UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Carth

Why, for the love of god, would we leave the EU and then still want to be subject to the rulings of the ECJ? We will not be a member of the EU anymore.

Does the ECJ run its sticky fingers over the dealings with Canada, Japan, Russia? . . . in fact any Country that is not part of the EU.

Are you trying to say that, whether we are in or out, any dealings we have with any EU Country have to be ratified and 'passed' by a court consisting of EU members, dealing with EU members, which presides over ensuring one EU member isn't being 'ripped off' by another EU member?

If that's the case, what is the equivalent UK court that ensures this Country isn't overwhelmed by cheap foreign imports that decimate our own manufacturing & industry . . . oh hang on, we're 40 years too late

Nothing to do with 'wanting' to be under the jurisdiction of the ECJ, it's about being members of organisations that make business simpler and more efficient. If being members of those organisations includes the ECJ being the final arbitrator, then fine.

Sovereignty is all well and good but feeling good doesn't put shoes on my kids feet...

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

The ECJ can only rule over areas where EU directives and regulations are in force so, if we want to have access to EU (and some non-EU) agencies, there is a case for 'sucking it up' and taking ECJ jurisdiction to get access.

My wish list would include;

EASA - aviation regulation including safety and the European Common Aviation Area
ECHA - chemical regulation and safety including REACH (huge impact to my business right now!)
EMA - European Medicines Agency
EUIPO - intellectual property
EFSA - food safety
EMSA - maritime safety
ECDC - disease control and epidemiology

Leaving these agencies due to ECJ jurisdiction in a quest for sovereignty seems to be the aim. It's each persons own value judgement to what cost is worth the degree of sovereignty we will gain.

Do you think it is right that that the EU should insist on ECJ jurisdiction over elements over a trade deal when that is not the case with Canada and Japan?

[Carth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Nothing to do with 'wanting' to be under the jurisdiction of the ECJ, it's about being members of organisations that make business simpler and more efficient. If being members of those organisations includes the ECJ being the final arbitrator, then fine.

Sovereignty is all well and good but feeling good doesn't put shoes on my kids feet...

But wouldn't there be some 'self interest' in that arbitration, with the ECJ being biased towards its own membership? How would/could you know you got a fair hearing?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Nothing to do with 'wanting' to be under the jurisdiction of the ECJ, it's about being members of organisations that make business simpler and more efficient. If being members of those organisations includes the ECJ being the final arbitrator, then fine.

Sovereignty is all well and good but feeling good doesn't put shoes on my kids feet...

The majority of voters wanted to be free of ECJ jurisdiction and took the economic case into account (unless you wasnt to claim that the voters were dumb). The voters also wanted to curb the disporportionate migration that was occurring: everyone's second language is English.

What those voters will be quite happy with is a Canada style trade deal which keeps business simple and does not subject us to the ECJ.

What's wrong with that?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

And if you think in today’s global interconnected world, that any country is not dependent or influenced by any other country, I’ve got a bridge you might want to buy...

For example Priti Patel has just said we are dependent on the French to help us return migrants, as our "sovereignty" in this matter depends on their support...

Sovereignty 2016 - We demand the right to control our borders!!

Sovereignty 2020: Why aren’t the bloody French controlling our borders?!

The French aren't controlling their own borders. They are in France illegally.



Eg If there are unaccompanied minors, then the responsibility for them lies with the French, or any of the multitude of other countries they've supposedly passed through unaccompanied. Just as any other unaccompanied minor, who is found on the streets, is taken into care in that country. Rather perverse that the only country deemed responsible for their care is the UK. Also perverse that the European Convention on Human Rights hasn't come down heavily on France and all the other countries.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The French aren't controlling their own borders. They are in France illegally.



Eg If there are unaccompanied minors, then the responsibility for them lies with the French, or any of the multitude of other countries they've supposedly passed through unaccompanied. Just as any other unaccompanied minor, who is found on the streets, is taken into care in that country. Rather perverse that the only country deemed responsible for their care is the UK. Also perverse that the European Convention on Human Rights hasn't come down heavily on France and all the other countries.

Could it possibly be because they don't want them?

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Do you think it is right that that the EU should insist on ECJ jurisdiction over elements over a trade deal when that is not the case with Canada and Japan?

If the return is good, then I would be OK with it. Cost-benefit analysis really.

What elements of EU law are not covered by the ECJ in the case of the Canada and Japan deals?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

If the return is good, then I would be OK with it. Cost-benefit analysis really.

