Brexit discussion thread II

Samaris

Oooor the British politicians could read the agreements they signed up to and stop trying to wriggle out of it.

steddyeddy

The UK's negotiaging position is very much a case of have cake and eat it. It wouldn't be fair for the UK to be given the same access as a member state.

Anita Blow

Fexco saying today that euro is to hit parity with the pound in the coming months. I've family north of the border and to say they are feeling the effects of the devaluation is an understatement. They can no longer afford to shop south of the border to the same extent as last year and groceries from their local supermarket have increased significantly in price. The amount of places offering £1=€1 has soared over the past year

ArthurDayne

solodeogloria wrote: »

I suspect it's probably my impatience that the UK hasn't left the EU yet and we don't have the certainty that we would all like. The direction of travel is much much clearer than after the referendum.

Obviously there will be movement from the ideal where possible within the red lines, but I suspect this movement will be on both sides as a deal is hammered out. I'm still optimistic and I'm still confident about Brexit.

I can appreciate the sincerity of your view on this, and fully acknowledge that there are a great many ways to look at a great many things, but I do struggle to understand how the course ahead for Brexit is any clearer than it was a year ago. Has nobody else noticed that this great seismic change is happening and we have only heard a minority of leading government figures actually speak passionately about it? As it stands the British government as a collective resembles some sort of AI robot which falls just short of passing the Turing Test -- doing what it is programmed to do but very much aware that it does not understand why. They are quite aimlessly fumbling around in these so-called negotiations, giving mixed messages to deliberately convey the illusion that they have the slightest idea what they are doing -- because this illusion is all that stands between a once-dominant imperial heavyweight and the final confirmation that its time as a standalone global power is now well and truly defunct. In fact it is this impending national humiliation which possibly provides the only motivation for a government which in the main either doesn't want Brexit or inwardly recognises the futility of the task.

I really don't mean to lay into your viewpoint on this -- but I am struggling to understand the source of your confidence in respect of Brexit when really it already looks to be a rudderless shambles.

steddyeddy

Anita Blow wrote: »

Fexco saying today that euro is to hit parity with the pound in the coming months. I've family north of the border and to say they are feeling the effects of the devaluation is an understatement. They can no longer afford to shop south of the border to the same extent as last year and groceries from their local supermarket have increased significantly in price. The amount of places offering £1=€1 has soared over the past year

The North is going to be hit hardest in this. I have a lot of sympathy for the remain voters and countries like the North and Scotland that voted remain.

Bit cynical

Jim2007 wrote: »

The UK represents 14% of our exports it either joint second with Belgium or in third place depending on when you look at the stats.

However that 14 percent represents a lot of employment in the agri-business sector, often in areas where jobs are hard to find.

It is true that we may gain some employment from the likes of financial institutions moving from London to Dublin (indeed we should actively seek this) but the impact on overall employment may not be as great as we would like and numbers alone won't compensate for jobs lost in other parts of the country.

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

It depends on what definition of "realistic" you hold to. Theoretically achievable, yes. The position papers are documentary form of what the UK is seeking in an ideal world. They are inherently aspirational.

Good evening! Your eternal optimism about Brexit is inspiring on the one hand and bizarre on the other.

As for the definition of "realistic", the UK position on Brexit in an ideal world is akin to CND resurrecting itself and asking the US, France and the UK to unilaterally disarm in the face of what North Korea is doing, the rise of Putin and China's aspirations for world domination. In other words, that form of "realistic" is akin to foolish optimism.

solodeogloria wrote: »

If you mean "realistic" in the sense of whether or not the EU will accept it. That's another question and it's for the European Union to determine, not for the UK. It is the UK's job to represent the whole United Kingdom. That is a difficult task but it manages to do it extremely well from my reading of them.

I don't think it is rocket science to figure out what the European Union will accept. The EU has a variety of arrangements with countries surrounding it like Turkey, Norway, Switzerland, Russia, Ukraine, Iceland, Egypt, Morrocco, etc., each of them different. All the UK needs to do is decide which of those existing arrangements it prefers and sign up to them.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I also think some of the European Union's demands aren't "realistic" in the sense that the UK won't accept them. For example demanding it to be subject to the ECJ.

Speaking of which, the UK Government whitepaper today in respect to joint arbitration and how flexible the UK is willing to be is impressive. They gave a whole host of options that they are willing to discuss without the ECJ having supreme authority over Britain's law.

The UK only needs to be subject to the ECJ if it wants a future trade relationship with the EU. If the UK doesn't want that, that is fine.

blanch152

Bit cynical wrote: »

However that 14 percent represents a lot of employment in the agri-business sector, often in areas where jobs are hard to find.

