The Consequences of Brexit (part 2)

[Flexo]

EEA membership maintains the relevance and jurisdiction of the ECJ.

 

In that context, the 'Canada plus' option (still-) being mooted at the moment, appears to correspond to an end game that ticks most of everyone's boxes on both sides of the fence. EEA in most but name, without the ECJ jurisdiction issue.

 

Strictly, we didn't vote to leave the ECJ but I see your point.

 

ECJ is put down by the government and right wing press because it sometimes stops the government from doing nasty things. My gut feeling is I'd trust the ECJ's ability to interpret the law more than I trust the government's.

 

A supra-national trade area needs a supa-national body to resolve disputes, e.g. the ECJ.

 

As I understand it, the Canadian/US CETA and TTIP deals had secret courts to do the same job.

 

I think I'd trust the ECJ more than I'd trust a secret court.

 

I'm sure there are pluses and minuses of each approach.

[unbeliever]

Strictly, we didn't vote to leave the ECJ but I see your point.

 

ECJ is put down by the government and right wing press because it sometimes stops the government from doing nasty things. My gut feeling is I'd trust the ECJ's ability to interpret the law more than I trust the government's.

 

A supra-national trade area needs a supa-national body to resolve disputes, e.g. the ECJ.

 

As I understand it, the Canadian/US CETA and TTIP deals had secret courts to do the same job.

 

I think I'd trust the ECJ more than I'd trust a secret court.

 

I'm sure there are pluses and minuses of each approach.

 

 

The ECJ is part of the EU. We voted to leave the EU.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Justice

[L00b]

ECJ is put down by the government and right wing press because it sometimes stops the government from doing nasty things. My gut feeling is I'd trust the ECJ's ability to interpret the law more than I trust the government's.

My turn to point out the irony (): whilst it's entirely correct to point out that the ECJ's job is to interpret the law (European law, that is, either as Community statutes or their national transposition), it's not the UK government which interprets law, it's Parliament (for EU law transposable into national law) and UK courts (for UK law, incorporating EU law transposed into it).

 

The main overlap is when a UK Court struggles to interpret EU law transposed into UK law in relation to a case (a specific set of facts giving rise to a specific point of legal interpretation) and refers the point of interpretation to the ECJ as a question.

 

The ECJ answers it and the UK court decides the case according to the question.

 

Obviously, that's besides the judiciary role of the ECJ in deciding whether a government (as a Defendant to supra-national proceedings, with e.g. the Commission as the Claimant) has breached or misapplied EU rules and regs. Which is much more rare compared to the above. All governments stand equal before it in that respect, there is no 'special' status (friendly or unfriendly) to the UK.

 

---------- Post added 01-12-2016 at 15:52 ----------

 

I'm not putting words anywhere. Re-read what was said.

OK

We'll not remain part of it ('member', full as now or partial like Norway, Switzerland, etc.) without free movement, that much is sure.

 

But it's equally certain that we'll keep at least some access to it. For a price.

Everybody has "access" to the EU internal "single" market.

I thought I clearly differentiated between "being part of" and "having access" in my post, and that my reference to "some" access is a fair representation of the varying levels of access which a non-EU, non-EEA country can get to the single market?

You referred to either enhanced access or tariff free access (I can't tell which) as "access".

And then we disagreed about a reference to either enhanced access or tariff free access.

I'm not saying that you used the terms tariff free access or enhanced access in my post.

I'm saying that you used "access" as a shorthand for one of those and I corrected you.

I used "some access" in my original post, which is neither "enhanced access" nor "tariff free access" under any stretch of the imagination: in fact, if it was shorthand for anything, it would be for the contrary!

 

If you want to argue that "some access" means either or both of these expressions, then by all that's your argument to make, and by all means make it. But don't put it that I misrepresented such a distinction or made that argument, to the extent that you needed to 'correct' me. That's dishonest.

Edited December 1, 2016 by L00b

[Flexo]

EEA membership maintains the relevance and jurisdiction of the ECJ

 

I see your top lawyer skills and trump you with a euro judge.

 

Today the Guardian has: European free trade area could be UK's best Brexit option, says judge

Britain could retain access to the European single market and considerably more national sovereignty if it joins the European Free Trade Association (Efta), the president of the body’s court has said.

 

Efta currently consists of Norway, Lichtenstein, Switzerland and Iceland. Together with the EU member states they form a trading zone called the European Economic Area.

