Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

Padre_Pio

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Ireland will be most affected Brexit. Italy and Spain got 130 billion in grants between them while MM came back to Ireland with an increased eu budget bill of 16 billion euro.

We will be in bad shape for a long time to come

Ireland has received 1.3bn from the EU so far with COVID. We are in line for much more, one the Central Bank sorts itself out.

ExMachina1000

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Italy and Spain got 130 billion in grants but not for Brexit. You're comparing different things. The EU has not given us money to assist us from Brexit because we don't know what will happen yet. :rolleyes:

I'm aware of that. Our higher budget cost is just another factor.

ExMachina1000

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Ireland has received 1.3bn from the EU so far with COVID. We are in line for much more, one the Central Bank sorts itself out.

And an extra budget cost of 2 billion a year so we owe that 1.3 billion back with another 700 million on top.

The central bank?

The deal is done friend

RobMc59

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Suggested by whom?
The UK don't want to follow EU standards and rules but want EU members ignore them just to suit their own madness?

...and bypass any EU rules?

...so what was the benefit to removing themselves from the EU again?
This madness is all the UK's doing but it's like everyone else is expected to bend over and facilitate them.

That's not what I said seth,you should stop acting like your angry man avatar,if it's in a particular EU country's interests to negotiate bilaterally with the UK(as suggested with France)what's wrong with that?
https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/Brexit/France-asks-EU-for-permission-to-open-talks-with-UK-to-keep-Channel-Tunnel-running

swampgas

RobMc59 wrote: »

That's not what I said seth,you should stop acting like your angry man avatar,if it's in a particular EU country's interests to negotiate bilaterally with the UK(as suggested with France)what's wrong with that?
https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/Brexit/France-asks-EU-for-permission-to-open-talks-with-UK-to-keep-Channel-Tunnel-running

The point is that France cannot do a solo run, any agreement between the UK and France is going to be (in effect) an agreement between the UK and the EU.

It can't be any other way or the EU would cease to function as a cooperative bloc.

You might as well say that Kent should be able to negotiate with the EU and not be restricted by Westminster. (OK, that's stretching the analogy a bit but I think it holds up.)

Padre_Pio

RobMc59 wrote: »

That's not what I said seth,you should stop acting like your angry man avatar,if it's in a particular EU country's interests to negotiate bilaterally with the UK(as suggested with France)what's wrong with that?
https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/Brexit/France-asks-EU-for-permission-to-open-talks-with-UK-to-keep-Channel-Tunnel-running

France are still negotiating within the EU framework. They're asking the EU for permission and will have to get the EU to sign off on any agreement.
This is just a sideshow to Brexit negotiations, not a separate negotiation.

RobMc59

Padre_Pio wrote: »

France are still negotiating within the EU framework. They're asking the EU for permission and will have to get the EU to sign off on any agreement.
This is just a sideshow to Brexit negotiations, not a separate negotiation.

If you read the link I provided,it's been suggested there could be an independent adjudicator in the event of a dispute which sounds reasonable to me.

Padre_Pio

RobMc59 wrote: »

If you read the link I provided,it's been suggested there could be an independent adjudicator in the event of a dispute which sounds reasonable to me.

I did read the link.
The part about the arbitral tribunal is separate to the disagreement on the Eurotunnel and while it's a good idea, both the UK and French (read EU) would still have to agree on the outcome, which they may not.

CelticRambler

RobMc59 wrote: »

If you read the link I provided,it's been suggested there could be an independent adjudicator in the event of a dispute which sounds reasonable to me.

You're jumping the gun, there, though Rob. I posted about this on the main Brexit thread the other day, and there's no point even talking about who might independently adjudicate when - at the moment - there is no agreement in place to continue the current arrangements, and while - at the moment - the UK government's stated position is that they want the freedom to diverge from EU standards.

So the French position is to ask the EU to allow them to negotiate a continuation of the status quo; the UK's position is Feck Off, we're a free and independent sovereign nation.

