Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

The new EU commissioner for trade is an Irishman. And apparently, he is excellent at what he does, which is good considering this will be the most important trade deal in EU or Irish history.

Those scheming French and Germans. We'd have been way better off letting the Germans elect an all-German commission. While we're at it, why don't why just out every candidate for TD on the ticket and get rid of constituencies. They're clearly an EU invention to subvert democracy. A real democracy would have only Dubliners in the Dail.

boring accountant

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The new EU commissioner for trade is an Irishman. And apparently, he is excellent at what he does, which is good considering this will be the most important trade deal in EU or Irish history.

Those scheming French and Germans. We'd have been way better off letting the Germans elect an all-German commission. While we're at it, why don't why just out every candidate for TD on the ticket and get rid of constituencies. They're clearly an EU invention to subvert democracy. A real democracy would have only Dubliners in the Dail.

This is the problem. Everything is seen in terms of the nationality of the commissioner rather than the policy. If there were direct election campaigns they’d have to be about policy.

First Up

boring accountant wrote:

The difference is it would be the French and German people, not their politicians. I assure you I have fully grasped what the EU is. I don’t see how you have any reason to believe otherwise.

And who elects those politicians?

Keep grasping.

First Up

boring accountant wrote:

This is the problem. Everything is seen in terms of the nationality of the commissioner rather than the policy. If there were direct election campaigns they’d have to be about policy.

How many commissioners would be from the likes of Ireland, Latvia, Malta?

It would have bugger all to do with policy. The commissioners would all be chosen in a competition between the larger countries - Germany, France, Poland, Italy and then you'd be complaining about that.

Please take a few minutes to inform yourself about the EU.

listermint

boring accountant wrote: »

This is the problem. Everything is seen in terms of the nationality of the commissioner rather than the policy. If there were direct election campaigns they’d have to be about policy.

No offense but you are making this up at you go along.
You keep shifting the goalposts each page

I can't get over the fact that he thinks 400 million people should vote for the EU's trade commissioner.. One of 27 such votes.

Like wtf am I even reading here. It's absurd. "I will prioritize the export of cars and put huge tariffs on all non-EU makers." would win France, Italy, and Germany.

Wilfuler.

Discussion of a dong for farage on lbc

Can't see him getting it atm

johnnyskeleton

First Up wrote: »

Please take a few minutes to inform yourself about the EU.

Deleted User wrote: »

I can't get over the fact that he thinks 400 million people should vote for the EU's trade commissioner.. One of 27 such votes.

Like wtf am I even reading here. It's absurd. "I will prioritize the export of cars and put huge tariffs on all non-EU makers." would win France, Italy, and Germany.

Mod note:

Please respond to the substance of the post rather than making snide comments about the poster. You may not personally agree with his/her view of direct elections but that doesnt mean that you have superior knowledge.

GM228

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Do you have any links to these cases? Ive only read the house of commons research on it and it doesnt have many specifics of EU law.

Edit: A quick read of the Compassion in world farming case suggests that it was more about banning exports to member states due to what those member states would do with the animals (i.e. veal crates) rather than the export of live animals themselves:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/%3Furi%3DCELEX:61996CJ0001%26from%3DIT&ved=2ahUKEwiAg5Gz-szmAhURWsAKHf4rA3QQFjAAegQIBxAC&usg=AOvVaw13m-qLqT3n-vt_ZXq5cDhm

I wonder would the ruling be different if they tried to justify a total ban on all live exports by ship on bosman principles

I just remember the RSPCA/Compassion in World Farming case when researching that area of EU law years ago, but there was another one involving the UK which I'd have to dig deeper to find, they have been mentioned before in the HoC, here's an example from 2012:-

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm121213/debtext/121213-0002.htm

I think that it has been agreed that at the moment live export is a legal operation. Indeed, it would be illegal to ban live exports of animals, as in the 1990s the European Court twice ruled that the UK could not ban live exports. When the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse was a Minister—I am glad he is in the Chamber today—he was asked what progress the Labour Government had made in reducing live animal exports, and he replied:

“The export of live animals is a lawful trade and to restrict it would be contrary to free trade rules.”—[Official Report, 20 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 716.]

