Brexit discussion thread II

First Up

Yes, IF

Nody wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

To come is a tourist or for a short business trip?

They don't make a difference; it's valid for up to 90 days every 6 months and can be single, double or multiple entry depending on the need of the person. For more details please see here.

Yes, but only if you need a visa. As I said above, that doesn't apply to citizens of the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Israel and a few dozen others.


You think the UK won't be added to that list?

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

Firstly - it does depend on the negotiations. This is why both parties need to be reasonable and get a deal.

Good of you to finally accept that this proposal by the UK is still only pie-in-the-sky. Thank you.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Secondly - the only "downgrade" I can see is that EU citizens will have the same restrictions on non-EU spouses as British citizens. This is fair.

Notwithstanding the present situation, rights <etc.> of EU migrants already in the UK :rolleyes:

I'm not surprised your bias is clouding your assessment.

But that is a circle which is hardly going to get squared on here any time soon, by the evidence of your opinions.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Thirdly - the ECJ isn't an independent body. It is biased to one side of the argument. This is why the UK are proposing a truly impartial arbitration mechanism.

You keep mentioning this bias of the ECJ, but "I've been through this with you already" myself, and you still haven't supported your claim.

In passing, you do realise, of course, that the ECJ would hearing cases of Brits settled in the EU as well as those of EU nationals settled in the UK? For Brits, is that preferable to national courts, you think?

Still, applying your own logic, the UK Courts would be just as biased as the ECJ, so they're no good either. So that leaves the 'impartial arbitration mechanism' (which Barnier has nixed).

For the time being (-subject to how negotiations reboot and then go on), I very much doubt that the EU is willing to foot the first € of its budget, so long as the UK's position about the exit bill remains for the EU to 'go whistle'.

Much work left to do by No.10 and the DfEEU :pac:

Nody

First Up wrote: »

Yes, IF

Yes, but only if you need a visa. As I said above, that doesn't apply to citizens of the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Israel and a few dozen others.


You think the UK won't be added to that list?

They are extending it to non visa application countries as well; hence they would need a visa as well but a more simple version done online ala USA for entry visa and a more expensive and complicated one for the rest of the countries.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK Government proposes this for all aspects of the deal from what I understand.

A non-biased tribunal is ideal. The point is that the UK doesn't want to be subject to a body which has an inherent bias towards the EU and a body in which they would have zero representation. This is the ECJ post-Brexit.

This is hardly surprising and the UK have proposed a good alternative model. Being subject to an EU court post-Brexit is completely unacceptable for obvious reasons.

Unless the UK wants to participate/have access to parts of the EU. If you want to borrow money from a bank and you don't want to sign up to the terms and conditions then you cannot ask for a "alternative" terms because you think they may be biased against you.

In any case you are wrong to assert the ECJ would be biased. In the same way that the UK courts aren't biased when they decide a case involving the government, the ECJ would not be biased in a case involving the EU. They would look at the law only. If the UK has a case against the EU and they are on sound legal footing they have nothing to fear from the ECJ. If they want to load the dice in a crap shoot against the EU, then asking for more UK participation when deciding disputes is the way to go.

First Up

Nody wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Yes, IF

Yes, but only if you need a visa. As I said above, that doesn't apply to citizens of the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Israel and a few dozen others.


You think the UK won't be added to that list?

They are extending it to non visa application countries as well; hence they would need a visa as well but a more simple version done online ala USA for entry visa and a more expensive and complicated one for the rest of the countries.

That was just a proposal to charge visitors a fiver.  It didn't go anywhere.

Zubeneschamali

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

British politics means that unless you're either red or blue you're never getting into power.

This is also why Corbyn was so weak in the Remain campaign. He thinks that the EU is too pro-big-business, and not strong enough on rights of workers and the poor.

Immediately post Brexit, with the Tories in charge, workers and the poor will lose the protections they have under the EU. But Corbyn knows that the pendulum will swing and the Tories will eventually lose an election, and that Labour will get in. Then, without the EU interfering with its fiscal rules and business focus, Labour will be free to tax the crap out of the rich and rebuild the NHS and social services.

But he has to make things worse before he can make them better. Personally, I am very dubious of politicians who think that way, since making things worse is easy, make them better is hard.

solodeogloria

Enzokk wrote: »

In any case you are wrong to assert the ECJ would be biased. In the same way that the UK courts aren't biased when they decide a case involving the government, the ECJ would not be biased in a case involving the EU. They would look at the law only. If the UK has a case against the EU and they are on sound legal footing they have nothing to fear from the ECJ. If they want to load the dice in a crap shoot against the EU, then asking for more UK participation when deciding disputes is the way to go.

