Brexit now = CETA +/-?

[Wheels-Of-Fire]

The Wiki on the Good Friday Agreement is worth a read as well. There is lots of good stuff about British-Irish agreement, a small bit about the EU agreeing the importance of the two nation agreement post Brexit and a teeny weeny bit about the ECHR.

[Ed P]

I’m obviously reading the wrong information sources, but I believe that  on 11 July 2018 May publicly committed to a statement saying that the UK would remain in the ECHR link

She obviously sees the same issues over Ireland that are seen by others, so perhaps talk of tearing up the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement is moot.

[Wheels-Of-Fire]

If Mrs May’s white paper were to be accepted by the EU then the whole issue of leaving would be moot because we wouldn’t be.

In the words of Martin Howe QC our judges will remain “explicitly subserviant” to the ECJ because of our pledge to follow a “common rule book”.

[Wheels-Of-Fire]

There is no time limit on this arrangement and we would be obliged to follow any future changes to the rules.

[Wheels-Of-Fire]

I said I thought I smelt a rat.

[Dave Rice]

ECHR isn’t an EU institution, neither is the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

“The Council of Europe was founded on 5 May 1949 by ten western and northern European states, with Greece and Turkey joining three months later, and Iceland and West Germany joining the next year. It now has 47 member states, with Montenegro being the latest to join. Article 4 of the Council of Europe Statute specifies that membership is open to any European country, provided they meet specific democratic and human rights standards. Nearly all European states have acceded to the Council of Europe, with the exception of Belarus, the Vatican City, predominantly Central Asian Kazakhstan,[1] as well as some of the states with limited recognition.”

With the ECJ, if we wish to trade with other nations we must comply with their rules and regulations and vice versa. Whether we are a member of the EU or not makes no difference. Who else is going to regulate the European rules but the ECJ?

If they change a rule that affects trade are we going to say we don’t want to trade with you any more? It’s not as if those rules change a lot. A dose of reality is required here.

[Wheels-Of-Fire]

Yep you are right the ECJ is not the same as the European court of human rights but the ECJ just cant help sticking its nose in. In December 2014 the ECJ rejected assention to the ECHR for reasons best known to its self but it dose mean it can carry on making its own rulings.

And we do NOT follow the rules of a foreign court if we want a trade agreement. We follow the rules of a trade agreement.

[Wheels-Of-Fire]

We cant actually have a trade agreement at the moment either. The EU’s own guidelines for negotiation state that a trade agreement can only be entered into after we have formally left the EU. Only discussions about a future “framework” will be allowed.

[The Duke]

What’s up with the human rights act? I’ve never looked into it, never heard anything bad said against it, or good for that matter. I’m truly ignorant on the matter.

[Wheels-Of-Fire]

The Human rights act is UK legislation that officially ties us into the European Convention of Human rights and in most cases  grants a right of appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. On the face of it this is a good idea.

My problem with it is its wide ranging powers. The act has been used for everything from gagging news papers with right to privicy laws to avoiding deportation with that right to a family life one. I also do not like the way that human rights lawers have made a fortune out of dragging cases to the ECJ  when they could and should have been decided by out courts.

[Wheels-Of-Fire]

When David Cameron proposed replacing the act with a British bill of rights he was warned by the EU that it would jepodise our membership. That bit at least is no longer a worry ?

[Ed P]

Steve in my opinion the ECHR shares the same problem as that of the UK legal system. Judges interpret and extend laws into territories never contemplated by our elected representatives. Case law as a concept stinks, and the problem with human rights is that it has a very tenuous definition and now covers things such as ‘the right to an Internet Connection’

[The Duke]

One of our Giff Gaff sims went down last night, and is still down, can I cause them of taking away my sons right to the Internet. Lol. Joking aside, he isn’t happy, currently hotspoting of mums phone connection.

[Wheels-Of-Fire]

Go for it Duke, get yourself a human rights lawyer. After a couple of years of publicly funded arguments in the UK the supreme court probably  tell you not to be so stupid but dont let that put you off. You can most likely appeal to the ECJ and there is a very good chance that they will decide that your basic human right to an internet connection has indeed been denied you. You could be in line for thousands of pounds of compensation, or at least a free internet subscription ?

[Ed P]

On a more serious note, this 2016 link explains why a UK Bill of Rights Foundered. (it wasn’t the EU that killed it, it was the House of Lords). I would guess that some of the self-same arguments have been wheeled out again and convinced May that we cannot junk the ECHR.

[Wheels-Of-Fire]

Well I read the link and my conclosion is that the House of lords love the ECHR. No srprise there then. Their main points of contention are.

1. They don’t like the wording of the bill Cameron presented.

2. The EU wouldn’t like it.

3. The devolved governments of the UK may not like it either.

Point two just don’t matter and the other points can be settled by propper consultation with all concerned parties before a new British bill of rights is written. Think of the oppertunities. We could put together a much better bill that IS fit for purpose before we do anything.

[Wheels-Of-Fire]

I see the BBC news is backing project Desperation again. They just spent 20 minutes telling me why our planes will be grounded if we leave the EU with no deal. Apparently all our safety certificates will be invalid ?

[Dave Rice]

This is the whole point, everyone just bangs on and on about trade deals, it’s far more than that. We are intertwined with the EU in so many ways.

It even includes permits for road haulage. The RHA were on Sky commenting on Dover councils (Tory) report into what chaos will ensue there if there is no deal. The RHA say European hauliers are losing interest in bring goods here due to the uncertainty. Good news, more can go to UK hauliers. Hauliers who make international journeys for hire or reward within the European Union (EU) must hold both a Community Licence and a Standard International Operator’s Licence. If there is no deal, and this is according to the RHA, UK hauliers permits will no longer be valid. Still that will solve the M20 lorry car park dilemma.

Scoff if you like, but it is this sort of thing that will have most effect not the absence of a trade deal. My daughter is studying German at University. Next year she will need to go to a German speaking country for 6 months+ to live and study or work as part of the course. Study used to be easy under the Erasmus scheme and work is a right. How is that going to work with no deal?

[Ed P]

Unfortunately politicians just do not understand that complexity takes time to resolve, so those in the Government that start working on contingency plans to mobilise the military (thanks to May we are short of civil policing), and look at food and fuel rationing (logistics constraints) and grounded airlines are dubbed FUD mongers. Unfortunately if we do actually crash out with a very hard Brexit that is just what we will get.

Admittedly the impacts on places like Holland and France will be even greater, and the whole of the EU will have to face a huge budget deficit. However that is no real comfort it just shows the impracticality of a hard Brexit.

We need the referendum I posited,  to see if the public really like the idea of being very poor for a long while.

[Bob Williams]

No one knows what is going to happen. We may be worse off for a short time, but I doubt very much that it will be for a long time, Ed. Anyone can make up a scenario that will “demonstrate” a result that puts us all below the poverty line, or indeed a scenario which has us living happily ever after, in relative prosperity, while the EU splits into several parts. Surely, that’s what happened before the Referendum, is it not? Various politicians taking sides and spending money provided by us dumb taxpayers, assisted by funds from various ‘backers’ of Leave or Remain. That was the start of the lies and half truths from each side of the argument and still it continues in the same vein.

I have lost all patience with the Brexit issue. I will not post here again on the Brexit forum.

When the Thought Police arrive at your door, think -
I'm out.

[Author]

Posts