What elements of EU law are not covered by the ECJ in the case of the Canada and Japan deals?

In both of those deals, there is an arbitration mechanism.
In the Canada case, here is an important piece of judicial interpretation (my red highlight):

https://www.jurist.org/news/2019/05/...llows-eu-laws/

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled on Tuesday that the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the EU follows EU laws. The court decision was requested by Belgium and was focused on the section of CETA that concerns resolution of investment disputes between investors and states.

CETA will establish a Investment Court System (ICS) to handle disputes between investors and states. The system will include a Tribunal, an Appellate Tribunal, and a multilateral investment tribunal. The Tribunal will include 15 members: five from Canada, five from EU member states and five from third countries.

Belgium filed the request for a decision from the ECJ because the ECJ has exclusive jurisdiction over the definitive interpretation of EU law. The ECJ found that CETA did not violate this principle as long as the CETA Tribunals do not attempt to interpret EU laws.

Why shouldn't the EU grant the UK the same arbitration mechanism rather than adherence to the ECJ's domination?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I'm so glad that you are not leading these negotiations!

I, on the other hand, would be very happy if you were leading the British side of these negotiations.

---------- Post added at 14:12 ---------- Previous post was at 14:01 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Why shouldn't the EU grant the UK the same arbitration mechanism rather than adherence to the ECJ's domination?

Life's unfair, Seph, you have to get over it.

In this instance, I imagine two things determine this:
- There's very little time left to strike a deal. Adopting an existing mechanism is easier than devising a new one.
- Scale of trade. This is far more significant between the UK and EU than between the EU and Canada or Japan. Hence more disputes are likely. Having an existing infrastructure in place can move more rapidly than having to rope in 15 judges from elsewhere.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I, on the other hand, would be very happy if you were leading the British side of these negotiations.

---------- Post added at 14:12 ---------- Previous post was at 14:01 ----------


Life's unfair, Seph, you have to get over it.

In this instance, I imagine two things determine this:
- There's very little time left to strike a deal. Adopting an existing mechanism is easier than devising a new one.
- Scale of trade. This is far more significant between the UK and EU than between the EU and Canada or Japan. Hence more disputes are likely. Having an existing infrastructure in place can move more rapidly than having to rope in 15 judges from elsewhere.

.... but that would be unfair. And that is the key difference between us.

Btw, I was reading up on the EFTA dispute mechanism (as per Norway). EFTA.int

The EFTA Court, based in Luxembourg, corresponds to the Court of Justice of the European Union in matters relating to the EEA EFTA States. The Court deals with infringement actions brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) against an EFTA State with regard to the implementation, application or interpretation of an EEA rule. The Court also handles the settlement of disputes between two or more EEA EFTA States. It hears appeals against decisions taken by ESA and gives advisory opinions to courts in the EEA EFTA States on the interpretation of EEA rules.

The EFTA countries don’t submit to the ECJ either, notwithstanding their proximity.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

..

Btw, I was reading up on the EFTA dispute mechanism (as per Norway). EFTA.int

The EFTA countries don’t submit to the ECJ either, notwithstanding their proximity.

I think the other reason the EU quoted was size - the EFTA countries are small compared to the UK.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I think the other reason the EU quoted was size - the EFTA countries are small compared to the UK.

The immediate comment that comes to mind is that - we are not small. But we are sufficiently small for them to bully us ( my term ).

But Canada isn’t smaller than the UK, nor Japan.

The EU would say that but it’s clear that they want to teach us a lesson. I hope they blink.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The immediate comment that comes to mind is that - we are not small. But we are sufficiently small for them to bully us ( my term ).

But Canada isn’t smaller than the UK, nor Japan.

The EU would say that but it’s clear that they want to teach us a lesson. I hope they blink.

The equation is probably more like: If third party country has borders with the EU and population >20m then ECJ needed.

You obviously don't want to give as good deal to a third country as you would to a full member or you undermine your membership offering.

[Sephiroth]

Why do you never explain things through UK eyes? It comes across as apologising for the EU without understanding that the UK cannot accept ecj jurisdiction. Why not criticise the EU for its stance?

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Why do you never explain things through UK eyes? It comes across as apologising for the EU without understanding that the UK cannot accept ecj jurisdiction. Why not criticise the EU for its stance?

Or you could ask (maybe using the 'Five Whys') why the EU has taken such a strong line on the arbitration mechanisms.

Of course, the ECJ issue is somewhat clouded by the fact that part of the UK will be under the jurisdiction of the ECJ regardless of what happens at the end of the year