Good morning!

The obvious solution when the EU won't trust British courts to rule on UK law (I don't know why this would be the case) and when the British don't trust the ECJ (this is obvious). Then the best solution is an arbitration mechanism with a third party observer to mediate. It's a reasonable solution with international precedent.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

And, to clarify, has the UK proposed that the rights of EU citizens in the UK post-Brexit be guaranteed by, or adjudicated by, a "truly impartial arbitration mechanism"?

No - May in her recent speech said the UK courts would handle this, and that no-one could possibly think they are less than perfect in every way.

ArmaniJeanss

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is also why Corbyn was so weak in the Remain campaign. He thinks that the EU is too pro-big-business, and not strong enough on rights of workers and the poor.

I've always had a theory that the leftist leaning politicians' problem with the EU is that it is too strong on workers rights.
It has effortlessly brought in rules and regulations in favor of workers that ideally should have had to be fought for inch by inch by the workers led by the Corbyns or Joe Higgins of these islands. Parental leave, maximum working hours, minimum holidays, safety regulations.
The EU actually usurped the left.
Just a theory.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

The obvious solution when the EU won't trust British courts to rule on UK law (I don't know why this would be the case) and when the British don't trust the ECJ (this is obvious). Then the best solution is an arbitration mechanism with a third party observer to mediate. It's a reasonable solution with international precedent.

I should have clarified, like in the recent case against the Home Office about the deportation of Samim Bigzad the UK courts didn't have the interest of the UK government at heart but it was about the law. The same would apply with the EU and the ECJ. Its about the law being applied by the EU and nothing else. If the ECJ were to be the dispute resolution chamber between the UK and EU it would only consider the law.

You haven't shown that the ECJ has shown any legal bias so we can safely exclude your opinion of bias as rubbish.

ambro25

Away from the immigration side of the debate and the ECJ, the BoE is pointing to some uncomfortable facts afresh today. The UK is back to partying like 2008 never happened.

I don't know what the situation is like on your side of the Irish Sea (are people back to changing cars annually to 'get the new year plate' ahead of the neighbours in Dub'? ), but I can perfectly relate to the PCP balloon issue in the UK, even by way of anecdotal/personal observation: never seen so many new cars on the road than in the past year, even some of our own support staff (not employed long, and whose pay level I know perfectly well, as management) recently turned up in 66 or 17 plates.

Perhaps they've inherited or made extraordinary gains (they sure ain't moonlighting as gentlemen club dancers). Though it doesn't really explain just about everybody around in new or very-nearly-new cars. And MSM noises about overheating personal credit in the UK go back a few months now.

Do we sell our UK house when we bail out (75%-ish equity), or hang on to it and rent it out?

listermint

The scrappage scheme seems to have alot to answer for in promoting PCP uptake. PCP in itself being the latest bubble.

No doubt will pop as the economy takes a steeper nose dive in the UK with all this uncertainty. Nothings certain till its certain similar to nothings agreed until everything is agreed.

solodeogloria

Enzokk wrote: »

I should have clarified, like in the recent case against the Home Office about the deportation of Samim Bigzad the UK courts didn't have the interest of the UK government at heart but it was about the law. The same would apply with the EU and the ECJ. Its about the law being applied by the EU and nothing else. If the ECJ were to be the dispute resolution chamber between the UK and EU it would only consider the law.

You haven't shown that the ECJ has shown any legal bias so we can safely exclude your opinion of bias as rubbish.

Good afternoon!

I wasn't referring to this case. I didn't know about it until you highlighted it but there is no good reason as to why the UK should subject itself to the ECJ as a non-member of the EU.

A tribunal with equal EU and UK representatives with a third party could resolve issues in a way that would be fair and satisfactory. This is a good compromise and a fair one.

The EU can have zero direct jurisdiction over the UK after the Brexit transition is over. That has to be a red line. It isn't a true Brexit if this continues because the UK will not have regained control over their own laws.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

I wasn't referring to this case. I didn't know about it until you highlighted it but there is no good reason as to why the UK should subject itself to the ECJ as a non-member of the EU.

A tribunal with equal EU and UK representatives with a third party could resolve issues in a way that would be fair and satisfactory. This is a good compromise and a fair one.

The EU can have zero direct jurisdiction over the UK after the Brexit transition is over. That has to be a red line. It isn't a true Brexit if this continues because the UK will not have regained control over their own laws.

I was referring to that case. Do you accept that the courts can be impartial and will not just do what the ruling party wants? I have shown that the UK courts do go against the government and with regards to the ECJ, they have found in favour of the UK with regards to the single market.

