Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

McGiver

Anybody thinks the UK will be getting a tariff free and quota free access to the SM?

Even if they agreed to the LPF, I am not aware of any payments required for the access to the SM. And would agreeing to LFP mean that the UK will have to implement all future EU SM regulations just like the EFTA does?

If UK got this kind of access it would make the whole EEA questionable as AFAIK EFTA + Switzerland pay for the SM access and also implement all (well 95%+ as they have a certain right to differ but don't really use it) SM legislation into their legal framework.

It would have a potential to upset or unravel the EEA, especially Switzerland with its set of bilateral treaties.
And it would have a potential to fuel exit movements within the EU.

ambro25

Peregrinus wrote: »

(...)

Signing but not ratifying a treaty is not a breach of law. Countries that have signed treaties are taken to have indicated an intention to ratify, and are expected to make good-faith efforts to proceed to ratification. But there's an understanding that this can take time, that it may be politically impossible (no US president can force the Senate to ratify a treaty) or that, occasionally, changed circumstances will justify a change of mind about adhering to the treaty. Signing but not ratifying may, or may not, depending on the circumstances carry a diplomatic or political cost, but it's not a violation of international law. Ratify the treaty but not observing it is, however.

(...)

Topically for this Brexit thread, there is a recent example of a further alternative, which is to withdraw ratification: on 20 July 2020 the UK withdrew its ratification of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court and the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities, invoking the incompatibility between its withdrawal from the EU and that Agreement's mechanism referring questions of EU law interpretation to the CJEU.

About 3 or 4 decades' worth of efforts to make pan-European patent litigation life simpler and cheaper for everyone, sacrificed to the British Conservatives' temper tantrum.

ancapailldorcha

ambro25 wrote: »

Topically for this Brexit thread, there is a recent example of a further alternative, which is to withdraw ratification: on 20 July 2020 the UK withdrew its ratification of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court and the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities, invoking the incompatibility between its withdrawal from the EU and that Agreement's mechanism referring questions of EU law interpretation to the CJEU.

About 3 or 4 decades' worth of efforts to make pan-European patent litigation life simpler and cheaper for everyone, sacrificed to the British Conservatives' temper tantrum.

That's pretty much a stake through the heart of the Tories' rhetoric of turning the UK into a global science leader. I mean, it already was but telling the talent it's not welcome and the people already here that at the very least there's a mountain of work to do to protect their IP in the UK and in Europe.

Peregrinus

ambro25 wrote: »

Topically for this Brexit thread, there is a recent example of a further alternative, which is to withdraw ratification: on 20 July 2020 the UK withdrew its ratification of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court and the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities, invoking the incompatibility between its withdrawal from the EU and that Agreement's mechanism referring questions of EU law interpretation to the CJEU.

There's no general rule of international law that a state has a right to withdraw its ratification of a treaty whenever it likes. Sometimes the provisions of a treaty will set out when or how parties can withdraw, and then obviously each state has a right to withdraw under that provision. (Famously, Art 50 gives EU member states a right to withdraw from the Treaties, and provides a process for doing so.) But often a treaty will contain no provisions allowing states to withdraw. (Example: the Good Friday Agreement.)

If a particular treaty is silent about withdrawal, general rules of international law, as set out in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, cover the matter. You can withdraw from a treaty with the agreement of the other parties to the treaty. If they don't consent, you can withdraw if "it is established that the parties intended to admit the possibility of . . . withdrawal" or if "a right of . . . withdrawal may be implied by the nature of the treaty".

As regards the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, there's no provision in the Agreement to allow withdrawal. But either (a) the other states have consented to allow the UK to withdraw, or (b) the fact that the Agreement is open only to member states of the EU is taken to imply a right to withdraw if a state leaves the EU. So there's no problem there. The UK is not in violation of international law by withdrawing from the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court.

The UK hasn't tried to withdraw from the Withdrawal Agreement or from the NI Protocol, so the issue of whether they have a right to hasn't arisen yet. But, for what it's worth, the WA contains no withdrawal mechanism, and the NI protocol (a) is explicitly intended to support the Good Friday Agreement, which has no withdrawal mechanism, and (b) was designed to apply even if the UK failed to make a trade deal with the EU, so this strongly argues against any attempt to argue that there is an implied right of withdrawal of which the UK could avail. (Which, possibly, is one of the reason why the UK hasn't attempted to withdraw from the WA, or to argue that it isn't bound by it.)

