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

[tinker]

7 minutes ago, Awol said:

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. 

We will see who's right. You think great things will come from us leaving, i don't. How can it lower the cost of living or increase the average workers earning potential? Because that's what will count at the end of day. As soon as the price of an imported union jack flag goes up, the union flag will come down and the EU flag will be up.

Edited April 7, 2017 by tinker

[Awol]

6 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

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.

Just PM'd you the bits on EU - South Korea.

[tonyh29]

6 minutes ago, Awol said:

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. 

I hope they also remember to accuse the now 40 year olds who will be old pensioners by the time this vote comes around  of robbing them of a future if any of them vote remain

 

[blandy]

31 minutes ago, Awol said:

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?" 

I see what you're saying. I guess there's two ways of looking at the context.

1. All the UK (in or out) politicians have been saying things like [Leavers] "we will retain access to the single market" or [Remainers] "we want to remain part of the single market" (accepting the exception of a handful of idiots who want to go to WTO terms from the off) - so they've been talking apart trade within the single market. From that perspective, then the adjudicator for single market law stuff is the natural arbiter to use.

2. More akin to (say) the Canada EU deal or the aborted TTIP where the plans were for an ISDS indpendent arbiter, acting outside of the laws of the partiocpant countires - far worse than any ECJ sovereignty matter - that unaccountable court idea led to TTIP being scuppered and the Canada one it was kicked into touch as a terrible idea as well (though they may try to bring it back).

So in either instance, the ECJ seems the most logical and more accountable solution to me.

 

[Awol]

12 minutes ago, tinker said:

We will see who's right. You think great things will come from us leaving, i don't. How can it lower the cost of living or increase the average workers earning potential? Because that's what will count at the end of day. As soon as the price of an imported union jack flag goes up, the union flag will come down and the EU flag will be up.

On cost of living a starter for 10 will be food prices coming down (as long as the Gov keep a keen eye the supermarket chains).

The CAP artificially inflates the price of food from outside the EU so it will them depend on the tariff barriers the Government choose to impose on food - if any. 

Any food stuffs that aren't in direct competition with domestic producers should and I think will go to zero tariffs immediately.  That would save (or so I read) 8-15% off a weekly shop. 

 

[Awol]

7 minutes ago, blandy said:

I see what you're saying. I guess there's two ways of looking at the context.

1. All the UK (in or out) politicians have been saying things like [Leavers] "we will retain access to the single market" or [Remainers] "we want to remain part of the single market" (accepting the exception of a handful of idiots who want to go to WTO terms from the off) - so they've been talking apart trade within the single market. From that perspective, then the adjudicator for single market law stuff is the natural arbiter to use.

2. More akin to (say) the Canada EU deal or the aborted TTIP where the plans were for an ISDS indpendent arbiter, acting outside of the laws of the partiocpant countires - far worse than any ECJ sovereignty matter - that unaccountable court idea led to TTIP being scuppered and the Canada one it was kicked into touch as a terrible idea as well (though they may try to bring it back).

SO in either instance, the ECJ seems the most logical and more accountable solution to me.

 

Okay so we know the aim is to trade on to the single market either through an FTA or WTO.

The EU has been transparent about how U.K. "must be financially worse off out than in" and the ECJ is stuffed full of politically appointed judges, some of whom have no legal expertise anyway. 

To then say that the ECJ, a part of the EU, should be the sole arbiter of a deal between the EU and a third country is simply potty, imho.

BTW Canada did pass and dispute resolution will be handled by tribunals jointly appointed by both parties - I did mention that in an earlier post. Importantly that means not the ECJ. 

[blandy]

24 minutes ago, Awol said:

BTW Canada did pass and dispute resolution will be handled by tribunals jointly appointed by both parties - I did mention that in an earlier post. Importantly that means not the ECJ.

I've done some reading, now, and it looks like the original plan for undemocratic ISDS courts was canned (which is what I thought). it uses a more democratic, less manipulatable system, but still with some problems

Quote

Over and above these details, the mere fact that there is such uncertainty on the interpretation of CETA may create a “chilling effect” – i.e. government may refrain from taking good public decisions to limit the risk of claims. This has been documented in the cases of Canada and New Zealand, which have postponed their anti-tobacco policies to avoid ISDS proceedings. A Buzzfeed investigation has also shown that ISDS threats were used by some companies and businessmen to avoid criminal prosecution...

