Current Affairs EU In or Out

In or Out

  • In

    Votes: 688 67.9%
  • Out

    Votes: 325 32.1%

  • Total voters
    1,013
Status
Not open for further replies.
At the end of the day, if no deal is done and the two years have passed, we just walk away. If we agree to an independent arbiter then we have to pay whatever number is agreed. Why would we be willing to give up a bargaining position ?

...commentators indicate we accept a divorce payment has to be made and will not walk away from that obligation. I suppose neither side can pluck a figure out of the air, the amount will have to be clearly defined (working out shown). If the definition is agreed (what still has to be paid for) I suppose the delta between the figures will be negotiatable.
 
...commentators indicate we accept a divorce payment has to be made and will not walk away from that obligation. I suppose neither side can pluck a figure out of the air, the amount will have to be clearly defined (working out shown). If the definition is agreed (what still has to be paid for) I suppose the delta between the figures will be negotiatable.

Then we need to shake them up and refuse to discuss any form of exit fee. This is the way they wish to play it, suck us in, start to address the things they wish while completely ignoring ours. We should start by addressing the people issues and the NI border question as we all want them addressed. The latter however should be led by Eire and the UK with the EU taking a backseat role. Exit fees (consisting of legal commitments only) and trade agreements should start together or not at all......
 
Then we need to shake them up and refuse to discuss any form of exit fee. This is the way they wish to play it, suck us in, start to address the things they wish while completely ignoring ours. We should start by addressing the people issues and the NI border question as we all want them addressed. The latter however should be led by Eire and the UK with the EU taking a backseat role. Exit fees (consisting of legal commitments only) and trade agreements should start together or not at all......

..coincidentally, David Davies has just been on telly saying he accepts the obligation to pay the divorce settlement but it has to be a legal settlement and not a figure plucked from the air.
 
..coincidentally, David Davies has just been on telly saying he accepts the obligation to pay the divorce settlement but it has to be a legal settlement and not a figure plucked from the air.

I think he said a legal commitment but I may be wrong. We have two years of full EU trade access no matter what happens. While the EU play out these games with us our overriding efforts should be in putting in place the wherewithal to increase trade with the RoW such that any deal with the EU is a bonus. Whatever happens we have to establish new trade and deal with WTO rules anyway so let's get it all set up and show the EU we are quite happy with WTO trade rules......
 
I think he said a legal commitment but I may be wrong. We have two years of full EU trade access no matter what happens. While the EU play out these games with us our overriding efforts should be in putting in place the wherewithal to increase trade with the RoW such that any deal with the EU is a bonus. Whatever happens we have to establish new trade and deal with WTO rules anyway so let's get it all set up and show the EU we are quite happy with WTO trade rules......
You make it sound so simple Pete, just trade with the rest of the World and replace the 44% of our exports with the EU, piece of piss.

Only these markets have always been there, what's going to miraculously change overnight?

Also we can't do a single deal until we conclude our exit, and then we'll have to hope to mirror the current EU deals with all of the other 3rd party countries that we already trade with, which isn't as simple as tippexing out EU and replacing it with UK due to the quotas etc.

The idea that leaving the EU single market and customs union without a deal isn't going to hurt the UK economy badly, is a complete nonsense.

It'll be a total car crash unless it's a phased withdrawal, the cliff edge would create an absolute nightmare for both UK exporters and manufacturers / assemblers / retailers who rely on EU sourced products. This glib attitude to it is dangerous and completely underestimates the level of disruption and economic shock it'd deliver.
 
You make it sound so simple Pete, just trade with the rest of the World and replace the 44% of our exports with the EU, piece of piss.

Only these markets have always been there, what's going to miraculously change overnight?

Also we can't do a single deal until we conclude our exit, and then we'll have to hope to mirror the current EU deals with all of the other 3rd party countries that we already trade with, which isn't as simple as tippexing out EU and replacing it with UK due to the quotas etc.

The idea that leaving the EU single market and customs union without a deal isn't going to hurt the UK economy badly, is a complete nonsense.

It'll be a total car crash unless it's a phased withdrawal, the cliff edge would create an absolute nightmare for both UK exporters and manufacturers / assemblers / retailers who rely on EU sourced products. This glib attitude to it is dangerous and completely underestimates the level of disruption and economic shock it'd deliver.

These EU deals you refer to are between 3rd Party individual countries and each individual country within the EU, the EU is not as yet a sovereign state and cannot sign trade agreements. The Eu negotiates on our behalf and the UK etc all sign them. Therefore the agreements currently in place are between the UK and the 3rd party country.

Your 'what is going to miraculously change' is the fact that one country, the UK, can move a great deal faster in agreeing a trade deal with another country, rather than having 28 countries plus various regional governments all having their say, protecting their particular interests before signing.

The whole of our EU trade is less than 10% of GDP and trade will still continue without a deal but on WTO terms. As the EU sells us more than we sell to them we will not be economically disadvantaged. Once out, we will be the EU's largest trading partner.

