able to answer your own question.

If you are serious I can't compensate for your inability to understand what I've said already. I don't think it matters what I say anyway, I don't think you are really interested in the answers to the questions you are asking.

You'd make a good politician.

The swiss do this, they vote every time something new from the EU pops up, once in a while they vote against, the EU reminds them that their participation in this that and the other depends upon alignment, the swiss vote again and pass it.

The EEA countries do not come under the ECJ, they have their own court, which applies all the same laws, in all the same ways.

That's it, thank-you - you've answered my question in regards Switzerland and it's associate membership of the European Aviation Safety Agency above which dingodan couldn't.

 

[Baldseagull]

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."

The EEA countries do not come under the ECJ, they have their own court, which applies all the same laws, in all the same ways.

 

[dingodan]

The swiss do this, they vote every time something new from the EU pops up, once in a while they vote against, the EU reminds them that their participation in this that and the other depends upon alignment, the swiss vote again and pass it.

That's right. They vote. They can decide whether and how to align with the EU on a case by case basis.

 

[dingodan]

The EEA countries do not come under the ECJ, they have their own court, which applies all the same laws, in all the same ways.

If those laws have also been passed into law in that particular EEA country.

 

[ManOfSussex]

If those laws have also been passed into law in that particular EEA country.

Which you see as full sovereignty and wonderful and not merely indirectly following ECJ rulings in anyway - got it now.

 

[Baldseagull]

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.

We have the peculiarities though of wanting it to be exactly as it is for all trade and services, just the people bit we want shot of, that is cherry picking.

 

[dingodan]

Which you see as full sovereignty and wonderful and not merely indirectly following ECJ rulings in anyway - got it now.

What about this do you not understand?

If we choose the adopt an EU law, as UK law, then that's fine. If the need or will ever arises we can change or repeal that law.

If we are directly and automatically subject to EU law and the jurisdiction of the ECJ we have no power to repeal or change that law.

The former is independent and autonomous, the latter is dependent and heteronomous. The former is good, the latter is bad.

 

[Baldseagull]

From the speech:

This is what happens here now, as all EU law is written up as UK law, UK courts can rule on it, the only difference would be that if a complainant gets to the top of the UK courts, they would no longer have the right of appeal at the ECJ.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

So. Seems my prediction for the MHRA paying into the EMA will be spot on.

 

[Baldseagull]

That's right. They vote. They can decide whether and how to align with the EU on a case by case basis.

And whenever they vote against, the EU takes something away until they vote for, I can't wait for this level of sovereignty.

 

[dingodan]

This is what happens here now, as all EU law is written up as UK law

That's not true.

Some UK law is constructed to meet EU regulatory requirements, but most EU law in never written into UK law.

EU law has supremacy, it's not codified or passed in the UK as a rule.

 

[dingodan]

And whenever they vote against, the EU takes something away until they vote for, I can't wait for this level of sovereignty.

No, the EU will tell the Swiss that they will no longer receive this or that benefit if they are no longer meeting this or that obligation. They can choose what is more important, receiving the benefit, or no longer meeting the obligation. That's up to them to decide. That's how a mutually respectful relationship works, and it works both ways by the way.

 

[WATFORD zero]

No, the EU will tell the Swiss that they will no longer receive this or that benefit if they are no longer meeting this or that obligation. They can choose what is more important, receiving the benefit, or no longer meeting the obligation. That's up to them to decide. That's how a mutually respectful relationship works, and it works both ways by the way.

So if we decide not to implement one of the EU regulations governing Trade into British law, they can say 'We will now need a border' to check trade.

Would the EU not find it easier to just insist that we stick to what we agreed in Phase 1 Here ? I wonder if they've thought of that

 

[JC Footy Genius]

It makes me laugh, if I described the way the EU Parliament and Commission works but I said I was talking about the Federal Assembly in Russia there would be no hesitation to characterize it as undemocratic.

Imagine I said the Russian Parliament can ask Putin to propose a law, but they can't propose a law themselves. Putin can decide whether and how to propose the requested law if he wants and can decide to accept the decision of the parliament or not.

Have heard most arguments in this debate but that's a new one on me and quite a zinger ... bravo.

 

[dingodan]

So if we decide not to implement one of the EU regulations governing Trade into British law, they can say 'We will now need a border' to check trade.

Would the EU not find it easier to just insist that we stick to what we agreed in Phase 1 Here ? I wonder if they've thought of that

I think you have quite savagely simplified how a trade arrangement works.

I think you are also massively underestimating the pragmatism which exists around trade negotiations (as distinct from politics).

We would have no interest in breaking any pre-agreed terms on which our boarder arrangements practically depend, and the EU would have no interest in requiring us to abide by any terms which are unreasonable or unnecessary to maintain our boarder arrangements. Anything which does relate to boarder arrangements will not be made dependent on something which in practical terms, is unrelated.

What is most likely to happen in practice is that if there was a proposed regulation which the EU intended to ask us to abide by, and on which they intended to make our boarder arrangements conditional, they would speak to us through back channels first. If we had an objection or an issue we would work together to make sure that those issues are overcome, so that when the regulation is proposed, we have already signaled that we can agree to it.