Nody

McGiver wrote: »

Anybody thinks the UK will be getting a tariff free and quota free access to the SM?

Tariff free I can see, quota free will not happen but they will be limited. For example I could see lamb for example being restricted, or fish, or other areas were French farmers wants to gain shares on cost of the UK. We already know financial services will be restricted etc. And keep in mind UK needs a lot more than simply SM access, the world has SM access for "free" but they need to meet the EU requirements with EU certifications.

Even if they agreed to the LPF, I am not aware of any payments required for the access to the SM. And would agreeing to LFP mean that the UK will have to implement all future EU SM regulations just like the EFTA does?

SM access is free as long as you meet the EU requirements. What EFTA gets is a whole new level of acceptance on their checks and controls compared to a third party country.

If UK got this kind of access it would make the whole EEA questionable as AFAIK EFTA + Switzerland pay for the SM access and also implement all (well 95%+ as they have a certain right to differ but don't really use it) SM legislation into their legal framework.

Don't confuse SM access (which everyone has) with no checks to enter the SM. EFTA etc. have extensive rules in practice making them an EU country in the SM with no border controls; UK will experience very heavy and extensive border controls even with zero tariffs. That red tape is the real price to enter the SM and as Canadian companies (who has a very extensive trade deal with EU) have experienced as well is the real problem to get through.

Ben Done

Haven't been on this thread much lately - seem to have been sucked into the constant churn of Twitter more and more, but coming back to read the last few days worth of posts here, it's clear that the discussion board format is alive and well and necessary for context and reasoned debate.

Thanks to the regular and irregular posters (and the mods) for the consistently high standard across all the iterations of this thread.

Ben Done

Ben Done wrote: »

Haven't been on this thread much lately - seem to have been sucked into the constant churn of Twitter more and more, but coming back to read the last few days worth of posts here, it's clear that the discussion board format is alive and well and necessary for context and reasoned debate.

Thanks to the regular and irregular posters (and the mods) for the consistently high standard across all the iterations of this thread.

In the future, this thread and its predecessors will serve as a barometer for the sentiments of opinions of the posters here and will be very interesting to review in 5 or 10 years time to see just how Brexit pans out, relative to what posters here have said over the past few years.
My crystal ball is at the shop being repaired, but I don't need one to see that the next couple of years will be very disruptive while whatever follows the end of the transition period beds down.

RobMc59

Deleted User wrote: »

In the future, this thread and its predecessors will serve as a barometer for the sentiments of opinions of the posters here and will be very interesting to review in 5 or 10 years time to see just how Brexit pans out, relative to what posters here have said over the past few years.
My crystal ball is at the shop being repaired, but I don't need one to see that the next couple of years will be very disruptive while whatever follows the end of the transition period beds down.

This thread, which at times makes for gripping reading is woefully one sided.There are very few British posters and British views are frowned upon,even suppressed.

The Raging Bile Duct

RobMc59 wrote: »

This thread, which at times makes for gripping reading is woefully one sided.There are very few British posters and British views are frowned upon,even suppressed.

Naturally, it's going to tend towards one side given it's an Irish forum and we are going to suffer the worst fallout from it after the UK through no fault of our own.

Tell me, Rob. Do you see any benefit in what the UK are doing right now?

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

This thread, which at times makes for gripping reading is woefully one sided.There are very few British posters and British views are frowned upon,even suppressed.

By "British" do you mean "pro-Brexit"?

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In the future, this thread and its predecessors will serve as a barometer for the sentiments of opinions of the posters here and will be very interesting to review in 5 or 10 years time to see just how Brexit pans out, relative to what posters here have said over the past few years.
My crystal ball is at the shop being repaired, but I don't need one to see that the next couple of years will be very disruptive while whatever follows the end of the transition period beds down.

It will be particularly interesting to see some posters disappear specifically next year with scant opinions to give on the chaos.

It's equally amusing that everything that was project fear in 2015 has come to pass . Absolutely everything, but it has now been painted as expected and positive by Brexit believers.


I'm still waiting on the supposedly UK voices to give a tangible benefit. Just one . That's all.

murphaph

RobMc59 wrote: »

This thread, which at times makes for gripping reading is woefully one sided.There are very few British posters and British views are frowned upon,even suppressed.