We all should want a deal, but the EU isn't really that bothered as they do not get voted out of office. The European nations however will want a deal and once the EU understands that we will not be bullied, that we do have options and that we will not be the only ones to take a hit then a deal will be done.....
 
These EU deals you refer to are between 3rd Party individual countries and each individual country within the EU, the EU is not as yet a sovereign state and cannot sign trade agreements. The Eu negotiates on our behalf and the UK etc all sign them. Therefore the agreements currently in place are between the UK and the 3rd party country.

That's completely incorrect Pete



The EU has an extensive network of trade agreements of various types with around 50 countries. Some are comprehensive free trade agreements such as the FTAs with Canada, CARIFORUM states, Chile, Mexico and Korea. Once the UK exits the EU, the existing EU FTAs will no longer be applicable to the UK. This means that the UK will lose preferential market access to the EU’s partner countries. Some commentators have suggested that, under international law, the UK could potentially remain a party to some of the EU FTAs post Brexit. In my opinion, there are legal and practical reasons why current EU FTAs cannot continue to apply to the UK automatically.

From a legal perspective, the EU FTAs would cease to apply to the UK because the UK’s rights and obligations under these treaties only apply to the UK in its capacity as a Member State and not as a sovereign state in its own capacity. More importantly, core disciplines covered in all EU FTAs are those which are considered to be of exclusive competence of the EU, including the common commercial policy (CCP). Although the scope of the CCP is the cause of much controversy, there is no doubt that it covers at least the following disciplines: trade in goods, trade defences, foreign investment, services, the commercial aspects of intellectual property and competition. Consequently, once the UK leaves the EU, the rights and commitments the UK enjoys under the CCP will no longer apply to the UK because such rights emanate only as a result of the UK’s status as a Member State. Even assuming that, in theory, the UK has residual rights under the EU FTAs, the territorial scope of the EU FTAs means that the UK territory will be excluded from the FTAs once Britain leaves the EU. All EU FTAs employ the term “the territory of each Party” or “the territory of the importing Party”. The term “Party” is defined, on the one hand, the “European Union and its Member States” as one party, and the third country as the other party. The term “territory” is also defined in more or less the same terms. For example the EU-Mexico FTA provides that, “[t]his Agreement shall apply to the territory in which the Treaty establishing the European Community is applied under the conditions laid down in that Treaty, on the one hand, and to the territory of the United Mexican States, on the other.” It is thus clear that the intent is that the FTAs only apply to states which are governed by the EU treaties. Once the UK exits the EU the EU treaties will no longer be applicable to the UK, hence, the EU FTAs cease to apply to the UK because the UK will be outside the territorial scope of the treaties.

It is also worth noting that a UK unilateral declaration or even an agreement between the EU, the UK and third countries to allow the UK to continue benefiting from the EU FTAs would not resolve the risk of trade disruption. Certain protocols would need to be put in place to cover the practicalities of dealing with, for example, tariff quotas, the separate rights and obligations of all parties, and the dispute resolution mechanism in case of an alleged breach of the treaty. From a practical perspective, the UK would need to negotiate new FTAs. Given the limited human capabilities to negotiate a considerable number of trade agreements with third countries in a short period of time, the UK could negotiate interim agreements (very similar terms as the EU FTAs) with a number of like-minded EU trade partners during the two year period. This would be crucial to minimise disruption and ensure British companies to continue benefiting from existing EU FTAs.

https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/resourc...-third-countries-part-2-luis-gonzalez-garcia/
 
Your 'what is going to miraculously change' is the fact that one country, the UK, can move a great deal faster in agreeing a trade deal with another country, rather than having 28 countries plus various regional governments all having their say, protecting their particular interests before signing.

That wasn't the question. These markets are available to us now, what are we suddenly going to produce that the removal of a tariff is going to make the World desperate to take it from us?

In addition this is always talked about as a one way street by Brexit supporters, we could end up opening up our domestic market to cheap foreign imports from nations with lower labour and overhead costs plus better productivity.
 
You would hope 'twas ever thus (from both sides).

I see the EU are now saying that the UK is not entitled to any EU assets as they belong to the EU and not its members. So I imagine that we have to pay nothing then as they also own the liabilities. They also want us to continue paying for major programmes up to 4 years after we leave......
 
I see the EU are now saying that the UK is not entitled to any EU assets as they belong to the EU and not its members. So I imagine that we have to pay nothing then as they also own the liabilities. They also want us to continue paying for major programmes up to 4 years after we leave......
What's with the dots trailing off every post? Do you reckon anyone is hanging off your ripostes Pete you gin soaked Islamophobe?

Christ the bigots think it's the House of Commons in here, they actually do.
 