RobMc59

CelticRambler wrote: »

You're jumping the gun, there, though Rob. I posted about this on the main Brexit thread the other day, and there's no point even talking about who might independently adjudicate when - at the moment - there is no agreement in place to continue the current arrangements, and while - at the moment - the UK government's stated position is that they want the freedom to diverge from EU standards.

So the French position is to ask the EU to allow them to negotiate a continuation of the status quo; the UK's position is Feck Off, we're a free and independent sovereign nation.

Yes,I read your post and although you pointed out there was an agreement which had been agreed a number of years ago now that the UK has left the EU its reasonable to revisit this.
Edit:I agree it makes sense to have one administrative body although an independent arbitrator in the event of a major dispute would be prudent perhaps?

Padre_Pio

RobMc59 wrote: »

an independent arbitrator in the event of a major dispute would be prudent perhaps?

Is there any system in the world where independent arbitration works between two first world countries?

Neither side is obligated to listen to the arbitrator, so why would it work?

RobMc59

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Is there any system in the world where independent arbitration works between two first world countries?

Neither side is obligated to listen to the arbitrator, so why would it work?

I believe the WTO may cover this kind of situation,they will adjudicate for services as well as trade.This would only be an option in the event of a major dispute,obviously all parties would have to agree to abide by this.

CelticRambler

RobMc59 wrote: »

there was an agreement which had been agreed a number of years ago now that the UK has left the EU its reasonable to revisit this.

Yes, of course it's reasonable to revisit the previously agreed treaty, seeing as one party has decided it no longer wants to stick to what was agreed. But the problem is (as with the whole of Brexit) that the UK wants to agree terms for divergence, whereas the fundamental concept of treaty agreements is convergence. It has been for the last 10000 years, and always will be ... but Brexit-Englanders seem to believe that they are exempt from the laws of time, physics and the universe in general. Running trains through a tunnel, though, demands adherence to a common set of rules.

McGiver

ExMachina1000 wrote:

Ireland will be most affected by Brexit. Italy and Spain got 130 billion in grants between them while MM came back to Ireland with an increased eu budget bill of 16 billion euro.

The EU budget is for 7 years.

Italy has 13 times more population and Spain 9 times more population than Ireland.

So the equivalent grants for Ireland wouldn't be much anyway, just due to much smaller population.

Sure nice to have few extra billion but not a big disaster to be paying 2.3 billion EU budget contribution per year.

davedanon

Table showing willingness of EU countries' populations to help other countries. The UK is third from bottom, only Tunisia and Colombia below them. I'd love to have seen this table from just before the Brexit referendum.

https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1290328646545215490/photo/1

Donald Trump

davedanon wrote: »

Table showing willingness of EU countries' populations to help other countries. The UK is third from bottom, only Tunisia and Colombia below them. I'd love to have seen this table from just before the Brexit referendum.

https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1290328646545215490/photo/1

Shower of ungrateful hoors over in Hungary. After scamming half the population here with dodgy apartments during the Celtic tiger here :pac:

ohnonotgmail

davedanon wrote: »

Table showing willingness of EU countries' populations to help other countries. The UK is third from bottom, only Tunisia and Colombia below them. I'd love to have seen this table from just before the Brexit referendum.

https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1290328646545215490/photo/1

i think you have read that the wrong way around. Start with a country across the top and go down that column to see how willing they are to help the country in that row. so the spanish come out it very well except they dont like the UK that much. The hungarians can feck off as they wouldnt help us at all.

davedanon

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i think you have read that the wrong way around. Start with a country across the top and go down that column to see how willing they are to help the country in that row. so the spanish come out it very well except they dont like the UK that much. The hungarians can feck off as they wouldnt help us at all.

No, I haven't, but maybe you're misunderstanding me. The UK is third from bottom in terms of how much other countries want to help THEM. 9 out of 13 scores are negative. What I'm thinking is that it's because of Brexit and the whole mess of the last few years.

ohnonotgmail

davedanon wrote: »

No, I haven't, but maybe you're misunderstanding me. The UK is third from bottom in terms of how much other countries want to help THEM. 9 out of 13 scores are negative. What I'm thinking is that it's because of Brexit and the whole mess of the last few years.

fair play, i was misunderstanding you. they do seem very unpopular. Despite that they still seem willing to help others.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Why won't anyone help Colombia?