In any case the court you really should have a problem with is the ECHR, which has nothing to do with the EU as they have been the ones telling the UK when they can and cannot deport individuals. They have been taking away control from the UK.

In any case when you conclude a trade deal, and if it is a very close trade deal between two countries, there will be some measure of giving up control. Take the US as an example, they could insist on lowering of standards to allow you access to their market (chlorinated chickens). You are giving up control of standards in that case, but not to the EU? Seems a little strange to me, then again if you shout control loud enough people may just start believing it, as you have done.

Reality Check: What is the European Court of Justice?

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

The EU can have zero direct jurisdiction over the UK after the Brexit transition is over. That has to be a red line. It isn't a true Brexit if this continues because the UK will not have regained control over their own laws.

The UK will not have "regained control over their own laws" when they appoint and submit to the jurisdiction that new supranational tribunal to interpret and enforce those "own laws": the UK Parliament (and/or Ministers empowered under Henri VIII clauses) will be free to do what they please with UK immigration laws but, should those "own laws" evolve to the extent of becoming incompatible with the EU laws that constitute the other side of the statutory balancing act, that new supranational court will bring the UK to task through judgements. And reciprocally for the EU and the EU laws, of course.

So it will be that new supranational tribunal, which will effectively be 'making' and 'controlling' immigration law (by charting new statutory waters for both sides, through legislative interpretation).

Your steadfast repeating of the regaining control mantra leads me to believe that you still don't get the element of sovereignty-sharing that is inherent to any international treaty or agreement of any sort, irrespective of the EU membership/Brexit context.

The only country in the world that does not share or pool sovereignty with others in any way, is the Democratic People's Republic of (North) Korea. Food for thought. Perhaps.

breatheme

ambro25 wrote: »

The only country in the world that does not share or pool sovereignty with others in any way, is the Democratic People's Republic of (North) Korea. Food for thought. Perhaps.

True. Whenever a country engages in trade deals, becomes part of an international body (NATO, the UN), they give up some sovereignty. And this is coming from the UK, which after leaving the EU will have every trade deal ever with every country ever, now free from the chains of the EU. But they will be 100% sovereign. I can't help but roll my eyes at the UK's constant neurotic desire to have mutually exclusive things.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

The EU can have zero direct jurisdiction over the UK after the Brexit transition is over. That has to be a red line. It isn't a true Brexit if this continues because the UK will not have regained control over their own laws.

Fine, but then don't come looking for anything other than the typical Canadian style deal.

If the UK wants something like Norway or Switzerland then they need to sign up to the same conditions. There is absolutely no reason for the EU to go out of it's way to give some special concessions to the UK, especially as they are now just another third country.

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I wasn't referring to this case. I didn't know about it until you highlighted it but there is no good reason as to why the UK should subject itself to the ECJ as a non-member of the EU.

A tribunal with equal EU and UK representatives with a third party could resolve issues in a way that would be fair and satisfactory. This is a good compromise and a fair one.

The EU can have zero direct jurisdiction over the UK after the Brexit transition is over. That has to be a red line. It isn't a true Brexit if this continues because the UK will not have regained control over their own laws.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I think the 27 EU countries should have a representative each, and the UK should have one. If you need an independent person as well, so be it, giving the court 29 members.

By the way, that is not a serious proposal, it just highlights the arrogance of the UK position, that they should somehow be treated as more special than any of the EU 27.

It is time that May realises the meaning of her words, that the UK cannot expect to stay outside the EU and get any of its benefits.

Zubeneschamali

Jim2007 wrote: »

Fine, but then don't come looking for anything other than the typical Canadian style deal.

If the UK wants something like Norway or Switzerland

Per May's speech - Norway, that is out. Sweden, that is out. Canada, that is out.

jm08

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I wasn't referring to this case. I didn't know about it until you highlighted it but there is no good reason as to why the UK should subject itself to the ECJ as a non-member of the EU.

A tribunal with equal EU and UK representatives with a third party could resolve issues in a way that would be fair and satisfactory. This is a good compromise and a fair one.

The EU can have zero direct jurisdiction over the UK after the Brexit transition is over. That has to be a red line. It isn't a true Brexit if this continues because the UK will not have regained control over their own laws.

Thats a different thing to the ECJ. What the ECJ does is interpret EU law - there is no partiality involved (and even at that, as far as I know, if there is a UK v Ireland case for example, you will not have any British or Irish judges involved.