The Queen vs Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [Case C-1/96] case (RSPCA/Compassion in World Farming case) however is seen as authority on settling the issue as it ignored the veal crate argument and made a general ruling:-

http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1998/C196.html

First of all, a ban or restriction on the export of live calves from one Member State to other Member States constitutes a quantitative restriction on exports contrary to Article 34 of the Treaty.

A ban on live exports can only be made for reasons of "public morality, public policy or the protection of the health or life of animals", other ECJ cases have also highlighted this such as those dealing with the bans imposed as a result of the BSE scare.

The Bosman Principle relates to provisions of the free movement of workers and association, it has nothing to do with quantitative restrictions on imports and exports which is prohibited under Articles 34 and 35 of the TFEU (and as I already pointed out previously Article XI of the GATT).

Akrasia

RobMc59 wrote: »

I hope Chicken madras does`nt become chlorinated madras!:eek:

What are they gonna call french fries?
Freedom Fries?

Right wing media renaming food to placate nationalists.
plus ça change

Akrasia

boring accountant wrote: »

This is the problem. Everything is seen in terms of the nationality of the commissioner rather than the policy. If there were direct election campaigns they’d have to be about policy.

If there was direct election campaigns it would be about populism and personality and Eurovision style voting for the candidates from the country that you don't hate

johnnyskeleton

GM228 wrote: »

I just remember the RSPCA/Compassion in World Farming case when researching that area of EU law years ago, but there was another one involving the UK which I'd have to dig deeper to find, they have been mentioned before in the HoC, here's an example from 2012:-

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm121213/debtext/121213-0002.htm



The Queen vs Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [Case C-1/96] case (RSPCA/Compassion in World Farming case) however is seen as authority on settling the issue as it ignored the veal crate argument and made a general ruling:-

http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1998/C196.html



A ban on live exports can only be made for reasons of "public morality, public policy or the protection of the health or life of animals", other ECJ cases have also highlighted this such as those dealing with the bans imposed as a result of the BSE scare.

The Bosman Principle relates to provisions of the free movement of workers and association, it has nothing to do with exports.

Thanks for that. I just think there is scope for them to seek to justify their measures on the basis of the protection of the health of animals, which is something that they don't appear to have done before. Re: the Bosman principles, I mean the test they set out as to when nations can take measures that restrict one of the for freedoms i.e. is it done in a non-discriminatory manner, is it in pursuit of a legitimate aim, and is it justified on the basis of pressing reasons of public interest.

I think if they want to stop the export of live animals by boat they would have to bring in a law that prevents all animal transit of this kind (i.e. even within the UK), they would have to demonstrate that it was for for genuine animal welfare concerns (as opposed to, for example, using animal welfare as an excuse) and that a total ban was justified on the basis of pressing public interest reasons (e.g. that there is no less restrictive way of achieving those goals).

Now, I don't know enough about animal welfare at sea or whether it is right or not. Certainly I don't believe that the likes of Anne Widdecombe and Boris are setting it out as a good faith example of their policies - they are opportunistically using it as a basis to try to convince their base that the EU hates animal welfare and to paint themselves as caring etc.

But the point being, if the UK genuinely wanted to ban animal transport of this kind, I believe that they could and, so long as they comply with the above, it wouldn't breach EU law. But yet again, it is something that the UK government hasn't actually tried to achieve in a whole hearted manner. The implication of the Compassion in World Farming case seems to me, albeit more subtly than most EU decisions, that they don't find that the UK was trying to ban the export in good faith and were instead trying to influence French domestic animal welfare law by way of a targeted and specific sanction on them.

