Forumite Members › General Topics › Politics › Europe › Brexit now = CETA +/-?
- This topic has 1,833 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 7 months ago by
Dave Rice.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 6, 2019 at 5:27 pm #30468
I am so annoyed with myself that I didn’t spot long ago what has just been noticed by lawyers. Its blooming obvious. Under Art.50 the EU cannot make arrangements regarding trade with a leaving EU country until it has left the EU. Under May’s WA with the backstop that backstop only comes into play after the end of the transition period. That is to say after we have totally left the EU. So in signing up to it before we have left the EU the EU would be in breach of EU law because it has no entitlement under Art.50 to commit to such before we have left..
Overview and skeleton arguments re such here. Its a short but very interesting piece.
BTW Herbert Smith Freehills who are arguing this are highly respect top tier lawyers. See here.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
During the Covid-19 Epidemic I will be wearing a mask and goggles while posting so that if I become infected I won't spread it to you.
February 6, 2019 at 5:33 pm #30469I reckon bit the uk and EU are just playing the game, and running the clock down. Both sides knowing we’ll eventually throw the towel in an stay.
The government won’t take us into a no deal exit, and they shouldn’t. So it’s just a matter of running the clock down.
There is no solution to Ireland border issue, and both parties know it. We can’t even be in WTO because of it. There seems no solution but to not paly. Quoting a favourite childhood film of mine.
February 6, 2019 at 5:36 pm #30471Duke, I posted while you were posting. A legal issue has just hit the fan. The backstop looks to be unlawful under EU law. See my post just before yours.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
During the Covid-19 Epidemic I will be wearing a mask and goggles while posting so that if I become infected I won't spread it to you.
February 6, 2019 at 5:36 pm #30472VFM putting words in my mouth now, I know how Dave feels!
” Yet you appear to be in against such a firm stance in the UK.” Where did that supposition come from? And what does it mean anyway? A firm stance against what or whom?
When I spoke about going to OZ, it was in reference to my oldest mate who left these shores in 1967 and died in Oz 2 Christmases ago. 1967 was a time when joining the EEC was not even considered by the UK: indeed, anyone mentioning it would have been laughed at.
You seem to think that anyone who does not possess your own over-patriotic, flag-waving, immigrant-drowning views, is totally wrong. In your summing-up of Australia’s immigration policies, you ignore the fact that it is already one of the most racially-mixed, cosmopolitan countries on earth, typified by the lad who was my apprentice in 90’s UK and now owns a Harley Davidson bike agency in Melbourne. He is married to a lovely Vietnamese lady and has 3 children. The only people who are not immigrants into Oz, are the Aboriginals who met the white explorers off the boats, and they walked into the place around 40,000 years ago, across a land bridge now underwater. Where are the real immigrants?
When the Thought Police arrive at your door, think -
I'm out.February 6, 2019 at 5:39 pm #30474I think the real problem is that when I click on the tag for the latest post in this thread, I end up on post page 1 and have to go searching. Is this a plot to slow down the rate of posting new material I wonder?
This is also happening to me Richard: maybe a sign that this debate is overloaded with too much of the material that made me post my “fed up” comment. EDIT: just happened again, wonder if it’s because the number of posts has exceeded 50?
When the Thought Police arrive at your door, think -
I'm out.February 6, 2019 at 6:23 pm #30476Bob, you mean the old ‘run out of fingers’ issue?
February 6, 2019 at 6:24 pm #30477@Bob
I think you actually said you now wish you had gone to Oz which suggests that today’s circumstances would impact the decision you once made. Also if you are a Remainer then by definition you are not in favour of the UK having a firm border status like Oz does. So, yes, your words do “appear to be in against such a firm stance in the UK.” Certainly not as firm as Oz.
Hold on matey to the argument you lodge re Oz being racially mixed. We do not disagree. But its treatment of the Aborigines shows a racist thread as bad as that we saw in the UK in the past. The reality is that both us and Oz have moved on. The UK and Oz are both today highly racially mixed and tolerant. The point that I was making but perhaps did not pad it out enough was that Oz feels that it has sufficient immigrants at present, even though, I might add, it has many, many times the free capacity, geographically, that we do. Had you moved to Oz you would be in a state today wishing to control its influx of immigrants extremely robustly. That is true, is it not? Yet here in the UK you appear to be a Remainer and Remaining would not give us the ability to control our influx of immigrants robustly. That is true is it not?