Dave0301

Iain Duncan Smith's tweets yesterday about the Withdrawal Agreement really highlight the gross incompetence of politicians that pushed for Brexit.

He voted for the WA last year and is now moaning about the finer details and how it denies them true national independence.

I also read that the scientist are modelling a potential 2nd peak of Covid-19 in December 2020 due to UK schools reopening without effective track & trace. This, along with crashing out of the EU without a trade deal will be a harsh dose of reality for many in the UK.

Peregrinus

Dave0301 wrote: »

Iain Duncan Smith's tweets yesterday about the Withdrawal Agreement really highlight the gross incompetence of politicians that pushed for Brexit.

He voted for the WA last year and is now moaning about the finer details and how it denies them true national independence.

Duncan Smith not only voted to ratify the Withdrawal Agreement but, separately, voted against a resolution to give Parliament more time to examine the Withdrawal Agrement before having to vote on its ratification. So when he tweets, as he does, whingeing about things that are "buried in the fine print, unnoticed by many", he should at least have the integrity to acknowledge that he was instrumental in burying them, so that they would go unnoticed.

How long do you think it will take for the UK to turn on the WTO? I think it will switch very quickly from anti-EU to anti-WTO the second they're told they can't pick and choose their trade as they like. It will definitely impact their "sovereignty".

theological

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Is there any system in the world where independent arbitration works between two first world countries?

Neither side is obligated to listen to the arbitrator, so why would it work?

You should ask the EU how it is working since it is the basis of how CETA disputes are handled.

If Canada wouldn't accept ECJ jurisdiction the UK definitely should not.

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

You should ask the EU how it is working since it is the basis of how CETA disputes are handled.

If Canada wouldn't accept ECJ jurisdiction the UK definitely should not.

the CETA tribunal will have no jurisdiction to, inter alia, interpret and apply rules of EU law other than the provisions of CETA, nor can it challenge choices democratically made within Canada or the EU with regard to “the level of protection of public order or public safety, the protection of public morals, the protection of health and life of humans and animals, the preservation of food safety, protection of plants and the environment, welfare at work, product safety, consumer protection or, equally, fundamental rights”.

Now explain how a CETA-like third-party arbritration can apply in practical terms to a carriageful of people of GB and EU origin, some of whom are travelling with EU-phones in their pockets, others connected to GB-operators, some with pets travelling on passports issued under the EU scheme, some who want to bring a boot-load of sausages to their holiday home, and a bunch of white vans carrying a mixed cargo of stuff from Poland?

And considering it took three years just to reach a decision to green light the creation of a such an independent arbitrator, explain how a new one is going to be up an running by New Years Eve 2020.

Peregrinus

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Is there any system in the world where independent arbitration works between two first world countries?

Neither side is obligated to listen to the arbitrator, so why would it work?

Works all the time. Countries bind themselves in advance to abide by the decision of the arbitrator. They do this quite happily because being able to resolve disputes with other states by binding arbitration is so much more attractive than having to resolve them by going to war.

(OK, I jest, I jest. But not completely. In general states have an obvious interest in having recourse to peaceful means of resolving disputes, and arbitration is one of these. The Permanent Court of Abitration in The Hague has been providing this service since 1899, and 122 states (including the UK) participate in its arbitral processes, so there clearly is an appetite on the part of states to resolve disputes by arbitration.)

Peregrinus

CelticRambler wrote: »

Now explain how a CETA-like third-party arbritration can apply in practical terms to a carriageful of people of GB and EU origin, some of whom are travelling with EU-phones in their pockets, others connected to GB-operators, some with pets travelling on passports issued under the EU scheme, some who want to bring a boot-load of sausages to their holiday home, and a bunch of white vans carrying a mixed cargo of stuff from Poland?