I'm on a British forum that has nothing whatsoever to do with politics and the Brexit thread on there is just as harsh in general to e towards Brexiteers. The posters are mostly English. It's not anti-British to be anti-Brexit. Half of the British electorate also thinks it's a bad thing.

I see no problem in disinformation being suppressed. Most Brexiteers don't post verifiable facts.

bobmalooka

RobMc59 wrote: »

This thread, which at times makes for gripping reading is woefully one sided.There are very few British posters and British views are frowned upon,even suppressed.

I understand what you’re saying and it is true to an extent.
Edit: The reason for that is the posters who have come on this forum have, in the main, failed spectacularly at articulating a reasonable or fact based argument in favour of bexit

What is much more interesting is that you define (I think) the pro brexit view as being the British view. The British view was marginally pro brexit 4 years ago, when brexit was whatever you would like it to be.

If brexit was defined based on the realities it has collided with in the meantime - and some sort of mechanism was used to determine the view of the British people. I think it might struggle to pass the threshold of being considered a British view.

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

This thread, which at times makes for gripping reading is woefully one sided.There are very few British posters and British views are frowned upon,even suppressed.

It is one sides because one side has cogent arguments, wants to adhere to international agreements, the other wants to talk about 'sovereignty' and winning.

There is nothing to stop any Brexiteer to put down some arguments of why Brexiteer, particularly the Brexit being pursued by the UK, is a good idea.

4 years in and there has been few if any, posts like that.

Start a thread on the advantages of punching random strangers and you will probably find the same 'lack of balance' (although if it's in after-hours maybe not!)

johnnyskeleton

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's the same as in the UK.

But there's a huge difference between saying (a) that treaties are not part of domestic law, unless the legislature decides that they are, and (b) that treaties are not law, or are not legally binding.

Im not saying and have never said that treaties are not law. But I am saying that the breach of a treaty doesnt amount to a breach of the concept of rule of law. You are not addressing that, and are instead repeating the mantra that a breach of a law is a breach of the rule of law.

The concept of "the rule of law" and a breach of same is very different to a breach of a law. This is the point you are not addressing.

The UK is breaching a law. But it is not in breach of the rule of law. There is still a functioning legal system with a defined code of laws and a court for resolving conflicts of law.

If, as you say, the UK is in breach of the rule of law? Why isnt the EU saying so? If they were in breach of the rule of law, the EU wouldnt enter into any trade deal with them. Its only the hyperbolic UK press that are saying theyre in breach of the rule of law, without fully understanding what it means and the consequences of same

Peregrinus

To be fair, we have had posters who attempt to defend a reasoned case for Brexit. And I guess that it must be tiring, if not dispiriting, to defend that case against reasoned attacks, when there are so many reasoned attackers on this board, and so few reasoned defenders. So they tend to move on. And discussion is the poorer for it.

Why is there such a disparity between pro- and anti-Brexit voices on this board? I think there's a couple of things going on.

1. It's an Irish board, dominated by Irish perspectives. All forms of Brexit are harmful to Ireland (both NI and RoI) and are unpopular here, which means that the reasoned arguments against Brexit resonate particularly strongly with us.

2. There's a culture on the board that tends to value reason and argument over expressions of identify and aspiration. And the truth is that if you take a rational approach to weighing up and assessing Brexit you tend to arrive at anti-Brexit conclusions. A pro-Brexit position is mostly powered by feelings of identity and by sentiment. There's nothing onherently wrong with that - it's what led to the independence of Ireland a hundred years ago, after all - but it's not an approach favoured by the culture of this forum. So that makes it a not very friendly place for advocates of Brexit.

bobmalooka

bobmalooka wrote: »

I understand what you’re saying and it is true to an extent.
Edit: The reason for that is the posters who have come on this forum have, in the main, failed spectacularly at articulating a reasonable or fact based argument in favour of bexit

What is much more interesting is that you define (I think) the pro brexit view as being the British view. The British view was marginally pro brexit 4 years ago, when brexit was whatever you would like it to be.

If brexit was defined based on the realities it has collided with in the meantime - and some sort of mechanism was used to determine the view of the British people. I think it might struggle to pass the threshold of being considered a British view.