So, to accommodate what the UK wants, a judge from a different jurisdiction (Canada, USA etc. would have to interpret EU law which has been transposed into British law).

solodeogloria

blanch152 wrote: »

I think the 27 EU countries should have a representative each, and the UK should have one. If you need an independent person as well, so be it, giving the court 29 members.

By the way, that is not a serious proposal, it just highlights the arrogance of the UK position, that they should somehow be treated as more special than any of the EU 27.

It is time that May realises the meaning of her words, that the UK cannot expect to stay outside the EU and get any of its benefits.

Good afternoon!

This also isn't sufficient for a bilateral agreement.

Canada wouldn't accept this arrangement and the UK shouldn't either. The two parties to the agreement are the UK and the EU. Therefore there should be equal representation. An impartial third party should be appointed to deal with stalemates.

You've misunderstood why people on the UK side object to direct jurisdiction of the ECJ if you've not understood this point.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Sam Russell

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Per May's speech - Norway, that is out. Sweden, that is out. Canada, that is out.

Sweden is within the EU.

I think you may have meant Switzerland, but that is out because the EU thinks that it is not prepared for the constant redrafting of the terms that is required to cope with all the Swiss referendums.

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

This also isn't sufficient for a bilateral agreement.

Canada wouldn't accept this arrangement and the UK shouldn't either. The two parties to the agreement are the UK and the EU. Therefore there should be equal representation. An impartial third party should be appointed to deal with stalemates.

You've misunderstood why people on the UK side object to direct jurisdiction of the ECJ if you've not understood this point.

Wrong: there are 28 parties to the Brexit negotiations and the notional post-Brexit agreement. The UK on one side, 27 Member States on the other. That has always been the case.

And is the reason why every single one of the those 27 Member States has a respective veto on both the negotiated outcome and the notional post-Brexit agreement (if same should not form part of the negotiated outcome).

Regardless of what Barnier, Juncker, Verhofstadt <etc.> say, and regardless of how the European Parliament votes itself on the matter.

You've misunderstood why the EU27 are insisting on the jurisdiction of the ECJ for EU immigrants (and why it's a good idea for Brits still in the EU post-Brexit to support it as well...which the various support/lobbying organisations which they have formed unsurprisingly do), if you've not understood this point

Professor Moriarty

ambro25 wrote: »

Wrong: there are 28 parties to the Brexit negotiations and the notional post-Brexit agreement. The UK on one side, 27 Member States on the other. That has always been the case.

And is the reason why every single one of the those 27 Member States has a respective veto on both the negotiated outcome and the notional post-Brexit agreement (if same should not form part of the negotiated outcome).

Regardless of what Barnier, Juncker, Verhofstadt <etc.> say, and regardless of how the European Parliament votes itself on the matter.

You've misunderstood why the EU27 are insisting on the jurisdiction of the ECJ for EU immigrants (and why it's a good idea for Brits still in the EU post-Brexit to support it as well...which the various support/lobbying organisations which they have formed unsurprisingly do), if you've not understood this point

From Britain's perspective, it's even worse than that. In addition to the 27 national parliaments, there are six regional parliaments (Wallonia being a case in point) that have a veto.

LiamaDelta

Professor Moriarty wrote:

From Britain's perspective, it's even worse than that. In addition to the 27 national parliaments, there are six regional parliaments (Wallonia being a case in point) that have a veto.

I was of the understanding that we don't have a veto on the actual article 50 post-brexit agreement. We only have a veto on a subsequent trade deal? Is that correct?

Samaris

LiamaDelta wrote: »

I was of the understanding that we don't have a veto on the actual article 50 post-brexit agreement. We only have a veto on a subsequent trade deal? Is that correct?

We can't veto the UK handing in Article 50, that is entirely their own choice. But any country can veto any deals made regarding the process. If Britain demanded, say, that it stay in for a transition period, but during that period all immigration was off, any country could veto as I understand it, even if the negotiators agreed.

steddyeddy

Speaking of vetos, the negotiations are once again being delayed until the UK sorts out Ireland and the divoirce bill. Why don't they think this applies to them? From a practical point of view the EU 27 won't want to pick up the tab the UK doesn't want to.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-transition-period-single-market-eu-chief-negotiator-michel-barnier-talks-brussels-davis-davis-a7966616.html%3famp

Capt'n Midnight

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

From Britain's perspective, it's even worse than that. In addition to the 27 national parliaments, there are six regional parliaments (Wallonia being a case in point) that have a veto.

There's also the added rub that some parliaments have two houses so both may need to be onside. So it's more like 37 bodies that may need to be appeased.

And negotiations aren't progressing as well as some would like.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-41379185

The Scottish and UK governments have held "constructive" talks over Brexit, but are still a long way from a deal.