It is true that we may gain some employment from the likes of financial institutions moving from London to Dublin (indeed we should actively seek this) but the impact on overall employment may not be as great as we would like and numbers alone won't compensate for jobs lost in other parts of the country.

There will certainly be economic disruption caused by Brexit and it may well hasten the inevitable rural decline. However, it is very difficult at this stage to call how it will end up for Ireland overall - positive or negative.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

This is an example of how Swiss politicians didn't respect the democratic verdict of their people and sold them short. This isn't a good example.

No this is an example of what happens when fantasy meets reality! No one expected that the proposal would pass and there was a very low turn out. The proposal was carried by 20,000 votes. It was very clear that this was not what was wanted.

The SVP could have forced a second vote, but in stead they admitted they did not expect it to pass and had no idea how it could be implemented without impacting the rest of the bilateral agreement. And left it at that.

We will now have another vote on it, in the next 12 months...

Bit cynical

blanch152 wrote: »

There will certainly be economic disruption caused by Brexit and it may well hasten the inevitable rural decline. However, it is very difficult at this stage to call how it will end up for Ireland overall - positive or negative.

I don't think there are any economic forecasts that predict that it will be positive for Ireland overall, particularly if a hard line is taken towards the UK by the EU. An ESRI report last year predicted that Ireland would suffer more economically than the UK in some scenarios (e.g. no trade deal) despite some positives in the area of financial services and multinationals.

Capt'n Midnight

The Home Office sent about 100 letters "in error" to EU citizens living in the UK, telling them they had to leave or be liable for "detention".

Sure inspires confidence in the systems.

whatstherush

Bit cynical wrote: »

I don't think there are any economic forecasts that predict that it will be positive for Ireland overall, particularly if a hard line is taken towards the UK by the EU. An ESRI report last year predicted that Ireland would suffer more economically than the UK in some scenarios (e.g. no trade deal) despite some positives in the area of financial services and multinationals.

'Hard line' or there lack of, another euphemism for the cake and eat brexit. What may I ask would involve the EU taking a softer approach?

Capt'n Midnight

Brexit: Theresa May says UK leaving EU court's jurisdiction

As long as May is in power its a very Hard Brexit so no customs union, and lots of other babies throw out with the bath water.

Makes a trade deal much harder. The EU should counter with setting up an arbitration court with a UK Judge and one for each EU country.

steddyeddy

Bit cynical wrote: »

I don't think there are any economic forecasts that predict that it will be positive for Ireland overall, particularly if a hard line is taken towards the UK by the EU. An ESRI report last year predicted that Ireland would suffer more economically than the UK in some scenarios (e.g. no trade deal) despite some positives in the area of financial services and multinationals.

Ireland will be hardest hit out of the EU 27 IMHO.

steddyeddy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Brexit: Theresa May says UK leaving EU court's jurisdiction

As long as May is in power its a very Hard Brexit so no customs union, and lots of other babies throw out with the bath water.

Makes a trade deal much harder. The EU should counter with setting up an arbitration court with a UK Judge and one for each EU country.

Hopefully this will put an end to people calling May a remainer.

Capt'n Midnight

murphaph wrote: »

Yes I believe they are trying to leverage the Irish border to sneak in a porous border for themselves (that they can point to when it comes to discussing cross channel customs arrangements).

It's patent nonsense to call for a porous border for some firms. It's completely unworkable and would be a burocratic nightmare.

The history of smuggling proves this and free movement of goods shows this.

Liquid Fuel - loss to UK
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmniaf/105/2050814.htm

The figures supplied in our first report (Fuel Smuggling in Northern Ireland—May 2000) that were compiled by the Maxol Group suggested a loss to the Treasury of over £300 million in 1999.

Solid Fuel - loss to ROI
https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2017-04-04a.403

differential in the VAT rate between Northern Ireland and our State in respect of solid fuels as well as the application of carbon tax which is not applied on products in Northern Ireland. The differential is more than €2,000 on a 20 tonne truck of coal,
...
It is also robbing the public coffers, in this instance alone of almost €300 million annually.

Junkyard Tom

steddyeddy wrote: »

The North is going to be hit hardest in this.

But will the DUP be punished by the electorate for helping get the pro-Brexit vote over-the-line despite knowing about the potentially dire consequences for the north? Nope. Fenian fear factor will keep their voter base loyal.

____________________________________________________________________________

On a country by country basis [Ireland] remains [NI's] key export partner. In 2016, goods exports to the RoI were valued at £2.4 billion, equivalent to 31% of total goods exports value and approximately 56% of the value of goods exported to the EU.

assemblyresearchmatters.org

_____________________________________________________________________________

What the SDLP and SF need to do now is work towards having a border poll to get the UI gears in motion.

steddyeddy

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

But will the DUP be punished by the electorate for helping get the pro-Brexit vote over-the-line despite knowing about the potentially dire consequences for the north? Nope. Fenian fear factor will keep their voter base loyal. What the SDLP and SF need to do now is work towards having a border poll to get the UI gears in motion.