 

The Efta court handles cases against Efta member countries for failing to implement the rules of the single market. “We are fast. You get a preliminary ruling within eight months,” he said.

 

There would be no judicial oversight by the ECJ [European court of justice] once the European Communities Act 1972 is repealed. The UK could join the existing free trade agreements Efta states have signed and would have the freedom to make its own FTAs [free trade agreements] and set its own trade policy as the EEA is not a customs union.” Efta states have 27 free trade agreements covering 38 countries.

 

Baudenbacher said the UK judiciary could have greater influence over the Efta court’s decisions than over those of the European court of justice, because the Efta court was smaller.

 

He said his court was also less intrusive than the ECJ.

 

I'm sure you can make more sense of that than me - just wanted to share that with you.

 

P.S. Will you two please ask the ECJ to rule on the word "access" or you will be bickering forever

Edited December 1, 2016 by Flexo
added some bold

[L00b]

I'm sure you can make more sense of that than me - just wanted to share that with you.

If I may paraphrase in very summary terms: 'euro' judge-who-is-not-good-enough-for-ECJ-appointment says "swap the ECJ jurisdiction for my EFTACJ jurisdiction, winnarrr!"

 

 

More pragmatically, the EFTA CJ's role is to enforce law common to the EU and EFTA groups amongst non-EU EEA members ("The Efta court handles cases against Efta member countries for failing to implement the rules of the single market"), and so logically the EFTA decisions can't be at odds with ECJ case law ('interpretation of EU law').

 

Horses for courses, same difference, just change the badges and door/desk plates

P.S. Will you two please ask the ECJ to rule on the word "access" or you will be bickering forever

I stand by my edit in #1144 Edited December 1, 2016 by L00b

[altus]

UKIP seem to be off in la la land again. UKIP wants the Irish government to help pay for a motorway in Wales with EU funds.

 

The Welsh First Minister pointed out the hypocrisy

"He campaigned in June to end European funding for Welsh roads – he can’t now go to another EU member state and ask them to make up the shortfall that he himself campaigned to engineer in the first place."

before referring to the implications of the English taking a similar attitude to the Welsh traffic on Severn Bridge and the French with UK traffic passing through Calais.

 

Video of the exchange

.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

But back on topic:

By definition, every guess about what the future consequences of past/present actions might be is always just a guess. Even experts' guesses are just guesses.

The UK's future post-EU position and finances are yet to come- hence the Remain/Leave decision has to rest on matters of principle and not on whether one or other might be financially more rewarding.

[L00b]

But back on topic:

By definition, every guess about what the future consequences of past/present actions might be is always just a guess. Even experts' guesses are just guesses.

True, but topically (in keeping with the thread title) that doesn't invalidate chronicling consequences in here as they have been occurring since June 24.

The UK's future post-EU position and finances are yet to come- hence the Remain/Leave decision has to rest on matters of principle and not on whether one or other might be financially more rewarding.

Interesting angle. What be those, Jeffrey?

 

Bearing in mind that decisions taken on a principled basis will invariably have 'real life' measurable effects, financial and not, positive and not?

 

Not a trick question, genuinely interested to see where you're going with this

[altus]

But back on topic:

By definition, every guess about what the future consequences of past/present actions might be is always just a guess. Even experts' guesses are just guesses.

The UK's future post-EU position and finances are yet to come- hence the Remain/Leave decision has to rest on matters of principle and not on whether one or other might be financially more rewarding.

But a big part of the leave campaign's argument was claiming we would be better off outside the EU, with the remain campaign arguing the opposite. So one of the principles always has been "Will be be better off financially in or out of the EU?"

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Principles like:

a. law being made in the UK and not extra-territorially imposed;

b. ability for HMG to decide who is or isn't permitted to enter the UK and on what duration basis;

c. Courts in the UK not being subordinated to external judiciary;

d. avoidance of duplicated bureaucracy;

e. ability to enter into its own trade deals, not restricted by- or as part of- EU diktats;

f. ability to vary rates of VAT or, if desired, to abolish it;

etc. etc.

 

---------- Post added 01-12-2016 at 16:34 ----------

 

But a big part of the leave campaign's argument was claiming we would be better off outside the EU, with the remain campaign arguing the opposite. So one of the principles always has been "Will be be better off financially in or out of the EU?"

But, as I explained, neither side knows the future. Nobody does. That was- in each case- a false way to decide and therefore not in any way a "principle".