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2017/0925/907267-varadkar-politics/

Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has said it is too early to say whether Britain has made sufficient progress in Brexit talks to allow them to continue on to the next phase.

Just another reminder that the UK needs to work now to keep the lights on. Brexit is distracting the UK. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-41373466

Britain will need to boost its generation of electricity by about a quarter, Scottish Power has estimated.

The energy firm said electric cars and a shift to electric heating could send demand for power soaring

Fratton Fred

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Just another reminder that the UK needs to work now to keep the lights on. Brexit is distracting the UK. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-41373466

What the hell has that got to do with Brexit, or is this just another one of your irrelevant news dumps?

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

This also isn't sufficient for a bilateral agreement.

Canada wouldn't accept this arrangement and the UK shouldn't either. The two parties to the agreement are the UK and the EU. Therefore there should be equal representation. An impartial third party should be appointed to deal with stalemates.

You've misunderstood why people on the UK side object to direct jurisdiction of the ECJ if you've not understood this point.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Haven't misunderstood a thing, but if the UK just wants Canada's deal, they can have the same arrangement as Canada, but if they want anything more, like Norway or Iceland or Turkey or Switzerland, tough, they have to accept the ECJ.

Now, if the UK want Canada's deal, they are even more stupid than I thought. The problem is they have to stop wanting to have their cake and eat it. UK needs the EU, the EU doesn't need the UK, like Austria or Malta or Portugal just couldn't care less if the UK left, so long as there is no contagion, which means hit the UK hard.

LeinsterDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What the hell has that got to do with Brexit, or is this just another one of your irrelevant news dumps?

The UK pulling out of or not getting agreement on the SEM wou mean they would have to buy even more power plants.

http://www.pwc.ie/campaigns/brexit/brexit-insights/2017-brexit-energy-update.html

Jim2007

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What the hell has that got to do with Brexit, or is this just another one of your irrelevant news dumps?

Go read article 50 and get your head around the fact the very single agreement without exception dies on the 31st of March 2019 unless the U.K. acts to prevent it. At this stage I doubt anyone has the overview of what that means!

A while back one of the big engineering firms pointed out that they are currently entitled to use U.K. parts in government contracts across the EU. What happens to the parts they have in stock on the exit date, can they still use them? Or if they have replace an existing part under a maintenance contract can they still legally do so? No answers because no one even considered the possibility!

Jim2007

LiamaDelta wrote: »

I was of the understanding that we don't have a veto on the actual article 50 post-brexit agreement. We only have a veto on a subsequent trade deal? Is that correct?

Well the question of a veto would not arise if the U.K. were to agree an exit deal that fell fully within the remit of A50 and a trade deal as a third country that only needed EU parliament approval. But clearly everything the U.K. wants does not fall within those parameters.

On top of that I doubt very much the 27 will want to put something like this to a vote and risk a division for the sake of a third country.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

The UK Government proposes this for all aspects of the deal from what I understand.

A non-biased tribunal is ideal. The point is that the UK doesn't want to be subject to a body which has an inherent bias towards the EU and a body in which they would have zero representation. This is the ECJ post-Brexit.

This is hardly surprising and the UK have proposed a good alternative model. Being subject to an EU court post-Brexit is completely unacceptable for obvious reasons.

I don't think the UK Government does propose this for all aspects of the deal. At least, not any more.

In her Florence speech, in connection with citizens rights, May did indicate openness to accepting a role for the ECJ in settling rights disputes:

“I want UK courts to be able to take into account the judgments of the European court of justice with a view to ensuring consistent interpretation.”

This looks like she is opening the door to Art 177 referrals, or something very like them. Under Art. 117, a national court, faced with a dispute in which EU law is relevant, can refer a question of EU law to the ECJ. Note that they don't refer the dispute to the ECJ; they just refer a question of EU law for an authoritative ruling. The ECJ gives its ruling, and the national court then adjudicates the dispute on the basis that EU law is as the ECJ has ruled.

So, if Joe Bloggs, a citizen of the Union, believes that he is being treated by the UK Home Office in a way that is inconsistent with his rights under the UK/EU Treaty of Brexit (or whatever it eventually gets called) he sues the Home Secretary in the UK courts, and then he asks the UK court to refer to the ECJ whatever point of the Treaty interpretation/effect that he relies on, and that the Home Secretary does not accept. The ECJ rules on the interpretation/effect of the treaty. The UK courts then apply that ruling to the facts before them and give a judgment as to whether Joe Bloggs has, or has not, been treated lawfully by the Home Secretary.