The DUP's tribalism has kept its poorest voters poor. I don't think they'll ever stop voting DUP. I'd say a UI is inevitable with Brexit. I'd say Scotland won't be far behind either.

Water John

Dairy products may take a hit as they often, travel both ways eg cheese.
The best export for live cattle, is Turkey. Live cattle export of weanlings go to Spain and Italy. These are what underpin the factory trade here.

UK always had a cheap food policy. Quality exports elsewhere are in our farmers best interests but probably some pain in the short term.

Capt'n Midnight

steddyeddy wrote: »

Hopefully this will put an end to people calling May a remainer.

Even before Brexit she was against the European courts.

Anyone who considered her a remainer just doesn't get that the ECJ is the deciding body for customs union , euratom and all the other good things the UK wants.


Yes there is an EFTA court but it pretty much applies EU law except for the few opt-outs.
http://www.eftacourt.int/the-court/jurisdiction-organisation/introduction

The aim of the EEA Agreement is to guarantee the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital; to provide equal conditions of competition and to abolish discrimination on grounds of nationality in all 31 EEA States – the 28 EU States and 3 of the EFTA States. By removing barriers to trade and opening up new opportunities for more than 500 million Europeans, the EEA stimulates economic growth and adds to the international competitiveness of the EEA States. EEA law originates from EU law. As a matter of principle, the EU law rules concerning the single market have been transposed and are being transposed to the EEA legal order. However, the common policies in the fields of agriculture, fisheries, taxation, foreign trade and currency are not part of EEA law.

The UK is an importer for agriculture, the fisheries have been promised to foreigners by Grove, they have a historical opt-out on currency.

In theory the UK could get a court like this, but it means implementing EU law except for very specific opt-outs and we are back to the "Norway deal" where the UK trades it's voice and veto and gets Sweet FA in return. Has to accept the freedom of movement , looses passporting rights for financial services and ends up paying similar amounts into the EU coffers.

jimmycrackcorm

steddyeddy wrote:

Ireland will be hardest hit out of the EU 27 IMHO.

Not only do we have to deal with a customs border with our main trading partner, but double the hassle with anything being exported to the continent that goes via the UK and the English channel.

Jim2007

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Not only do we have to deal with a customs border with our main trading partner, but double the hassle with anything being exported to the continent that goes via the UK and the English channel.

We export 14% to the U.K., about the same as Belgium so it is either join second or third place.

ArthurDayne

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ireland will be hardest hit out of the EU 27 IMHO.

Ireland faces particular complexities but, ultimately, growth has remained strong which provides a barometer of how we are perceived as a 'bet' for investment. There are 27 member states, aside from the UK, and Ireland is one of the few being considered as a top-tier investment candidate alongside Germany, BeNeLux and to a certain extent France. Consider the illustrious old powers we find ourselves being considered alongside in financial services, and the fact that this country, formerly the poor man of Western Europe, is still only in its relatively early generations as a financial centre. Also bear in mind the context of there being almost two dozen other member states which allow businesses access to the single market, and a host of other member states with favourable corporate tax regimes -- and yet we remain one of the leading candidates.

None of this should be taken as flag-waving or as me ignoring the risks which Brexit bears for Ireland. I think it's an utter tragedy for all of Europe and will serve to diminish the influence of both the UK and Europe as a whole. The Irish border is an almighty headache but there is absolutely no credible appetite on the part of the EU, the Irish & British governments or the NI Executive to complicate the border any more than it absolutely needs to be. This differentiates it from historical border disputes which were often the offshoot of war or tension and in that respect all sides will seek to formulate as seamless a solution as possible. We should also bear in mind that our importance to the UK will also grow -- as we would stand as their English-speaking, common law and closely bound counterparts within the EU. They are aware that a friendly Ireland will be a key ally in being kind to British interests within the EU institutions and that they have absolutely nothing to gain from antagonising Ireland or acting in such a way that would significantly stifle our interests.

If we are to address the weaknesses we bear as a result of our exposure to this act of supreme folly by the UK, then we must be acutely aware of the opportunities on which our strengths allow us to capitalise. Those strengths are numerous enough to justify what is being described as a fair but stubborn stance towards the UK. They have hurled themselves into a truly shambolic mess and we, as a Member State of one of the world's great economic powers, can and I believe will adapt to the changing world as we have done before.

