The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[Chindie]

It'll go on for far longer than 2 years.

[HanoiVillan]

10 hours ago, Awol said:

@Enda What you're pitching is the now titled 'soft Brexit' or 'non-Brexit' as it should really be called. 

ECJ oversight means no judicial independence - don't take back control of our laws.

Customs Union means no ability to make our own trade deals - You say Cambodia and Brexiteers say 85% of the global economy. 

Free movement of Labour - don't take back control of immigration.

Bacisally you could have just said "I've got a plan boys, forget Brexit" and saved yourself the rest of the post.

 

There will be no trade deal at all without ECJ oversight. How can there be? There has to be a legal arbiter to decide trade disputes. That's the ECJ. 

[Awol]

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

There will be no trade deal at all without ECJ oversight. How can there be? There has to be a legal arbiter to decide trade disputes. That's the ECJ. 

I'm not certain but I think that the South Korean FTA is monitored and arbitrated by a Joint Working Group, not the ECJ.

It doesn't make sense for an institution belonging to one of the parties to also be the impartial arbiter of they agreement. No one would agree to that

CETA the EU Canada deal is arbitrated by tribunals whose members are appointed by both sides, i.e. not the ECJ.

So any EU UK deal would not fall under the ECJ either.

[Wainy316]

Free data roaming in the EU from June 15th.  Enjoy it while you can.

[Chindie]

Dirty Polish gangster plumbers. Coming over here. Using our data bandwidth and not even paying. 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

It doesn't make sense for an institution belonging to one of the parties to also be the impartial arbiter of they agreement. No one would agree to that

Au contraire. It makes enormous sense for the body set up to adjudicate on trade disputes etc. within the EU marketplace to be the arbiter for matters within that marketplace (or specifically the marketplace that included UK, then didn't include it, then included it again but as a non-EU member). It's basically the same marketplace covering the same nations, but with the status of one of the 28 nations haveing changed, at that nation's instigation.

What kind of profligate fool would think setting up another body just to cover UK disputes would be a good idea, when one already exists and has been used without problems for donkey's years? That would be the type of pointless beaurocracy that the UKIPers etc. have been raging against.

[Awol]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

Au contraire. It makes enormous sense for the body set up to adjudicate on trade disputes etc. within the EU marketplace to be the arbiter for matters within that marketplace (or specifically the marketplace that included UK, then didn't include it, then included it again but as a non-EU member). It's basically the same marketplace covering the same nations, but with the status of one of the 28 nations haveing changed, at that nation's instigation.

What kind of profligate fool would think setting up another body just to cover UK disputes would be a good idea, when one already exists and has been used without problems for donkey's years? That would be the type of pointless beaurocracy that the UKIPers etc. have been raging against.

The fact remains that the ECJ doesn't arbitrate the EU's major trade deals.  For some reason you cut that out of your reply, presumably because that rant doesn't really work otherwise.

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, Wainy316 said:

Free data roaming in the EU from June 15th.  Enjoy it while you can.

3 Mobile have offered a Feel at Home mobile package that offers customers the chance to roam in 42 destinations at no extra cost since June 2016 ... now maybe the EU did this , but maybe it means that mobile companies could do it regardless ?

 

Edit- and managed to include America , Sri Lanka , New Zealand and Australia as well , so in your face EU , what have you ever done for us  

 

 

 

Edited April 7, 2017 by tonyh29

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

16 minutes ago, blandy said:

Au contraire. It makes enormous sense for the body set up to adjudicate on trade disputes etc. within the EU marketplace to be the arbiter for matters within that marketplace (or specifically the marketplace that included UK, then didn't include it, then included it again but as a non-EU member). It's basically the same marketplace covering the same nations, but with the status of one of the 28 nations haveing changed, at that nation's instigation.

What kind of profligate fool would think setting up another body just to cover UK disputes would be a good idea, when one already exists and has been used without problems for donkey's years? That would be the type of pointless beaurocracy that the UKIPers etc. have been raging against.

Just to clarify, are you saying the ECJ has been used without problems for donkey's years?

[tinker]

 If no deal is struck or a bad one, the consumer will  get a hammering on imported goods and our exporters get a hammering on export taxes. Whats would all this mean? Productivity would have to increase meaning longer hours, less holidays and higher retirement ages. How? Deregulation of labours laws, half of them implemented by Europe. Sounds like a plan to me, Boris and Farage really thought this one through......

No matter which way this goes the normal worker will be worse off. The next leader of Labour should grow some balls and back re entry into the Euro zone, it would be landslide victory.   

[blandy]

19 minutes ago, Awol said:

The fact remains that the ECJ doesn't arbitrate the EU's major trade deals.  For some reason you cut that out of your reply, presumably because that rant doesn't really work otherwise.

You're attributing motives to me that I don't have, there AWOL.

The ECJ I think/thought was the body that makes judgement on EU law (not National laws) and if there is a dispute between 2 nations about cheese or fishing or wine or bveef or whatever, then the ECJ would be the thing that determines if any EU rules or regulations are being broken by one party. Like if there's an EU law on protecting Cornish pasties or whatever as only being able to be sold as such if they are picked from Cornish pasty trees, then if some dastardly stripey jumper wearing continental type statrted selling "Cornish pasties" picked from french trees, the ECJ would ultimatelybe the arbiter to bally well make the blighters stop if the huble Cornish pasty pickers took them to court (though it might be more readily resolved at a lwer level to start with) 

But I might be wrong. I haven't got  an agenda other than wanting something that's sensible and effective and not dogmatically driven.