But you've persuaded me that your point of view is the better option (in theory).

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

23 minutes ago, blandy said:

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.

Don't worry about the wording. I get you completely. I just wanted to clarify before I throw my toys out of the pram  (not this time thank god)

I'm not going to pretend I know enough about ECJ rulings, I simply don't and you're right that it is accepted as legitimate. (v good choice of word ;))
Annoyingly I don't even have the time to look it up this weekend but I do know a few cases that didn't really make a lot of sense because of sovereignty. Not small things either.

It's easy to bang on about but the greendeal is one such example. At times the one rule for all (ECJ interpreted) is so far askew from the reality for others. The EU and ECJ has done a spectacularly poor job at realigning that. Though DC probably emboldened them with his pathetic renegotiation.

I see parallels with yesterdays school holiday decision. If schools and govt are going to be so heavy handed (rightly or wrongly) perhaps they should be more responsible for the consequences? Also I'd guess in many court scenarios the decision makers sometimes get the rulings they need and not the ones that are right. Though of course that comes down to opinion.

It's another discussion that should have been had fully pre-referendum. I wanted to know what influence the ECJ has and why that was good/bad. Nobody could give me the answer so I made decisions based on the little info I had.

[Enda]

Nice piece in the FT about what life is like inside the customs union but outside the single market.

Quote

For a glimpse of what British trade into the EU might look like post-Brexit, take a drive to Turkey’s northern border with Bulgaria, one of the busiest land crossings in Europe.

On a recent Saturday at the Kapıkule border crossing, about 30 minutes drive from the Turkish city of Edirne, a line of trucks 4km long stretched along the highway, inching along glacially towards the Bulgarian checkpoints. “Today is a good day,” said Ibrahim Kurtukcu, a 42-year trucker who had been waiting 14 hours. “Last week the line was 7km long.” The record is 17km. It can take up to 30 hours to get through to the other side.

...

In many ways, that relationship would be a rung lower than the arrangement that Turkey has. Turkey’s customs union agreement involved Ankara giving up its right to set its own external tariffs in trade deals — something Mrs May is loath to do.

The biggest speed bump for Turkey is something that the UK could run into as well — transport permits for the 60,000 trucks Turkish operators want to send into the EU each year. For each country through which a Turkish truck needs to pass, the driver must hold a permit from that country’s ministry of transport or an equivalent body.

Hopefully those regulation-loving bureaucrats in Brussels will bend over backwards for the UK - I actually mean that. But that sort of thing will be more difficult if the UK e.g. haggles on the exit bill, or kicks up a fuss with Spain over a rock.

[Risso]

4 hours ago, blandy said:

I've done some reading, now, and it looks like the original plan for undemocratic ISDS courts was canned (which is what I thought). it uses a more democratic, less manipulatable system, but still with some problems

But you've persuaded me that your point of view is the better option (in theory).

I'm not sure if I'm going mad, but all of your examples Pete seemed to be EU institutions ruling on matters that are to do with disputes between EU members, which is of course, what you'd expect it to.  I think AWOL is correct in that it cannot possibly be right for the ECJ to rule on matters between the EU and non EU members.  To use the divorce analogy that seems to be in vogue at the moment, it'd be like asking the wife's solicitor to rule on access rights disputes between the mother and father.

[tonyh29]

36 minutes ago, Enda said:

On a recent Saturday at the Kapıkule border crossing, about 30 minutes drive from the Turkish city of Edirne, a line of trucks 4km long stretched along the highway, inching along glacially towards the Bulgarian checkpoints. “Today is a good day,” said Ibrahim Kurtukcu, a 42-year trucker who had been waiting 14 hours. “Last week the line was 7km long.” The record is 17km. It can take up to 30 hours to get through to the other side.

tbf I don't think Eddie Stobart is going to be smuggling refugees , terrorists ,IS Oil and  drugs out of the UK into the EU in quite the same levels as the Turks

 

[Enda]

2 hours ago, Risso said:

I'm not sure if I'm going mad, but all of your examples Pete seemed to be EU institutions ruling on matters that are to do with disputes between EU members, which is of course, what you'd expect it to.  I think AWOL is correct in that it cannot possibly be right for the ECJ to rule on matters between the EU and non EU members.  To use the divorce analogy that seems to be in vogue at the moment, it'd be like asking the wife's solicitor to rule on access rights disputes between the mother and father.