I read a rather jingoistic comment somewhere that Britain has survived Napoleon and Hitler - and will survive Brexit. A true statement in my view. We too have survived much -- survived and indeed, thrived.

solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Brexit: Theresa May says UK leaving EU court's jurisdiction

As long as May is in power its a very Hard Brexit so no customs union, and lots of other babies throw out with the bath water.

Makes a trade deal much harder. The EU should counter with setting up an arbitration court with a UK Judge and one for each EU country.

Good morning!

The UK won't agree to this. If the court is to oversee an arrangement with the EU and the UK then it has to have equal representation and a third party to ensure that it isn't biased towards the EU.

If you read the position paper, the only option isn't the EFTA model that you have described, although interestingly it is in the position paper amongst others such as the CETA arbitration process, the EU - South Korea arbitration process amongst other non-EU trade deals for example between New Zealand and South Korea FTA.

It has been posted here that you need to come under direct ECJ jurisdiction in order to have a free trade deal with the EU. That isn't true. There is no reason why any sensible third country would agree to such a biased arrangement.

The UK won't accept anything less than any other third country here. The UK has put forward several reasonable ways of dealing with disputes in its position paper. It's very flexible. The only thing is that the ECJ must not have direct jurisdiction over the UK. It isn't true also that the UK will have to implement the same extent of EU law as EEA member state because they are looking for less, they aren't looking for free movement for example, or to be members of the customs union or single market, it depends on the final trading arrangement.

Dominic Raab did a good job of explaining what the UK's proposals mean in practice.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Where is the evidence that the ECJ is partisan? Is political? Is unfair?

I see it asserted so often that even I 'believe' it to an extent, but I have absolutely no idea what it is based on.

Is there even the faintest bit of corroborating evidence for this repeated-to-the-point-of-belief statement?

murphaph

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

On a country by country basis [Ireland] remains [NI's] key export partner. In 2016, goods exports to the RoI were valued at £2.4 billion, equivalent to 31% of total goods exports value and approximately 56% of the value of goods exported to the EU.

In fairness that's a misleading if accurate statement.

It ignores the rest of the UK, to which NI "exports" £10.4bn, 4 times more than to the RoI. GB is without doubt NI's most important market, even if it's the same country.

Customs controls between NI and GB would probably be even more fatal to the NI economy than between NI and the RoI.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

The UK won't agree to this. If the court is to oversee an arrangement with the EU and the UK then it has to have equal representation and a third party to ensure that it isn't biased towards the EU.

It very much depends on how you look at things.

The question of court jurisdiction arises if we assume that some kind or kinds of continued co-operation or participation emerges as part of the Brexit deal. The UK continues to participate in the European-wide patent system, say, or in the European Arrest Warrant system. The likelihood is that there’s be a number of continuing arrangements of this kind that will be considered and/or agreed, so court jurisdiction is going to come up, The question of jurisdiction arises because these are all law-based systems, and questions about what, e.g. European patent law provides or what it means or how it applies in particular circumstances ultimate have to be resolved by a court.

Right. If you regard such a continuing arrangement as a new, bilateral arrangement between the UK and the EU, then you might feel that the appropriate court is a body appointed jointly by the UK and the EU. That, I think, is where the UK is coming from.

But if you regard such a continuing arrangement as, well, a continuation of an existing arrangement in which a number of states, currently including the UK, already participate, continued participation by the UK doesn’t and shouldn’t give the UK any greater position or status than it already has, or than other participating states have or are going to have. It doesn’t get its own tribunal; disputes involving it go to the same tribunal as disputes involving any other participating states. And that, I think, is where the EU is coming from.

There’s also a practical side to the EU’s stance. The patent system, or the arrest warrant system, or whatever, is a unified system with the same laws applying to everybody. They don’t want to open up the possibility that the same laws are differently interpreted and applied by different tribunals depending on whether they arise in a situation in which the UK is concerned, or one in which it isn’t.

Even if there were to be a separate tribunal for cases involving the UK or UK-based parties, it would be bound to apply the rulings, decisions, interpretations, etc of the ECJ regarding the laws in question. May is in fact shaping up to accept this when she talks about the ECJ having no “direct jurisdiction” in the UK. She’s accepting that whatever tribunal is set up will be bound to apply relevant ECJ rulings, precedents, etc. But that’s unlikely to satisfy the EU. Currently, if an issue of EU law arises in proceedings in (say) the French courts, the parties can ask the French court to refer the question of EU law to the ECJ for a ruling on the European law point, after which the case is returned to the French court to apply the law to the dispute before it. This is a long standing mechanism intended to ensure the consistent application of European law throughout the Union. The Union is unlikely to accept a situation in which the UK participates, and (say) a French person or firm in a case with a UK person or firm doesn’t have the same right to have the relevant European law authoritatively interpreted by the ECJ.