That's completely incorrect Pete



The EU has an extensive network of trade agreements of various types with around 50 countries. Some are comprehensive free trade agreements such as the FTAs with Canada, CARIFORUM states, Chile, Mexico and Korea. Once the UK exits the EU, the existing EU FTAs will no longer be applicable to the UK. This means that the UK will lose preferential market access to the EU’s partner countries. Some commentators have suggested that, under international law, the UK could potentially remain a party to some of the EU FTAs post Brexit. In my opinion, there are legal and practical reasons why current EU FTAs cannot continue to apply to the UK automatically.

From a legal perspective, the EU FTAs would cease to apply to the UK because the UK’s rights and obligations under these treaties only apply to the UK in its capacity as a Member State and not as a sovereign state in its own capacity. More importantly, core disciplines covered in all EU FTAs are those which are considered to be of exclusive competence of the EU, including the common commercial policy (CCP). Although the scope of the CCP is the cause of much controversy, there is no doubt that it covers at least the following disciplines: trade in goods, trade defences, foreign investment, services, the commercial aspects of intellectual property and competition. Consequently, once the UK leaves the EU, the rights and commitments the UK enjoys under the CCP will no longer apply to the UK because such rights emanate only as a result of the UK’s status as a Member State. Even assuming that, in theory, the UK has residual rights under the EU FTAs, the territorial scope of the EU FTAs means that the UK territory will be excluded from the FTAs once Britain leaves the EU. All EU FTAs employ the term “the territory of each Party” or “the territory of the importing Party”. The term “Party” is defined, on the one hand, the “European Union and its Member States” as one party, and the third country as the other party. The term “territory” is also defined in more or less the same terms. For example the EU-Mexico FTA provides that, “[t]his Agreement shall apply to the territory in which the Treaty establishing the European Community is applied under the conditions laid down in that Treaty, on the one hand, and to the territory of the United Mexican States, on the other.” It is thus clear that the intent is that the FTAs only apply to states which are governed by the EU treaties. Once the UK exits the EU the EU treaties will no longer be applicable to the UK, hence, the EU FTAs cease to apply to the UK because the UK will be outside the territorial scope of the treaties.

It is also worth noting that a UK unilateral declaration or even an agreement between the EU, the UK and third countries to allow the UK to continue benefiting from the EU FTAs would not resolve the risk of trade disruption. Certain protocols would need to be put in place to cover the practicalities of dealing with, for example, tariff quotas, the separate rights and obligations of all parties, and the dispute resolution mechanism in case of an alleged breach of the treaty. From a practical perspective, the UK would need to negotiate new FTAs. Given the limited human capabilities to negotiate a considerable number of trade agreements with third countries in a short period of time, the UK could negotiate interim agreements (very similar terms as the EU FTAs) with a number of like-minded EU trade partners during the two year period. This would be crucial to minimise disruption and ensure British companies to continue benefiting from existing EU FTAs.

https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/resourc...-third-countries-part-2-luis-gonzalez-garcia/

It is not incorrect. If the EU wishes to challenge the UK's right to be a part of the agreement, then the whole of the agreement is null and void. A third party country signed up to deal with a group of countries including the UK, if the UK is no longer Party to the contract then the contract has to be negotiated because there is now a materiel difference. Therefore it either applies to the UK or it applies to no one........
 
What's with the dots trailing off every post? Do you reckon anyone is hanging off your ripostes Pete you gin soaked Islamophobe?

Christ the bigots think it's the House of Commons in here, they actually do.

No idea mate, I've always done it, probably these fat stubby fingers......
 
It is not incorrect. If the EU wishes to challenge the UK's right to be a part of the agreement, then the whole of the agreement is null and void. A third party country signed up to deal with a group of countries including the UK, if the UK is no longer Party to the contract then the contract has to be negotiated because there is now a materiel difference. Therefore it either applies to the UK or it applies to no one........
That's simply wrong Pete

Under public international law, the EU's FTAs with third countries will no longer apply to the UK after Brexit, since the UK will be unable to rely on existing customary international law on state succession to treaties.

First, the UK's exit from the EU is not legally a case of state succession. Indeed, rather than a state the EU is a sui generis international organization based on a number of treaties among sovereign states.

Second, the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties ("Convention"), often cited by supporters of the state succession theory, does not apply to the effects of a succession of states in respect of international agreements concluded between states and other subjects of international law. Since the EU is not a state, the agreements concluded between the EU and third countries, such as its FTAs, do not fall under the scope of the Convention. It should moreover be noted that the UK is not a party to the Convention.

Third, the legal provisions of the EU's FTAs often provide guidance on their territorial application. As an example, Article 15.5 of the Korea-EU FTA states that the agreement shall apply "to the territories in which the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union are applied and under the conditions laid down in those Treaties". Since Brexit necessarily implies that the EU Treaties no longer apply to the UK, the latter would also no longer fall under the territorial scope of application of the Korea-EU FTA and other FTAs with similar provisions.

The default rule therefore seems to be that the EU's existing FTAs will no longer apply to the UK upon its withdrawal from the EU.

https://www.expertguides.com/articl...ade-agreements-of-the-european-union/arpkzakq
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top