I have stressed here time and time again that I suspect I had an upbringing as racially diverse as anyone, probably far more so than most on this forum. London was and remains the most racially diverse city in the UK. I very nearly married an Indian Hindu in my youth and the reason I did not had nothing to do with race. It was my fault because I was still, albeit in my mid-twenties, adolescent with a roaming eye and roaming other parts of my anatomy. So, matey, you can bet that my problem with immigration is nothing to do with racism. It is merely to do with volume and speed of influx. We simply do not have the infrastructure, housing, social services, etc., to cope with the numbers that arrive no matter where they come from. Where they come from also warrants consideration. We are obliged by membership to allow EU nationals to pretty much walk in. That volume means we have no option but to limit influx from India, the Philippines, the West Indies, etc. You might call the EU institutionally racist on that basis. I myself do not differentiate between immigrants by nationality but EU dynamic do. OK !!!
I can see that you simply took my words the wrong way. Therefore I will not take offence at you accusing me of being in favour of “immigrant drowning” which nothing in my posts suggested. I would never condone such in a million years. Well…maybe if Tusk, Junker and Verhofstat or whatever his name is were trying to slip across the channel in a dinghy then I would be sorely tempted to make an exception for them………LOL
_______________________________________________________________________________________
During the Covid-19 Epidemic I will be wearing a mask and goggles while posting so that if I become infected I won't spread it to you.
February 6, 2019 at 7:11 pm #30480I was just sent this by a friend. A list of all the euro myths the media has been drop feeding us anti EU propaganda for decades. Quite an amusing list.
February 6, 2019 at 7:59 pm #30481“Also if you are a Remainer then by definition you are not in favour of the UK having a firm border status like Oz does.”
You seem to think everything is black and white. It isn’t. It’s quite possible to have an issue with parts of an institution and still think the rough is over taken by the smooth. It explains why you keep telling us what we think.
February 6, 2019 at 8:04 pm #30482Nice link, Duke. But the ‘get out’ re almost all of them as regards individual member states being sovereign, is that EU states are often within that EU legislation given the ability to diverge somewhat from the core dicta of the EU legislation using local legislation. That is entirely true. Divergence is often allowed in the EU legislation. However, the devil is both in the detail aided and abetted by Old Father Time.
The EU produces such volume of often complex legislation that local states simply do not have the time for the local legislature to develop, debate and enshrine in local laws divergence. I suggest that at some point you consider a significant piece of UK Legislation, pick any Act you want, and then compare it to EU legislation. A good example is the Data Protection Act 1998. Compare that to the mammoth GDPR which the DPA 2018 adopted. Think a Newspapers versus War and Peace. The default position therefore becomes as with the DPA 2018 (i.e. the local legislation) to simply adopt in full the EU legislation (as with the GDPR). Such is not unusual. Significant variance all though legally possible is simply not possible in the time available. Christ, our own Governments rarely have enough time to get all their own intended legislation through the House without having to consider all EU legislation. This is one of the reasons that the EU is essentially non-democratic and why sovereignty is effectively and for practical reasons lost by membership. Put differently we are often ruled by laws that our own Parliament has never and will never have the time to fully consider and debate.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
During the Covid-19 Epidemic I will be wearing a mask and goggles while posting so that if I become infected I won't spread it to you.
February 6, 2019 at 8:08 pm #30483“Also if you are a Remainer then by definition you are not in favour of the UK having a firm border status like Oz does.” You seem to think everything is black and white. It isn’t. . . .
It is also untrue – Kiwis can go into OZ, work and collect benefit (and vice versa). They effectively have a mini-EU!
Allen in your follow-up post you did not add that many UK only laws are only outlined in parliament – the full detail is undemocratically (but quite practically) put together by appointed (unelected) bodies such as Accountants or the CAA. I really see no practical difference between our regulators and those of the EU.
February 6, 2019 at 8:29 pm #30486“Also if you are a Remainer then by definition you are not in favour of the UK having a firm border status like Oz does.” You seem to think everything is black and white. It isn’t. It’s quite possible to have an issue with parts of an institution and still think the rough is over taken by the smooth. It explains why you keep telling us what we think.
Far from it. Dave. Anyone who knows me would tell you that if anything I am inclined to see everything in too many shades of grey. Far too many. You will often find me picking through Acts of Parliament and spotting ambiguities where others usually judges and lawyers see things as black and white.