As regards trade matters, the UK are still (so far) sticking to the line of no ECJ jurisdiction. This does, however, limit their participation in European markets. You can't participate in a regulated market but decline to accept the regulatory regime, so at some point the UK is going to have to make a choice; hold the line on ECJ jurisdiction and accept that this means they'll always be outsiders in EU-regulated markets, or seek insider status and accept ECJ jurisdiction.

Of course, this doesn't have to be a one-size fits all decision. If the UK can accept a measure of ECJ jurisdiction in relation to citizens rights, then there's no fundamental reason why they couldn't accept a measure of ECJ jurisdiction in relation to, say, aviation, in order to get participation in the European Aviation Area (which I think is something they would very much like to have). And you could multiply these examples. Once you accept that jurisdiction can be approached subject-by-subject in this way - which I think May has just signaled that she has accepted - then all kinds of possibilities open up for those prepared to be flexible and creative and pragmatic.

And one other point should be made. What you write suggests that you think of cases that come before the ECJ as disputes between the UK and the EU (or, more generally, between a member state and the Union). They are almost never of that kind. The great bulk of them are disputes between two individuals, or two companies, or an individual and a company (or, of course, there may be three or four or more parties). The parties may in the same member state, or in different member states. Some are disputes between individuals/companies on the one hand, and a state or states on the other. Some are disputes between individuals/companies on one hand, and the European Commission or another EU body on the other. Very, very few are disputes directly between member states, or between member states and an EU institution.

You also seem to be under the impression that the judges are appointed to represent their respective countries. They are not. While there's a convention that each country nominates one judge, all judges are appointed by common agreement of the member states, and all are appointed to discharge a normal judicial function, which is not in any way representative. There is no requirement that the judges themselves should hold EU citizenship, or the citizenship of any particular member state. The court is organised into chambers of three or five judges, but occasionally sits in a "grand chamber" of 15 judges. It's a matter of coincidence whether any judge in the chamber hearing a case shares a nationality with any party in the case.

Fratton Fred

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The UK pulling out of or not getting agreement on the SEM wou mean they would have to buy even more power plants.

http://www.pwc.ie/campaigns/brexit/brexit-insights/2017-brexit-energy-update.html

Oh. Sweet. Jesus

solodeogloria

Good morning!

To save a lengthy post - none of that persuades me in the slightest that Britain should subject itself to the ECJ. The reasonable compromise is that there can be a tribunal set up for disputes and that British judges will consider ECJ judgements when ruling. The ECJ on the other hand will not and should not be able to supersede the Supreme Court.

The UK have already proposed very good compromises in respect to citizens rights and ECJ rulings. If the EU aren't willing to move forward they are being inherently unreasonable in my view.

I accept that British businesses can and should be subject to the ECJ if they trade within the EU in the same way as Google and Microsoft can be. But this is in respect to their activities within the European Union. The ECJ should have no direct jurisdiction in the UK. I won't be budging on this one.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

. . . I accept that British businesses can and should be subject to the ECJ if they trade within the EU in the same way as Google and Microsoft can be. But this is in respect to their activities within the European Union. The ECJ should have no direct jurisdiction in the UK. I won't be budging on this one.

You might not be budging, but May seems to be shaping up for a bit of a budge.

Still, running with your position for a moment, if British business are rightly "subject to the ECJ if they trade within the EU" the corollary is that, if the UK is to participate in the European Aviation Area, for example, then British aviation businesses will be "within the EU" or, at any rate, within a market regulated by the EU, and so ECJ jurisdiction over UK participants in the aviation industry would be subject to ECJ jurisdiction.

In other words, even your position, as you state it, is not inconsistent with ECJ jurisdiction over UK individuals and/or companies; it would still leave open the possibility of ECJ jurisdiction over UK individuals and/or companies who get any kind of "internal" status in EU regulated markets.

Which I don't think is something that you would favour. So, just to be clear, would it be true to say not only that you believe that ECJ jurisdiction over UK individuals/companies is only appropriate when they trade within the EU, but also that you would reject any Brexit deal which would agree to accept ECJ jurisdiction in return for, in effect, "internal" status for UK individuals/companies in the market, or in particular market sectors? It's up to individual companies to trade in the EU or not, as they prefer, but the UK government should not agree to anything which effectively treats them all as doing so?

Or, to put that in concrete terms, you would oppose a Brexit deal which treated the UK as part of the European Aviation Area if that involved the UK accepting ECJ jurisdiction in relation to the regulation of the aviation services market?

solodeogloria

Good morning!

I wouldn't be willing to accept direct ECJ jurisdiction outside of transitional terms.