Now, again if one were really to question the UK's motives, one could ask would they ban inland water transport or transport from GB to NI because they view the practice as barbaric (leaving aside the CJD issues where NI wouldn't want GB cows). If they would be honest and ask themsevles that question, we would find the truth of the UK's position - they would almost certainly be appalled at the idea that live aniamls couldn't be traded freely within the UK. Hence, they aren't being genuine about it.

Regarding the HoC excerpt, it very much reads like so many other UK Government comments "We want to do the [generic good thing] but can't because of the EU". There is no mention of the fact that, outside animal welfare concerns, farmers would be greatly put out by the loss of this trade, and that this trade is actually good for the UK economy. Instead of being honest and saying "We have considered a total ban, but it would cause damage to agriculture. Let's spend more money on improving the standards instead" its so easy to say "look at the nasty EU".

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

What are they gonna call french fries?
Freedom Fries?

Right wing media renaming food to placate nationalists.
plus ça change

Chips!

they have always been called Chips ans always will, fries is a US term for Chips.

GM228

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Thanks for that. I just think there is scope for them to seek to justify their measures on the basis of the protection of the health of animals, which is something that they don't appear to have done before. Re: the Bosman principles, I mean the test they set out as to when nations can take measures that restrict one of the for freedoms i.e. is it done in a non-discriminatory manner, is it in pursuit of a legitimate aim, and is it justified on the basis of pressing reasons of public interest.

I think if they want to stop the export of live animals by boat they would have to bring in a law that prevents all animal transit of this kind (i.e. even within the UK), they would have to demonstrate that it was for for genuine animal welfare concerns (as opposed to, for example, using animal welfare as an excuse) and that a total ban was justified on the basis of pressing public interest reasons (e.g. that there is no less restrictive way of achieving those goals).

Now, I don't know enough about animal welfare at sea or whether it is right or not. Certainly I don't believe that the likes of Anne Widdecombe and Boris are setting it out as a good faith example of their policies - they are opportunistically using it as a basis to try to convince their base that the EU hates animal welfare and to paint themselves as caring etc.

But the point being, if the UK genuinely wanted to ban animal transport of this kind, I believe that they could and, so long as they comply with the above, it wouldn't breach EU law. But yet again, it is something that the UK government hasn't actually tried to achieve in a whole hearted manner. The implication of the Compassion in World Farming case seems to me, albeit more subtly than most EU decisions, that they don't find that the UK was trying to ban the export in good faith and were instead trying to influence French domestic animal welfare law by way of a targeted and specific sanction on them.

They can't, whilst that provision is contained within Article 36 of the TFEU it ceased to be applicable once Directive 91/629/EEC (now replaced by Directive 2008/119/EC) and similar directives dealing with animal standards came into force due to the principles of mutual trust, when Regulations or Directives provide for harmonisation of the measures necessary to achieve the specific objectives of the provision that derogation can not be relied upon, this is well settled in ECJ case law.

Sam Russell

Akrasia wrote: »

What are they gonna call french fries?

CHIPS - always have and always will.

Strazdas

Wilfuler. wrote: »

Discussion of a dong for farage on lbc

Can't see him getting it atm

Well they're announced next week (New Year's honours list).....it's probably now or never for him.

RobMc59

Sam Russell wrote: »

CHIPS - always have and always will.

Chipper chips are the best .

murphaph

Leroy42 wrote: »

The US will ultimately agree to a deal if it is in its favour. So whilst they will put NI border as a no go area, ultimately they will agree to accept it if there is enough benefit to the US. They are not going to do themselves out of business for the sake of NI. Of course that means that the UK will be even more screwed that they otherwise would be.

One look at our nearest neighbours tells us nation states don't always do what's economically best for them. Politics is clearly more important than GDP in the UK right now. Irish America is powerful. I personally believe a FTA that follows a hard border being created in Ireland by the UK will be impossible to sell politically in the US. The potential benefits to ordinary people are too abstract (like the benefits of EU membership were to ordinary UK voters) when compared to "British hard border in Ireland".