The compromise may be a fig-leaf whereby (a) there’s a special tribunal to hear disputes involving a UK party, but (b) that tribunal is bound by the decisions and rulings of the ECJ, and (c) the tribunal can refer points of EU law to the ECJ for a ruling and must do so if either party before them requests it, and probably (d) if the parties to a dispute agree to they can by-pass the tribunal entirely and go straight to the ECJ. Logically we should also probably say (e) the whole thing should be paid for by the UK government since they’re the only party that want the tribunal and probably the only party that will ever use it, but to enable the UK to save some face that might not be insisted upon.

solodeogloria wrote: »

It has been posted here that you need to come under direct ECJ jurisdiction in order to have a free trade deal with the EU. That isn't true. There is no reason why any sensible third country would agree to such a biased arrangement.

I think this is correct, as far as your traditional free trade deal (involving limited or no customs and import duties) goes. The EU has several such deal with third countries, and they don’t involve submission to the ECJ.

However if you’re looking for something a bit wider it gets murky. Under a traditional free trade deal, a French company (say) could import widgets from the UK and pay no import duties. But the responsibility of ensuring that the widgets complied with EU safety standards, market requirements, etc for widgets would lie with the French importer. The goods would be liable to inspection (and, therefore, delay) at the point of import. This would obviously tend to make British widgets less attractive than widgets produced in, e.g., Germany, where these issues wouldn’t arise.

The “no ECJ jurisdiction” rule works fine here, because if a dispute does arise about whether the widgets are compliant or not, that’s a dispute between the French importer and its French regulator. That dispute can go to the ECJ if necessary; the UK producer is obviously going to be affected by the outcome, but strictly speaking there’s no UK party in the case so British amour propre is not offended.

But if you look for a more radical free trade deal, in which UK exporters are given a right to export to the Union without inspection, delay, etc, in return for the UK agreeing to keep its widget regulations in line with agreed norms, now we have a problem. Now, responsibility for compliance with market requirements does not lie with the French importer, but with the UK producer and/or its UK regulator. Now, any dispute about whether the widgets comply or not is a dispute involving a UK party. And the EU won’t want to sign a free trade agreement of this kind in which questions about what EU widget regulations require are not resolved, ultimately, by the ECJ. So ECJ jurisdiction becomes an issue.

So the UK may have a trade-off here; accept some measure of ECJ jurisdiction, or settle for a free trade agreement that leaves UK producers at more of a disadvantage than they need to be.

(Come to think of it, that’s Brexit in a nutshell, really.)

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK won't agree to this. If the court is to oversee an arrangement with the EU and the UK then it has to have equal representation and a third party to ensure that it isn't biased towards the EU.

If the UK want a simple trade agreement that would be find. But if they want the kind of deal they are looking for then there is every reason that they must submit to the same terms as Switzerland, Norway and every other state that has single market access.

Jim2007

Deleted User wrote: »

Where is the evidence that the ECJ is partisan? Is political? Is unfair?

I see it asserted so often that even I 'believe' it to an extent, but I have absolutely no idea what it is based on.

Is there even the faintest bit of corroborating evidence for this repeated-to-the-point-of-belief statement?

BREXIT supporters have a tendency to confuse the ECHR and ECJ.....

Peregrinus

Jim2007 wrote: »

BREXIT supporters have a tendency to confuse the ECHR and ECJ.....

Where is the evidence that the ECHR is partisan, political or unfair?

ambro25

Peregrinus wrote: »

<...>

The question of court jurisdiction arises if we assume that some kind or kinds of continued co-operation or participation emerges as part of the Brexit deal. The UK continues to participate in the European-wide patent system, say, or in the European Arrest Warrant system. The likelihood is that there’s be a number of continuing arrangements of this kind that will be considered and/or agreed, so court jurisdiction is going to come up, The question of jurisdiction arises because these are all law-based systems, and questions about what, e.g. European patent law provides or what it means or how it applies in particular circumstances ultimate have to be resolved by a court.

<...>

'European patent law' is entirely disconnected from EU Treaties and EU membership. It is governed by the European Patent Convention, which is a standalone international treaty. European patent law governs the obtaining of 'European' patent rights through the European system, but historically does not involve itself with ownership and enforcement post-grant: a European patent is a misnomer, practically it is only a single 'entity' until grant, then it becomes a collection of national (granted) patents amongst owner-selected EPC member states. So in a European context, patent enforcement is a national matter, handled under national patent law.

That is all, except for the mooted new Unified Patent Court jurisdiction (which may not come about in the end, or from which the UK may be automatically expelled if it comes about before March 2019, because Brexit), which proposes to set up a single pan-European jurisdiction for litigating (and so doing away with the uncertainty and Himalayan costs of litigating the same patent rights in different countries with potentially different outcomes in each). 40 years in the seeking and making, ironically enough very significantly at the efforts of the UK profession, and now in the kibosh at the 11th hour due to Brexit.

But even then, the ECJ's role in that context shall be 'simply' its usual one, that of the top level arbiter for interpreting EU law for purposes of maintaining communal coherency/consistency, if a case in the UPC should involve EU law (for whatever reason/set of facts, typically anti-competitive practices hinged upon patent rights breaching EU trade laws). Not that of an actual Court (the UPC will be its own jurisdiction, with its own Courts, which will decide all cases, with or without the ECJ's input acc. to whether they have referred a matter of interpretation to the ECJ or not).

Even without participating in the UPC, the UK (applicants, IP professionals) will still be able to 'work' the EPC without any issue. It's not tied to its EU membership at all.

On paper that is, because -and of course- I have it on good authority that our German and French competitors (at least) have been busy playing on the perception by non-European IP applicants (US, CN, JP, <etc.>) that UK practitioners, along with EU trademark and designs at the EUIPO, will not be able to continue representing before the European Patent Office (which is patently false), and strongly suggesting to them that keeping European patent work alone in the UK, when the UK will lose its capacity to represent in European trademark and design matters, makes little economic sense.

Peregrinus

Well, perhaps the example of patent law that I chose was not a good one. But I think my general point holds good.

ambro25

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, perhaps the example of patent law that I chose was not a good one. But I think my general point holds good.

It certainly does

Use trademarks or designs instead, particularly the 'proper' European ones (within the unitary meaning of the adjective): these forms of IP are going to make judiciary fireworks with Brexit, let me tell you

On March 2019,
what happens to the UK 'share' of existing EU trademark and design rights?
what happens to live EU unregistered designs?
what happens to designs in the grace period for CRD filings?
what happens in pending EUTM/CRD applications and EUTM oppositions wherein a party is represented from the UK?
what happens insofar as exhaustion of rights is concerned?
what happens to <....>

Rights owners have long been asking us about all of this, and still are, with increasing frequency.

And yet, we're still hearing only static about all of this, from Westminster so much as from Brussels. And trust me, it's not for the lack of asking them, for the past 18+ months.

Now, that's all just for the "mechanics", as well. When you consider the pivotal role which the ECJ has in their enforcement and other causes of judiciary action, and has had since their inception in the early 90s...

...all the same, note that divergence between the UK's and the ECJ's respective case laws in IP matters may not become insurmountable, as verifiable e.g. in respect of software patenting: UK Courts, and therefore the UK IPO, have long installed a different legal test to assess the patentability of a computer-implemented invention in the UK, relative to the legal test developed by the European Patent Office's "Court" (Boards of Appeal) for that same assessment, but in practice the respective outcome exhibits strong correlation, and so reasonable certainty of outcome irrespective of the test considered. So, no reason to think that UK Courts and the ECJ could not evolve case law about trademark and designs over time on, a similar 'different-but-the-same' trajectory.

But that's crystal ball gazing, considering the practical legal headaches to solve first.

Jim2007

Peregrinus wrote: »

Where is the evidence that the ECHR is partisan, political or unfair?

They tend to loose cases there

Thomas__

Another example of how some "specialists" in the UK HO are working and frankly, I really do question their qualifications and skills, unless one presumes that this, what has now been dismissed as "a mistake", has some smell of deliberate harassment and "intimidation" in order to make EU nationals "go".

http://www.thejournal.ie/uk-brexit-eu-3561461-Aug2017/

First the huge obstacles for EU nationals for applying for a permanent residence permission, now this and frankly, if all those "mistakes" are not deliberate, those working in the HO and sending out such letters might be complete failures in their jobs. That´s because they pay no attention on the record of residency of the recipients and neither to they pay any regards on whether the person is married to an UK national.

In my view, it appears to be some sort of a combination of idiocy and deliberate harassment which has already started when this failure of a PM which Mrs May is by proof now, was Home Sectretary. That´s again another bitter taste of this Brexit lunacy which has affected some parts of the UK Administration probably some time ago already and what comes to the fore is just the obvious sick mindset of Brexiteers who allegedly are also working within the UK Administration.

Others might make their own mind of it, but it is clear to me that this wasn´t just the "mistake" as the now apologizing senior staff likes to depict it. There was too much of negative reports before that and this incident just fits in too well.

Edit: this Cartoon says more about the Brexiteers and their mindset than words can tell:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2017/aug/23/steve-bell-brexit-negotiations-eu-cartoon

Fratton Fred

Jim2007 wrote: »

They tend to loose cases there

Maybe, but far less than the wider average.