This means that I prefer arranging aviation terms as a third country. If other countries are able to fly in and out of the European Union without direct jurisdiction of the ECJ then this is the better model.

ECJ rulings if they apply to British businesses should only apply to their conduct within the EU. Domestic British matters should be handled in British courts. This is the only type of ECJ involvement I'd consider.

The short line is I'd only accept for British businesses to be subject to the ECJ in respect to their business activities in the EU Single Market. Not in any way different to American firms like Google and Microsoft.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Oh. Sweet. Jesus

Fred you'd be doing a better job defending the UK if you actually debate the posters who think Brexit is great, rather than attack posts who are pointing out Brexit will be bad given the UK's energy situation. Then you wonder why people think you're a brexiter.

steddyeddy

Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman states that there is zero chance Britain will be better off after Brexit. You could also believe Boris, a serial liar who's testament to how social Darwinism can be more important than intelligence or ability to communicate.

www.independent.co.uk/news/business/brexit-paul-krugman-zero-chance-britain-better-off-eu-leave-single-market-custom-union-exports-trade-a7965871.html%3famp

LeinsterDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Oh. Sweet. Jesus

Can we have more than a 3 word response?

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I wouldn't be willing to accept direct ECJ jurisdiction outside of transitional terms.

This means that I prefer arranging aviation terms as a third country. If other countries are able to fly in and out of the European Union without direct jurisdiction of the ECJ then this is the better model.

They are. But they're not able to fly within the EU.

So, for example, El Al can fly from Tel Aviv to Rome, and from Rome on to e.g. Milan or Barcelona. But it can't pick up passengers in Rome and fly them on to Milan or Barcelona. And it can't have a flight which originates in Rome and goes to Milan or Barcelona, or indeed anywhere except an Israeli airport.

At the moment, I can get an Easyjet flight from Madrid to Lisbon or Paris or Milan or Brussels. Or from Rome to Nice or Hamburg or Toulouse or Amsterdam. Or from Berlin to about twenty different cities in the EU-27. None of that will be possible if the UK leaves the European Aviation Area. I'll still be able to get all those flights, of course; just not with a UK-owned airline.

And something similar will apply to flights to external destinations. At the moment BA can (and does) provide a direct service from Paris to New York. It can do that from any city in the European Aviation Area. That won't be possible if the UK leaves.

UK airlines could still fly from the UK to other third countries, of course, except that all the agreement under which they currently do so are EU agreements, and the UK will be leaving them on Brexit Day (unless it negotiates to remain in the Aviation Area). So they'll all have to be renegotiated, which (a) could lead to a timing problem, and (b) could lead to less attractive terms. The European Aviation Area is the most liberal aviation area in the world, and third states are quite keen to have the rights to fly into it. The UK in isolation is not quite such an attractive deal.

In other words, the UK airline industry really, really wants to stay in the Aviation Area - and not just for a transitional period. And, while non-EU countries have been admitted to the area, nobody has got in without accepting the direct regulation of the European Aviation Safety Authority, and the direct jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Nor is this every likely to happen.

So the price of your attitude to ECJ jursidiction is that UK players will forever be outsiders in the European Aviation market. If you're OK with that, well, fine. But you can dispense with any notion that this will leave BA or Easyjet in a similar position in the European aviation market to that enjoyed by Microsoft in the European software market. No. Not at all.

Fratton Fred

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Can we have more than a 3 word response?

ok, sure.

read the article you linked to properly.

is that better?

Enzokk

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Oh. Sweet. Jesus

I think solo said it best,

solodeogloria wrote: »

One liners like this aren't helpful to a constructive discussion or to anyone.

solodeogloria wrote: »

To save a lengthy post - none of that persuades me in the slightest that Britain should subject itself to the ECJ. The reasonable compromise is that there can be a tribunal set up for disputes and that British judges will consider ECJ judgements when ruling. The ECJ on the other hand will not and should not be able to supersede the Supreme Court.

The UK have already proposed very good compromises in respect to citizens rights and ECJ rulings. If the EU aren't willing to move forward they are being inherently unreasonable in my view.

I accept that British businesses can and should be subject to the ECJ if they trade within the EU in the same way as Google and Microsoft can be. But this is in respect to their activities within the European Union. The ECJ should have no direct jurisdiction in the UK. I won't be budging on this one.

You keep mentioning how good the compromises are that the UK have offered, but I don't remember anything other than some slogans. The UK wants to have creative solutions to the border. The UK wants a new deal with the EU that is bespoke and unique.

Its time for the UK to start offering solutions to their problems. No more wishy washy slogans about how great the partnership can be, but honest talk about solutions to the real problems they face. I unfortunately do not see that as forthcoming as the solutions that are realistic will be against all the rhetoric from the prominent Brexiteers all this time.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

They are. But they're not able to fly within the EU.

So, for example, El Al can fly from Tel Aviv to Rome, and from Rome on to e.g. Milan or Barcelona. But it can't pick up passengers in Rome and fly them on to Milan or Barcelona. And it can't have a flight which originates in Rome and goes to Milan or Barcelona, or indeed anywhere except an Israeli airport.

At the moment, I can get an Easyjet flight from Madrid to Lisbon or Paris or Milan or Brussels. Or from Rome to Nice or Hamburg or Toulouse or Amsterdam. Or from Berlin to about twenty different cities in the EU-27. None of that will be possible if the UK leaves the European Aviation Area. I'll still be able to get all those flights, of course; just not with a UK-owned airline.

And something similar will apply to flights to external destinations. At the moment BA can (and does) provide a direct service from Paris to New York. It can do that from any city in the European Aviation Area. That won't be possible if the UK leaves.

UK airlines could still fly from the UK to other third countries, of course, except that all the agreement under which they currently do so are EU agreements, and the UK will be leaving them on Brexit Day (unless it negotiates to remain in the Aviation Area). So they'll all have to be renegotiated, which (a) could lead to a timing problem, and (b) could lead to less attractive terms. The European Aviation Area is the most liberal aviation area in the world, and third states are quite keen to have the rights to fly into it. The UK in isolation is not quite such an attractive deal.

In other words, the UK airline industry really, really wants to stay in the Aviation Area - and not just for a transitional period. And, while non-EU countries have been admitted to the area, nobody has got in without accepting the direct regulation of the European Aviation Safety Authority, and the direct jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Nor is this every likely to happen.

So the price of your attitude to ECJ jursidiction is that UK players will forever be outsiders in the European Aviation market. If you're OK with that, well, fine. But you can dispense with any notion that this will leave BA or Easyjet in a similar position in the European aviation market to that enjoyed by Microsoft in the European software market. No. Not at all.

Good morning!

I'd encourage BA and easyJet to set up European subsidiaries for flights within the EU.

Flights from the UK into the EU would still be able to land under a third country arrangement.

Leaving the EU means that the UK cannot receive the same conditions within the EU as if it had elected to stay in. I understand this.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

steddyeddy

Straight from the airline's mouths. There are no common aviation laws for airlines to fall back on unlike trade which can revert to WTO rules. Planes could be grounded until Britain starts acting sensibly in this negotiation.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/20/us-airlines-aviation-regulations-post-brexit-open-skies-agreement-eu

steddyeddy

The EU rules out immediate transition deal talks.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-transition-period-single-market-eu-chief-negotiator-michel-barnier-talks-brussels-davis-davis-a7966616.html

Igotadose

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I'd encourage BA and easyJet to set up European subsidiaries for flights within the EU.

Flights from the UK into the EU would still be able to land under a third country arrangement.

Leaving the EU means that the UK cannot receive the same conditions within the EU as if it had elected to stay in. I understand this.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

This goes to reinforce what Dr. Krugman said (quoted above). Really quite simple: The UK will be worse off after Brexit. Setting up subsidiaries in the EU - and, uhh, good luck with permitting, business plans, modeling, submissions, etc - costs money and jobs. Just one of the infinite examples of how the UK'll be worse off - where does BA et al get the money for this? Debt. Who pays for the debt? BA customers.

So are you in agreement, that as a result of Brexit, the UK will be WORSE OFF economically than without Brexit? Krugman thinks so - do you disagree and if so, why?

Krugman: "“The invisible benefits of being part of the EU, the lack of friction [in exports and imports], seems to have had a significant impact on trade patterns,” he said.

“You’re reversing that, so that’s a cost. That’s much more tangible than any pipe dreams about big gains elsewhere.”"

ambro25

steddyeddy wrote: »

Straight from the airline's mouths. There are no common aviation laws for airlines to fall back on unlike trade which can revert to WTO rules. Planes could be grounded until Britain starts acting sensibly in this negotiation.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/20/us-airlines-aviation-regulations-post-brexit-open-skies-agreement-eu

Sounds like US (and other) airlines have yet to cop on, that the UK government is using them as pawns as well

The Rape of Lucretia

Nobody can dispute but that the UK will be worse off post Brexit. Thats not really what its about. Sure, they must try to minimise the economic negatives. But the gain, is the mythical takingback control, stopping Johnny foreigner from coming in, waving the union jack and dreaming of the empire on which the sun never set, etc. To many, that stuff is worth the economic cost.