Britain is very divided over Brexit, England is very divided over Brexit.
Economically, it makes no sense, but culturally from a nationalistic viewpoint and if you're against globalism, it does make sense.
As Churchill once said, "If you're walking through hell, Keep walking!", in other words things will be better at the other end of the journey.

That is where Brexiteers are looking, to the long term future when countries are far less interdependent on others for their success, the exact opposite of what the creators of the EEC envisaged.

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Britain is very divided over Brexit, England is very divided over Brexit.
Economically, it makes no sense, but culturally from a nationalistic viewpoint and if you're against globalism, it does make sense.
As Churchill once said, "If you're walking through hell, Keep walking!", in other words things will be better at the other end of the journey.

That is where Brexiteers are looking, to the long term future when countries are far less interdependent on others for their success, the exact opposite of what the creators of the EEC envisaged.

You can't be against globalisation and one of the headlines of Brexit is opening Britain to the global world.

It's quite simply a confliction.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

You can't be against globalisation and one of the headlines of Brexit is opening Britain to the global world.

It's quite simply a confliction.

To global trade, that is different from having your businesses controlled from outside.
But having said that the current breed of business leader in the UK has already sold all the family silver.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

To global trade, that is different from having your businesses controlled from outside.
But having said that the current breed of business leader in the UK has already sold all the family silver.

Business leaders predominately wanted to remain. The CBI was very pro-Remain. A spectacularly weak Tory leader tried to placate them with said silver only to end up with a worse mess than King John losing the royal Regalia in the Wash.

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

To global trade, that is different from having your businesses controlled from outside.
But having said that the current breed of business leader in the UK has already sold all the family silver.

Majority of trade is international and the businesses that exist have to be international to survive. This notion of national industry with no external inputs and being able to set their own barrier's is nonsense in short.

You can't want to be the USA and also north Korea at the same time.


Being global comes with acceptance of standards and rules. It's basic stuff really.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

Majority of trade is international and the businesses that exist have to be international to survive. This notion of national industry with no external inputs and being able to set their own barrier's is nonsense in short.

You can't want to be the USA and also north Korea at the same time.


Being global comes with acceptance of standards and rules. It's basic stuff really.

Maybe, the Brexiteers don't believe in Globalism.

Peregrinus

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Im not saying and have never said that treaties are not law. But I am saying that the breach of a treaty doesnt amount to a breach of the concept of rule of law. You are not addressing that, and are instead repeating the mantra that a breach of a law is a breach of the rule of law.

No offence, but from my perspective it is you who is repeating an assertion without explaning or justifying it. I have presented my argument but, for clarity, I'll do so again:

The rule of law is the principle that the state and its agents are bound be and must obey the law.

The rules of international law (including tyreaty obligations) are rules of law which bind states.

A state which holds itself free to violate rules of international law is implicitly rejecting the principle of the rule of law.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The concept of "the rule of law" and a breach of same is very different to a breach of a law. This is the point you are not addressing.

To my mind, this is the point that you are asserting but not explaining. An admitted violation of the law by a state is a violation of the rule of law, the principle that the state is bound by, and must respect, the law.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The UK is breaching a law. But it is not in breach of the rule of law. There is still a functioning legal system with a defined code of laws and a court for resolving conflicts of law.

Not to Godwinize the discussion, but Nazi Germany had a functioning legal system with a defined code of laws and courts for resolving conflicts of law, but it's still pointed to by all the theorists as the textbook example of a state which formally abandoned the rule of law. These things don't amount in themselves to the rule of law if the state assersts that it doesn't have to obey the defined code of laws and isn't answerable in the courts for failing to do so.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If, as you say, the UK is in breach of the rule of law? Why isnt the EU saying so?

The European Parliament has said precisely this, passing a resolution stating that it "expects the UK government to uphold the rule of law and demands nothing less than the full implementation of all provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement, including the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland".