Fullfacts is your friend here.

https://fullfact.org/news/does-uk-lose-three-out-four-european-human-rights-cases/

wes

Brexit: Britain says it should still be able to influence EU regulations after leaving EU


The Brexiters are going all in on having there cake and eating it to. I can't help but think there doing all this on purpose, with unrealistic exceptions, and will then turn around and blame the EU, when it all goes bad for them.

What part of "Brexit means Brexit.", do the Brexiters not get ?

It astonishing that none of them can see the mess there in.

Zubeneschamali

wes wrote: »

It astonishing that none of them can see the mess there in.

If the end goal is a very hard Brexit, this is all just noise, no negotiations are really needed.

The noise is not to influence negotiations or their outcome, it is just to help them to blame the EU for the bad consequences of hard Brexit.

We wanted a frictionless border, but the EU wouldn't allow it.

We wanted a Common Travel Area, but the EU wouldn't allow it.

We wanted full access to the Single Market, but the EU wouldn't allow it.

solodeogloria

wes wrote: »

Brexit: Britain says it should still be able to influence EU regulations after leaving EU


The Brexiters are going all in on having there cake and eating it to. I can't help but think there doing all this on purpose, with unrealistic exceptions, and will then turn around and blame the EU, when it all goes bad for them.

What part of "Brexit means Brexit.", do the Brexiters not get ?

It astonishing that none of them can see the mess there in.

Good afternoon!

That isn't quite right, and it shows that The Independent is very biased on Brexit. Have a look at The Guardian instead.

It is in reference to the data protection paper that has been published by the UK Government.

It is a transition:

But the UK paper argues that Britain should in future be exempt from usual European adequacy tests that are applied to third-party countries seeking to handle the data of EU citizens and instead enter into a more permanent harmonisation agreement to provide stability for companies.
“The government believes it would be in the interest of both the UK and EU to agree early in the process to mutually recognise each other’s data protection frameworks as a basis for the continued free flows of data between the EU and the UK from the point of exit until such time as new and more permanent arrangements come into force,” said the policy paper

until more permanent measures are in place.

The paper also points to other data cooperation measures that it takes towards other non-EU states, while acknowledging that these are more partial than what it is seeking:

To date, the Commission has adopted 12 adequacy decisions under the existing 1995 Directive, with: Andorra, Argentina, Canada (for transfers to commercial organisations who are subject to the Canadian Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents (PIPED) Act), the Faroe Islands, Guernsey, Israel, the Isle of Man, Jersey, New Zealand, Switzerland, Uruguay, and the US (for certified companies). All are subject
to routine review.
As well as adequacy decisions covering all transfers of personal data to a third country, partial adequacy decisions can be made covering only certain sectors of the economy. As mentioned above, two of the EU’s current adequacy decisions are partial: the Canada Decision applies only to transfers of data to Canadian recipients who are subject to the PIPED Act; and the EU-US Privacy Shield is a different type of partial adequacy, in that it applies only to transfers to those companies in the US that have self-certified as having met the standards set out in the Privacy Shield framework. Various factors have, to date, been considered in determining whether to grant a partial or sector-specific adequacy decision (rather than a full decision), including whether there is an overarching data protection law in the third country, its constitutional structure and whether certain of its sectors are particularly exposed to data flows from the EU.

It also proposing a new way of handling data flows between the UK and the EU:

After the UK leaves the EU, new arrangements to govern the continued free flow of personal data between the EU and the UK will be needed, as part of the new, deep and special partnership. The UK starts from an unprecedented point of alignment with the EU. In recognition of this, the UK wants to explore a UK-EU model for exchanging and protecting personal data, which could build on the existing adequacy model, by providing sufficient stability for businesses, public authorities and individuals, and enabling the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and partner EU regulators to maintain effective regulatory cooperation and dialogue for the benefit of those living and working in the UK and the EU after the UK’s withdrawal.

This isn't the same as membership, it looks like cooperation with a third country. If the EU wants to decline this offer it can say no to it. The paper is correct to say that data flows between the UK and the EU are important to both economies. This paper is also very well researched much like a lot of the other papers the UK Government have published.

If you only read The Independent, you'll get a rather limited view of what is going on with Brexit, in much the same way as you'll get a rather limited view by reading The Sun or The Daily Express.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Blowfish

solodeogloria wrote: »

until more permanent measures are in place.

The thing is, adequacy is the only possible permanent measure due to how the legislation is written. It seems the paper says 'we want adequacy, but don't want to be tested on it'. The issue is, there's no provision for that in the legislation as it wasn't forseen that someone within the current EU framework would need to apply for it. It should also probably be pointed out that the main reason they are trying to avoid doing the legal bit that they'll need to do for adequacy is that it usually takes ~18 months plus to get certified so it's cutting it far too close to start now and hope the process is done before the leave date.