And considering it took three years just to reach a decision to green light the creation of a such an independent arbitrator, explain how a new one is going to be up an running by New Years Eve 2020.

In so far as the UK agrees to align with the Single Market in return for privileged access to it, it makes sense that the UK compliance with that agreement to align should be regulated in the same way as everyone else's.

Suppose, for example, a UK/EU trade deal seeks to resolve the knotty problem of state aid with what's called a non-regression clause; the UK agrees that its future state aid regime will be no less robust than the its regime as of 31 December 2020 (which is of course the EU regime as of that date) but it doesn't commit to mirror any future changes to the EU regime. Or suppose the UK and the EU make such a non-regression agreement in relation to food standards, or environmental protection, or any regulatory matter.

From the EU perspective, it makes sense that whether the UK is complying with this is a matter for the ECJ, because (a) ECJ jurisdiction is part of the UK''s current regime, and the UK is committing to its current regime, and (b) the regime they are committing to is an artefact of EU law, and the ECJ is the ultimate arbiter of all questions of EU law. It would be absurd to have the UK commit to maintain parity with EU law as it stood on 31 December 2021, but not to allow the ECJ to say whether whatever the UK might later do was or was not compliant with that law.

Some compromise is possible. There could be agreement that disputes under the trade deal would be submitted to arbitration, but that the arbitrators would be required to refer any question of EU law that might be relevant to the dispute to the ECJ (and any question of UK law that might be relevant to the UK courts), for example. That would leave the arbitration panel with the task of determining any facts that might be in dispute, and of indentifying any relevant EU or UK legal provisions whose meaning, effect or application to the facts was in dispute.

ambro25

Peregrinus wrote: »

(...)

Some compromise is possible. There could be agreement that disputes under the trade deal would be submitted to arbitration, but that the arbitrators would be required to refer any question of EU law that might be relevant to the dispute to the ECJ (and any question of UK law that might be relevant to the UK courts), for example. That would leave the arbitration panel with the task of determining any facts that might be in dispute, and of indentifying any relevant EU or UK legal provisions whose meaning, effect or application to the facts was in dispute.

For trivia, that was the mechanism inherent to the UPCA (Unified Patent Court Agreement, ECJ would only ever be involved, if and when proceedings should involve interpretation of EU law). Which included an Arbitration and Mediation Center, beside the First instance and Appeal courts.

The UK withdrew its ratification of the UPCA last month.

theological

CelticRambler wrote: »

Now explain how a CETA-like third-party arbritration can apply in practical terms to a carriageful of people of GB and EU origin, some of whom are travelling with EU-phones in their pockets, others connected to GB-operators, some with pets travelling on passports issued under the EU scheme, some who want to bring a boot-load of sausages to their holiday home, and a bunch of white vans carrying a mixed cargo of stuff from Poland?

And considering it took three years just to reach a decision to green light the creation of a such an independent arbitrator, explain how a new one is going to be up an running by New Years Eve 2020.

Irrespective of all of the things you list in the first paragraph, it is obviously unacceptable for one party to be the sole adjudicator in respect to disputes.

It is obvious that customs arrangements / pet travelling arrangements may need to change and people will need to consider this when travelling. It is also obvious that arrangements in respect to mobile operators may change. Many phone operators in the UK already have "like home" roaming in many countries outside of the EU already.

Peregrinus wrote: »

In so far as the UK agrees to align with the Single Market in return for privileged access to it, it makes sense that the UK compliance with that agreement to align should be regulated in the same way as everyone else's.

The UK's current position is that it is not seeking Single Market membership.

ambro25

theological wrote: »

Irrespective of all of the things you list in the first paragraph, it is obviously unacceptable for one party to be the sole adjudicator in respect to disputes.

(...)

There is a clear distinction between legal interpretation, and case adjudication.

How different things might have turned out, had more Brits understood the fact that, when a UK court referred a matter of interpretation to the ECJ, it was to interpret EU law, not to decide the case pending before the UK court which raised that question of interpretation - and which case the UK court then adjudicated in view of the facts, domestic law (where applicable, usually is) and that interpretation.