CelticRambler

I wouldn't be too sure that the "Irish" special relationship with the US will stand up to the challenge posed by a Brexiting Britain, for the simple reason that many of those self-identifying Irish are of Scottish Presbyterian decent (like Trump). The Irish Catholics in the US are very vocal and make a name for themselves, but the Scottish Presbyterians are the ones who repeatedly get into power and pull the political levers. Much will depend on what the native Scots decide to do in the next half-decade, particularly if they engineer a conflict with England/Westminster over the right to hold a second referendum. We might well see a Stateside proxy war flare up, as the Presbyterians pushing US negotiators to maintain UK unity face off against Irish Republicans and Scottish Independentists.

Bit cynical

Tea Shock wrote: »

I'm blue in the face telling people this! Everyone seems to be assuming the threat of a hard border in Ireland is gone. It absolutely isn't. Especially given the fact that the UK prime minister has spent the last couple of months telling anyone who'll listen that the WA doesn't mean checks on goods moving from GB to NI. It's my prediction that come the Autumn or so, when they realise they're not going to be getting what they want, the British government will threaten to put the Irish border back on the table.... And there may be (God forbid) Taoiseach Micheal Martin there that they'll think might get them a different result than they got with Varadkar!

On the other hand, the only reason the border down the Irish Sea was an issue originally was because the DUP, upon whose support the UK government relied, objected to it. Now that there's a sufficient majority for the Tories, that support is no longer required. So I think the UK Gov is only too happy to have washed its hands of the issue and is quite happy to treat NI as a separate customs area. Certainly the average UK voter does not care one way or the other about it.

reslfj

GM228 wrote: »

They can't, whilst that provision is contained within Article 36 of the TFEU it ceased to be applicable once Directive 91/629/EEC (now replaced by Directive 2008/119/EC) and similar directives dealing with animal standards came into force due to the principles of mutual trust, when Regulations or Directives provide for harmonisation of the measures necessary to achieve the specific objectives of the provision that derogation can not be relied upon, this is well settled in ECJ case law.

Protection of live animals across EU member states is at least from 1991 and longer back(I am not sure how the EEC worked before the EU and SM was replacing the EEC)

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31991L0628&from=DA (the 1991 version, not the current one).

Note: This at a time where the EP was much less powerful than now.

Whereas in its resolution of 20 February 1987 on animal
welfare policy ( 4 ), the European Parliament called upon the
Commission to put forward proposals on the protection of
animals during transport;

Whereas all Member States have ratified the European
Convention for the protection of animals during
international transport and have signed the additional
Protocol enabling the Community as such to accede to the
said Convention;

The rules and restrictions from EU law I have heard, have more been about having identical regulations within a country and between two or more countries - not counting number of borders but hours of transport and number of sq.meters per animal etc. etc.

There is a national implementation of the directives.

Lars

First Up

CelticRambler wrote:

I wouldn't be too sure that the "Irish" special relationship with the US will stand up to the challenge posed by a Brexiting Britain, for the simple reason that many of those self-identifying Irish are of Scottish Presbyterian decent (like Trump). The Irish Catholics in the US are very vocal and make a name for themselves, but the Scottish Presbyterians are the ones who repeatedly get into power and pull the political levers. Much will depend on what the native Scots decide to do in the next half-decade, particularly if they engineer a conflict with England/Westminster over the right to hold a second referendum. We might well see a Stateside proxy war flare up, as the Presbyterians pushing US negotiators to maintain UK unity face off against Irish Republicans and Scottish Independentists.

Well we'll see but there was huge US investment in getting the GFA and changing Irish history. Clinton, George Mitchell, the Four Horsemen and many others worked behind the scenes and across party lines to make it happen.

Its an international agreement. The UK will not be allowed to walk away from its commitments without paying a heavy price.

Nody

First Up wrote: »

Well we'll see but there was huge US investment in getting the GFA and changing Irish history. Clinton, George Mitchell, the Four Horsemen and many others worked behind the scenes and across party lines to make it happen.