Also, the court that has final say in judgements on the GDPR and the other Data Protection regulations is, as you'd expect, the ECJ. You can't say you want to abide by EU Data Privacy and not by the ECJ, it just won't work.

wes

solodeogloria wrote: »

This isn't the same as membership, it looks like cooperation with a third country.

Once there out, they would have the same status as the US, they clearly expect more, which isn't on the cards, based on what they want.

solodeogloria

wes wrote: »

Once there out, they would have the same status as the US, they clearly expect more, which isn't on the cards, based on what they want.

Good afternoon!

With all due respect, we need to hear the European Commission respond to these position papers in the negotiation rather than you on an internet discussion forum.

I agree that these papers are highly aspirational, but as an opening position you wouldn't go for anything less. The UK naturally wants the best outcome.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nody

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

That isn't quite right, and it shows that The Independent is very biased on Brexit. Have a look at The Guardian instead.

It is in reference to the data protection paper that has been published by the UK Government.

It is a transition:

until more permanent measures are in place.

Do you even bother to read the actual papers?

24. After the UK’s withdrawal, regulatory cooperation between the UK and the EU on arrange of issues will be essential, including data protection – not least because the GDPR will continue to apply to UK businesses offering goods or services to individuals in the EEA. A new relationship could therefore enable an ongoing role for the UK’s ICO in EU regulatory fora, preserving existing, valuable regulatory cooperation and building a productive partnership to tackle future challenges

26. The UK would be open to exploring a model which allows the ICO to be fully involved in future EU regulatory dialogue.

That is clearly outlined in the paper that UK wants a seat at the table to steer EU law after Brexit is over and is not related to some limited time period.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

I agree that these papers are highly aspirational

in the sense that they have moved on from having their cake and eating it, to the new position of having magic invisible cake and eating it.

Blowfish

Nody wrote: »

Do you even bother to read the actual papers?
That is clearly outlined in the paper that UK wants a seat at the table to steer EU law after Brexit is over and is not related to some limited time period.

Indeed. The bodies that are involved in Data Protection for the EU are:

• The EU Commission - No chance the UK gets a say here after leaving.
• The ECJ - The UK doesn't seem to want to have anything to do here.
• The European Data Protection Board (replaces the Article 29 WP) - Not likely to get a seat here either as it's an official EU body, plus it would be a conflict as the EDPB are the ones who advise the Commission on the level of protection countries have for Adequacy.

I'm not sure where the UK think they can realistically fit in to have a say.

Jaggo

I don't see that working.

The EU/US data agreement "Safe Harbour" was struck down by the ECJ due to concerns with US intelligence interference, hence, the very limited US agreement.

The UK are already in breach of the ECJ data protection rulings with the snoopers charter and there are a further 5 regulations in the charter that have not yet been implemented nor challenged in court.

The EU in accepting the UK as a data partner nation would be breaching its own rules never mind anything further that might be brought in.

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

With all due respect, we need to hear the European Commission respond to these position papers in the negotiation rather than you on an internet discussion forum.

Debate-suppressing, much?

solodeogloria wrote: »

I agree that these papers are highly aspirational, but as an opening position you wouldn't go for anything less.

'Highly aspirational' without a healthy dose of implementing pragmatism is hardly conducive of progress within the time-constrained context of these negotiations.

The UK is out of time to continue playing silly bugger continually asking for the pipe-dreamt moon on a stick.

Through its own doing and none other, and certainly not the EU's under any stretches of meaning.

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

On a country by country basis [Ireland] remains [NI's] key export partner. In 2016, goods exports to the RoI were valued at £2.4 billion, equivalent to 31% of total goods exports value and approximately 56% of the value of goods exported to the EU.

assemblyresearchmatters.org

_____________________________________________________________________________

What the SDLP and SF need to do now is work towards having a border poll to get the UI gears in motion.

However bad a hard border between North and South would be for Northern Ireland, a hard border between the islands is insanity. Northern Ireland's biggest trade partner is the rest of the UK.

wes

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

With all due respect, we need to hear the European Commission respond to these position papers in the negotiation rather than you on an internet discussion forum.

I agree that these papers are highly aspirational, but as an opening position you wouldn't go for anything less. The UK naturally wants the best outcome.

There is wanting the best, and asking for things that they know they can't have. Over promising knowing full well you won't get what your asking for is simply lieing, which has been a feature of this Brexit mess from the beginning.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

With all due respect, we need to hear the European Commission respond to these position papers in the negotiation rather than you on an internet discussion forum.

Until the UK addresses the three items that must be addressed in respect of the exit talks, there is no obligation on the EU to do anything with these papers, other than file them in the round filling cabinet. The agenda has been set and Davis agreed to it - now they will be held to it.