Fair analogy, but the difference is that the ECJ will of course have the incentive to not rule harshly on the UK or else the deal falls apart. It's not like a one-off rights dispute.

All moot of course, because any tribunal/dispute mechanism implies sacrificing a little sovereignty. Fair point that you might trust an independent court than the ECJ, but there's no getting away from the fact "take back control" is misleading the second you sign a trade agreement.

[Awol]

2 minutes ago, Enda said:

... there's no getting away from the fact "take back control" is misleading the second you sign a trade agreement.

It would be misleading if "taking back control" referred solely to trade policy, which of course it does not. 

[Enda]

Just now, Awol said:

It would be misleading if "taking back control" referred solely to trade policy, which of course it does not. 

Sure, which is why crying "but but but but the loss of jurisdiction!" when I mention ECJ as an potential arbiter of trade disputes is particularly dumb. But I won't be surprised if hardened Brexiteers complain about the inevitable bureaucracy (and loss of sovereignty) that comes with a FTA.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, Risso said:

...I think AWOL is correct in that it cannot possibly be right for the ECJ to rule on matters between the EU and non EU members.  To use the divorce analogy that seems to be in vogue at the moment, it'd be like asking the wife's solicitor to rule on access rights disputes between the mother and father.

Yes, accepted. I subsequently wrote to AWOL

7 hours ago, blandy said:

you've persuaded me that your point of view is the better option (in theory).

Because of the point you make, Martin (and AWOL made, obviously.) I think it outweighs my concerns over additional bureaucracy. I don't think it's the perfect solution, and I'm still worried that it will lead to loss of national law being (ahem) "sovereign" (which is what leave people wanted to "take back control of" over whatever body is set up to adjudicate (as was pointed out in the quote from the French paper I posted), but as it stands AWOL's comments caused me to change my mind. I know it doesn't happen much on VT  but yeah, someone made a case and caused me to change my viewpoint. Close the site.

[blandy]

49 minutes ago, Awol said:

It would be misleading if "taking back control" referred solely to trade policy, which of course it does not. 

True. Though much else affects "control" and "sovereignty" too. In the modern world international relationships and trade and co-operation all involved pooling control and sovereignty and all the rest of it. Whether it's the UN, NATO, Trade standards and rules, Universities, Science and technology research, medicine, Energy, Climate change, Transport, Telecoms.....

[hycus-flange]

3 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

tbf I don't think Eddie Stobart is going to be smuggling refugees , terrorists ,IS Oil and  drugs out of the UK into the EU in quite the same levels as the Turks

 

That's only because Stobarts can't undercut the rates the Turks will do it for

[Awol]

46 minutes ago, blandy said:

True. Though much else affects "control" and "sovereignty" too. In the modern world international relationships and trade and co-operation all involved pooling control and sovereignty and all the rest of it. Whether it's the UN, NATO, Trade standards and rules, Universities, Science and technology research, medicine, Energy, Climate change, Transport, Telecoms.....

Indeed, the Government does and will continue to enter into agreements with other countries on a wide variety of issues. Often it's eminently sensible to do so.

What will end with Brexit is the supremacy of EU law within the United Kingdom, meaning everyone who makes our laws can be sacked by us, the British public.  Hooray for that - although I don't expect to change your mind on this one! 

 

[Wainy316]

Nice to hear prices will go down so the UK will be nice and cheap such as other none EU countries, Norway and Switzerland.

[Enda]

2 hours ago, Awol said:

What will end with Brexit is the supremacy of EU law within the United Kingdom 

In Ireland we hear this a lot too, but it always seems to be more a point of principle rather than anything that "substantive". The only EU laws that have really mattered in Ireland I can think of are the four freedoms, but they are fundamental economic concepts we all signed up to, not the creeping laws in the sense people usually mean them.

Can you name your top three ECJ cases/Commission decisions you feel most adversely impacted the lives of British people, please?