Its an international agreement. The UK will not be allowed to walk away from its commitments without paying a heavy price.

Well if Trump is in power all that is required is to offer him a cheap golf course (place it on the border and he can proclaim the first multinational golf resort as well), a loan to pay for it and call it the Trump accords and there will be a very firm no way in hell we're changing that approach to this from the US. Once Trump is out we'll hopefully have a more sane politician who sees the actual benefits instead.

Leroy42

First Up wrote: »

Well we'll see but there was huge US investment in getting the GFA and changing Irish history. Clinton, George Mitchell, the Four Horsemen and many others worked behind the scenes and across party lines to make it happen.

Its an international agreement. The UK will not be allowed to walk away from its commitments without paying a heavy price.

You mean like Israel and the settlements (I know it isn't an agreement but a UN resolution but the point being that the US is more than happy to let things slide when it suits)

Water John

Trump can negotiate any deal he likes with the UK but it has to pass Congress to become law.

GM228

reslfj wrote: »

Protection of live animals across EU member states is at least from 1991 and longer back(I am not sure how the EEC worked before the EU and SM was replacing the EEC)

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31991L0628&from=DA (the 1991 version, not the current one).

Note: This at a time where the EP was much less powerful than now.

It may mention 1987 proposal from the EP, but the first Directive regarding the treatment of animals for transport was in 1977 (Directive 77/489/EEC) to facilitate the provisions of the 1976 Council of Europe "European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes" treaty.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31977L0489

reslfj wrote: »

The rules and restrictions from EU law I have heard, have more been about having identical regulations within a country and between two or more countries - not counting number of borders but hours of transport and number of sq.meters per animal etc. etc.

There is a national implementation of the directives.

Lars

Correct, however the use of the derogation in Article 36 of the TFEU can not be used on the grounds of animal welfare because such Directives are in place.

RobMc59

First Up wrote: »

Well we'll see but there was huge US investment in getting the GFA and changing Irish history. Clinton, George Mitchell, the Four Horsemen and many others worked behind the scenes and across party lines to make it happen.

Its an international agreement. The UK will not be allowed to walk away from its commitments without paying a heavy price.

I don't think anyone wants to walk away from the GFA,apart from becoming a world pariah that would reenergise terrorist organisations which I doubt even Johnson and co would want.

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

I don't think anyone wants to walk away from the GFA,apart from becoming a world pariah that would reenergise terrorist organisations which I doubt even Johnson and co would want.

I don't think anyone wants to draw a border within the internal union of the UK, or that anyone would wilfully waste £6bn and counting preparing for self inflicted damage, but then here we are.

One thing thast we should have all learned about the UK and Brexit, is that logic is not what is driving it.

Russman

So, assuming Johnson gets his WA passed shortly and they exit on 31st Jan, how long before your average punter in England notices anything different ? Does the transition period cover travel & workers rights etc ? I’m just wondering when/if they’ll have their “ohh f—k” moment and realize what a catastrophically bad idea Brexit was. Or will it be more like a death by a thousand cuts, where nothing seems too bad on its own but after a while somebody reminisces about how things weren’t always like this.

CelticRambler

Leroy42 wrote: »

One thing thast we should have all learned about the UK and Brexit, is that logic is not what is driving it.

Indeed. And this is where the worst outcome for Ireland is not what happens in Jan 2020 in the UK, but what happens in Nov 2020 in the US. If they guy who's spent $118bn of American taxpayers' money on golfing weekends at his own clubs is granted an extended stay in the White House, that'll have a considerable effect on the sound and shape of Johnson's negotiations with both the EU and the US - and not necessarily at all in our (Ireland/EU's) favour.

I do, however, believe that "our lads" in Brussels have already game-planned such a scenario and have at least half a dozen barrels on standby, which they'll do their damnedest to get the British over. :pac: