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.
Foot Long Hot Dog said:
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
Click to expand...

The UK represents 17% of the EU GDP therefore if this market is removed then the 3rd party country is being disadvantaged by a drop in available market size while the EU still has access to the whole of the 3rd party country. If the UK is excluded then the contract is not as was agreed. It's like doing a deal with the USA and then removing California......
 
peteblue said:
The UK represents 17% of the EU GDP therefore if this market is removed then the 3rd party country is being disadvantaged by a drop in available market size while the EU still has access to the whole of the 3rd party country. If the UK is excluded then the contract is not as was agreed. It's like doing a deal with the USA and then removing California......
Click to expand...
The %age of EU GDP is irrelevant to the legality of the agreements being automatically applied to the UK once we leave the EU though.

It's likely that we'll seek to agree a continuation on the same terms as an interim measure with all of the nations concerned, but that's not the same it being a legal right, which it isn't.
 
peteblue said:
The UK represents 17% of the EU GDP therefore if this market is removed then the 3rd party country is being disadvantaged by a drop in available market size while the EU still has access to the whole of the 3rd party country. If the UK is excluded then the contract is not as was agreed. It's like doing a deal with the USA and then removing California......
Click to expand...
Busy at the moment , but look up WTO rules on trading , which the EU and UK are members, it's gives a clear answer to your questions on trade and what happens when you leave a binding as the call it, sorry can't copy it over family problems mean i will not be about for a bit
 
edge said:
Busy at the moment , but look up WTO rules on trading , which the EU and UK are members, it's gives a clear answer to your questions on trade and what happens when you leave a binding as the call it, sorry can't copy it over family problems mean i will not be about for a bit
Click to expand...

Hope all is ok mate......
 
JonS said:
Great stuff. More sense from Yanis here. Doesn't seem to think there is much chance of successful negotiations with the EU.

Click to expand...


I really like this guy, but he's comparing a bankrupt country of 10 million people with one of the fastest growing economies of 65 million people who are the second biggest contributors to the EU budget, sit on the UN Security Council and provide a nuclear umbrella with the USA for Europe. I think if he was British he may have negotiated from a slight stronger position........
 
I think he's saying he has no real confidence in the EU negotiating fairly or constructively.

He believes they loaded the dice against Greece and will do the same against us.

Of course that is not a reason to oppose Brexit IMO, it is a very messy divorce but if a marriage is an unequal or undemocratic relationship and cannot be reformed then divorce is the only solution
 
WycombeToffee said:
This conspiracy theory has already been completely discredited today.
Click to expand...

No it hasn't - all the Electoral Commission said is that there is no apparent offence in HSBC loaning millions to a business, who then go on to donate millions to the Tory Party.

It isn't a scandal in much the same way that Spencer's firms involvement in the Libor scandal wasn't, and emphatically the same sort of non-scandal as his selling £45 million worth of ICAP shares shortly before they issued a profit warning and the share price went down 19.5%.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

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

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

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