You are correct that most things must be considered on balance or as you term it comparing the rough with the smooth. However, having adopted a position one must take ownership for the consequences of a decision. I note the sentence you quoted from one of my posts. Let me rephrase it such as to make its meaning clear for you – “Also if you are a Remainer then by definition you have or are willing to vote for the UK not having a firm border status like Oz does.” That’s what I mean by ownership, Dave. In law it is called Indirect or Oblique intent. If the consequences of your actions are both foreseeable and close to inevitable, and even if such an outcome was your desire, that the outcome was foreseeable and close to inevitable it is deemed you intended that outcome. I’m not sure if I explained that such that it makes sense. Let me give you the classic example.
A man places a bomb on a freight plane in order to secure an insurance payout for his goods in transit. He purpose is not to kill the aircrew and indeed he might hope and wholly desire that they survive. However, as the foreseeable and close to inevitable outcome was their deaths it is considered that in undertaking the act he intended (albeit indirectly or obliquely) to kill them. The charge is murder.
You, yes, Dave, as voting Remain means foreseeably and inevitably unlimited freedom of movement then in my eyes voters for Remain intended that outcome. Is my position clear now.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
During the Covid-19 Epidemic I will be wearing a mask and goggles while posting so that if I become infected I won't spread it to you.
February 6, 2019 at 9:31 pm #30489“Also if you are a Remainer then by definition you are not in favour of the UK having a firm border status like Oz does.” You seem to think everything is black and white. It isn’t. . . .
It is also untrue – Kiwis can go into OZ, work and collect benefit (and vice versa). They effectively have a mini-EU! Allen in your follow-up post you did not add that many UK only laws are only outlined in parliament – the full detail is undemocratically (but quite practically) put together by appointed (unelected) bodies such as Accountants or the CAA. I really see no practical difference between our regulators and those of the EU.
Taking your two parts in turn I’m not sure I agree with your mini-EU analogy. Unless you consider that prior to both our memberships of the EU we had a “mini-EU” with Eire because freedom of movement and benefits with Eire far predates EU membership.
Moving to your second point I think you forget or are unaware of the involvement and scrutiny of Commons Select Committees. Again its a case of workload. Most UK legislation is at some point scrutinised by a committee tasked closely to the work of a specific Ministry or an ad-hoc committee set up for that particular piece of UK legislation. Hence there is quite a degree of detailed Parliamentary scrutiny. However, as regards scrutiny of EU legislation it all goes through a single committee. I certainly would not allege intentional bias because it is the Chair of a Committee that holds sway there and at least currently the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee is Bill Cash. However, that committee’s workload is astounding. About 1,100 EU documents go through that single committee per parliamentary session . Just compare that to the number of UK Acts (i.e. Primary Legislation) and Statutory Instruments that need scrutiny during a parliamentary session and remember that those are spread across numerous Committees. There simply is no comparison. Comparing the volume of EU to UK legislation is like comparing normal tide to a Tsunami. So I think that it is true to say that much EU legislation, for purely practical reasons, gets nowhere near the scrutiny of UK legislation and to a large degree is just rubber stamped without anywhere near the consideration that UK Acts and S.I.’s get.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
During the Covid-19 Epidemic I will be wearing a mask and goggles while posting so that if I become infected I won't spread it to you.
February 6, 2019 at 10:42 pm #30492I’m sharing the below because it may not get that much coverage in the mainstream media. The BBC I doubt will even mention it. Take a look at this –
What does Leo find so funny?
Here’s the text that is inside the card shared on twitter by Bruno Waterfield of The Times –
The deaths of our squaddies who died in Ulster during the troubles; the bombings in Guildford, Aldershot, Birmingham and the Tory Party Conference; the assassination bombings of Mountbatten and Airey Neave and other atrocities on the UK mainland and in N.I. we apparently think of as just ‘nuisances’. OK it’s an ill-informed young Irish person writing but Leo Vileradkar and Drunker think that’s its funny – all at the same time that the RAF defends Vileradkar’s airspace because Eire has no Air Force.
I left out personal thing. The Harrod’s bombing. I wasn’t that far away from it and had been heading to Harrod’s for some Christmas shopping in ’83. I certainly didn’t think all that was just a ‘nuisance’. I’m real glad that Vileradkar thinks it funny. Real ‘kin glad !!!!!!!