[Awol]

1 minute ago, tinker said:

 The next leader of Labour should grow some balls and back re entry into the Euro zone, it would be landslide victory.   

I hope the next Labour leader does exactly that. 

[tonyh29]

1 minute ago, tinker said:

 If no deal is struck or a bad one, the consumer will  get a hammering on imported goods and our exporters get a hammering on export taxes. Whats would all this mean? Productivity would have to increase meaning longer hours, less holidays and higher retirement ages. How? Deregulation of labours laws, half of them implemented by Europe. Sounds like a plan to me, Boris and Farage really thought this one through......

No matter which way this goes the normal worker will be worse off. The next leader of Labour should grow some balls and back re entry into the Euro zone, it would be landslide victory.   

Dunno if you were on holiday when we last voted ?

 

 

[Awol]

Just now, blandy said:

You're attributing motives to me that I don't have, there AWOL.

The ECJ I think/thought was the body that makes judgement on EU law (not National laws) and if there is a dispute between 2 nations about cheese or fishing or wine or bveef or whatever, then the ECJ would be the thing that determines if any EU rules or regulations are being broken by one party. Like if there's an EU law on protecting Cornish pasties or whatever as only being able to be sold as such if they are picked from Cornish pasty trees, then if some dastardly stripey jumper wearing continental type statrted selling "Cornish pasties" picked from french trees, the ECJ would ultimatelybe the arbiter to bally well make the blighters stop if the huble Cornish pasty pickers took them to court (though it might be more readily resolved at a lwer level to start with) 

But I might be wrong. I haven't got  an agenda other than wanting something that's sensible and effective and not dogmatically driven.

Oh, I thought you were a bit cross when you posted about profligate fools, UKIP etc.

I did have a look before making the original reply to Hanoi and the ECJ arbitrates internal EU disputes but not those with external parties.

A counter party in a trade deal isn't going to accept arbitration being done solely by the party they are in dispute with. That's like saying, "let's do a trade deal and you can make the rules as we go along. Fair?" 

[tinker]

7 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Dunno if you were on holiday when we last voted ?

 

 

1. Half of those that voted for Brexit will be dead from old age by the time it happens 2.The true cost of Brexit will become apparent to everyone 3. The stay out vote would be split between the Tories who would have to back the exit and UKip who would re organise to fight Labour trying to get back into Europe, call it Brentry. 

Edited April 7, 2017 by tinker

[tonyh29]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

The ECJ I think/thought was the body that makes judgement on EU law (not National laws) and if there is a dispute between 2 nations about cheese or fishing or wine or bveef or whatever, then the ECJ would be the thing that determines if any EU rules or regulations are being broken by one party. Like if there's an EU law on protecting Cornish pasties or whatever as only being able to be sold as such if they are picked from Cornish pasty trees, then if some dastardly stripey jumper wearing continental type statrted selling "Cornish pasties" picked from french trees, the ECJ would ultimatelybe the arbiter to bally well make the blighters stop if the huble Cornish pasty pickers took them to court (though it might be more readily resolved at a lwer level to start with) 

But I might be wrong. I haven't got  an agenda other than wanting something that's sensible and effective and not dogmatically driven.

The ECJ did indeed determine that European rules take precedence over national laws in the case of the French Illegal ban on British Beef exports  (which were politically driven to protect French Farmers ) .. and it only took 18 months to get to that court and another 9 months for the French to comply with that ruling

[tonyh29]

3 minutes ago, tinker said:

1. Half of those that voted for Brexit will be dead from old age by the time it happens 2.The true cost of Brexit will become apparent to everyone 3. The stay out vote would be split between the Tories who would have to back the exit and UKip who would re organise to fight Labour trying to get back into Europe, call it Brentry. 

Brentry  .. sounds like trying to analy rape a Ricky Gervais character ....

 

[Awol]

6 minutes ago, tinker said:

1. Half of those that voted for Brexit will be dead from old age by the time it happens 

If "it" is Labour winning a GE then you're probably right.

Then again at least half the youngsters who voted Remain will have grown up sufficiently to realize their error and will vote to stay out. 

[blandy]

25 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

Just to clarify, are you saying the ECJ has been used without problems for donkey's years?

I probably didn't word that very well . All courts have problems - cost, time, out of touch magistrates and judges. What I should have said perhaps is that for donkeys years, it's been accepted without complaint about legitimacy to be the correct final arbiter of....etc. I know the Tory right wing and UKIPs don't like it based on (IMO specious) soveieignty arguments, but by and large it's accepted across the EU as legitimate.

 

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, Awol said:

I'm not certain but I think that the South Korean FTA is monitored and arbitrated by a Joint Working Group, not the ECJ.

It doesn't make sense for an institution belonging to one of the parties to also be the impartial arbiter of they agreement. No one would agree to that

CETA the EU Canada deal is arbitrated by tribunals whose members are appointed by both sides, i.e. not the ECJ.

So any EU UK deal would not fall under the ECJ either.

That's interesting, thanks. It's not what I thought, but of course I may be wrong. Do you have a link? I tried searching and couldn't find anything on this.