The Commission, SFAIK, hasn't used the expression "rule of law" in its comments. This is, I think, for tactical reasons. One reading of HMG's actions here is that they are an attempt to get the EU to abort the trade talks. The EU is not going to oblige. So they have tended to talk calmly, and not to make any claims about the UK actions which the UK hasn't itself already conceded. So von der Leyen says that "This draft bill is by its very nature, a breach of the obligation of good faith, laid down in the withdrawal agreement. Moreover, if adopted as is it will be in full contradiction to the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland" Nobody will dispute that. She doesn't go on to say that the UK acting in this way violates the rule of law; she leaves it to the commentators to point this implication out, but she thinks she would be playing into Cummings/Johsnon's hands by doing so herself. So she refrains.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If they were in breach of the rule of law, the EU wouldnt enter into any trade deal with them.

the EU won't enter into into any trade deal, obviously, unless the offending parts of the IM Bill are withdrawn. They've said as much.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It's only the hyperbolic UK press that are saying theyre in breach of the rule of law, without fully understanding what it means and the consequences of same

On the contrary, I think they do understand it.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe, the Brexiteers don't believe in Globalism.

North Korea it is, so.

farmerval

Deleted User wrote: »

Britain is very divided over Brexit, England is very divided over Brexit.
Economically, it makes no sense, but culturally from a nationalistic viewpoint and if you're against globalism, it does make sense.
As Churchill once said, "If you're walking through hell, Keep walking!", in other words things will be better at the other end of the journey.

That is where Brexiteers are looking, to the long term future when countries are far less interdependent on others for their success, the exact opposite of what the creators of the EEC envisaged.

The issue with the last sentence is that almost all countries have been moving in the opposite direction. Before Donald Trump got elected TTIPP was being discussed and was nearly agreed. The South East Asian alliance (can't recall the acronym) also involving the US was almost signed.

The above probably shows the same forces, maybe funders and influencer's have worked in countries where their divided narrative has taken hold. Look how Trump's US has backpedaled away from International co-operation. If Obama or almost any other President was in charge they would be leading a World Wide response to Covid, instead of giving the virus childish nicknames.

Maybe this is the road that Britian wishes to travel, or maybe it's the road that a small group of influential Tories wish to travel. Whichever it is, the group with the levers of power in their hands are definitely heading this way.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe, the Brexiteers don't believe in Globalism.

If they don't, they were perhaps unwise to advocate a "global Britain!" strategy.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe, the Brexiteers don't believe in Globalism.

One wonders why they voted for it and spent the next four years rubbing their victory in other people's faces if this is true.

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe, the Brexiteers don't believe in Globalism.

But therein lies the problem, Brexiteers absolutely believe in Globalisation. It is just that Globalisation must be in the form of the UK being in charge. THey get to makes the rules, break the rules, change them, or anything else they wish and other countries simply will agree.

Sovereignty is for the UK only.

It is wny, IMO, the whole thing false down. They also have the contradiction of the UK itself. A political union of EU is an intolerable thing, worth any price to get away from. However, the political union of the UK is a startling beacon in the world and one to be cherised and protected at all costs.

These are just two, high level, examples of the Brexit POV is difficult to argue. It is inherently contradictory.

Quin_Dub

Leroy42 wrote: »

But therein lies the problem, Brexiteers absolutely believe in Globalisation. It is just that Globalisation must be in the form of the UK being in charge. THey get to makes the rules, break the rules, change them, or anything else they wish and other countries simply will agree.

Sovereignty is for the UK only.

It is wny, IMO, the whole thing false down. They also have the contradiction of the UK itself. A political union of EU is an intolerable thing, worth any price to get away from. However, the political union of the UK is a startling beacon in the world and one to be cherised and protected at all costs.

These are just two, high level, examples of the Brexit POV is difficult to argue. It is inherently contradictory.

Isn't that the entire premise of Brexit??

It's always come back to the UK not being able to accept not being in charge and their inability to function as a co-equal part of a collective.

The Raging Bile Duct

Leroy42 wrote: »

But therein lies the problem, Brexiteers absolutely believe in Globalisation. It is just that Globalisation must be in the form of the UK being in charge. THey get to makes the rules, break the rules, change them, or anything else they wish and other countries simply will agree.

Sovereignty is for the UK only.

It is wny, IMO, the whole thing false down. They also have the contradiction of the UK itself. A political union of EU is an intolerable thing, worth any price to get away from. However, the political union of the UK is a startling beacon in the world and one to be cherised and protected at all costs.

These are just two, high level, examples of the Brexit POV is difficult to argue. It is inherently contradictory.

It's not really contradictory, in the UK, England has the main say and is the dominant partner. In the EU, it isn't.