_______________________________________________________________________________________
During the Covid-19 Epidemic I will be wearing a mask and goggles while posting so that if I become infected I won't spread it to you.
February 6, 2019 at 10:51 pm #30494Here a bit about ‘that card’ on youtube.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
During the Covid-19 Epidemic I will be wearing a mask and goggles while posting so that if I become infected I won't spread it to you.
February 7, 2019 at 5:46 am #30495I wasmt far from the Warrington bombing. My cousin ant and uncle was at the top of high Street, after just leaving the mcdonalds the bomb went off out side, on their wack to the car park small carpark oppersite Central Station.
Don’t know if its still there, it was a small patch of scrub ground back then. You could always squeeze on their.
February 7, 2019 at 7:41 am #30496Allen you talk about the ‘bombings’ but skirt the fact that the threat of a Hard Brexit is starting to raise that evil spectre once again. We had a situation where the old divisions were starting to disappear despite the DUP lunatic fringe but Brexit has brought it all back with a vengeance and May does nothing to smooth over fears and it must look to outsiders that her Government is ignoring the issue.
February 7, 2019 at 8:25 am #30498I do not skirt the fact, Ed. I’ve posted regarding it several times above. The backstop that the EU and Eire demand breaches the GFA. That is why Lord Trimble and several others who were architects of it are taking it to law by route of seeking a judicial review. Also Herbert Smith Freehills one of the most respected international law firm say it does.
So, Ed, who is it taking us towards breaching that which has maintained the peace? I reject the idea that it is us because we want to Brexit. Brexit alone does not breach the GFA. It is the backstop that does. And it breaches EU law as it is something which only occurs after we have left. Therefore under EU law it cannot be agreed until after we have left. Here’s the link again to what Herbert Smith Freehills hold the position to be. And this leaves no doubts these are a top notch highly respected law firm.
If the EU bin that backstop and trust that we won’t set up a hard border because we are the one’s who will get bombed if we do then we, the EU and especially Eire have a deal. While there are things such as this card (which Junker had no obligation to in effect publish) suggesting that we consider such things as bombings merely be a ‘nuisance’ the EU states will never recognise that it is us that have by far the most incentive not to force a hard border or reignite the troubles. There is no need for a gun to one’s head backstop in order to avoid a hard border. We would not leave that arrangement until sure we could without there being a need for a hard border. The incentive of avoiding a pound of semtex in our high streets and shopping malls is more than enough, isn’t it?
Bin the ball and chain backstop and make it consensual and the WA deal goes through. It really is as ‘kin simple as that. Then neither the GFA nor EU law are breached by it either.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
During the Covid-19 Epidemic I will be wearing a mask and goggles while posting so that if I become infected I won't spread it to you.
February 7, 2019 at 8:46 am #30500Meanwhile we ignore the totally crass actions of people like Francois and their like. You yourself personally denigrate EU leaders regularly.
I would be more impressed if we had this in context as a video. I think they both have a neutral expression in their faces, I certainly don’t think either is laughing at anything, but interpret as you will and keep on whipping up these anti foreigner sentiments, that will be really helpful.
This what it always comes down to doesn’t it? Good old fashioned racial prejudice. It was Turkey two years ago now it’s Ireland. Johnny foreigner hates us and is telling us what to do, poor little Britain being picked upon by these nasty people. Then we hear how strong we are and can overcome anything. Throw off the yoke of the foreign oppressor etc. etc.
February 7, 2019 at 8:51 am #30501I note that Corbyn has written to the PM demanding a UK-wide customs union, close alignment with the single market, “dynamic alignment” on rights and protections, “clear commitments” on participation in EU agencies and funding programmes and “unambiguous agreements” on the detail of future security arrangements. That’s BRINO in reality leaving us with just about where we were with a ‘Frankenstein Empire’, his words not mine, which for so many decades he has held to be an empire totally against the man in the street’s best interests.
How does the old rhyme go – ‘The working class can kiss my rr’s, I’ve got the foreman’s job at last’. Seems about right to me given his seismic shift. The once highly Principled Politician is showing he is merely the latter of that class of individual. Oh for the likes of Lord Carrington and I don’t care which party such an individual stood for s/he would get my vote. We need politicians of enduring conviction to again come forward not, as recent events have shown, convicted politicians.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
During the Covid-19 Epidemic I will be wearing a mask and goggles while posting so that if I become infected I won't spread it to you.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.