Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Et avec ceci?

For discussion of all matters relating to the UK's departure from the European Union

Re: Et avec ceci?

Postby shootist » Sat Apr 29, 2017 10:19 pm

atticus wrote:Boris has notoriously said he wants both to have the cake and to eat it.


Who doesn't want that? Expectation of it is another thing altogether. Part of the reason for us leaving the EU is because they wanted our bloody cake!
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3539
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Et avec ceci?

Postby miner » Sat Apr 29, 2017 11:54 pm

EUCO XT 20004/17

Let's hear a few views on this other than mine, which on a few of the points I have outlined below.

European integration has brought peace and prosperity to Europe and allowed for an unprecedented level and scope of cooperation on matters of common interest in a rapidly changing world.....


European integration has brought peace and prosperity to Europe


Let's debate that.

The EU has not "brought peace" to Europe in any shape or form. The existence of "peace" in Europe has, insofar as at all true, been brought about by the efforts and actions of individual countries in Europe, not by the EU.

Whilst the EU may (or may not) have brought prosperity to Germany, maybe also arguably to the Netherlands and Austria, Belgium and Luxembourg (an insignificant country with a population less than that of Sheffield), it has been the architect of and is responsible for bringing untold, ongoing and increasing misery and economic hardship to countries such as Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and many other countries. The EU has turned Italy into an even more massive financial and economic basket-case that it had previously been. The EU via its policies has facilitated and encouraged the drastic depopulation of former Eastern European countries such as Latvia and Lithuania, rendering them incapable of redeveloping their economies in the wake of the fall of the USSR.

Therefore, the Union's overall objective in these negotiations will be to preserve its interests, those of its citizens, its businesses and its Member States.


Until the day the UK leaves, the UK is still a Member Country, contributing to EU coffers, and the statement clearly indicates that the EU is interested only in preserving its own interests, not those of its current, paid-up member the United Kingdom.

In accordance with the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, individual items cannot be settled separately.


So, ... there can be no possible agreement on anything, and any "negotiations" seeking to reach agreement can never be concluded. Ergo, either no meaningful negotiations can take place and/or negotiations serve no useful purpose.

While an agreement on a future relationship between the Union and the United Kingdom as such can only be finalised and concluded once the United Kingdom has become a third country,


Once again, this is confirmation that by intent and EU definition, no final agreement can be reached until after the UK leaves the EU on 29 March 2019 - at which point the UK has ceased to be an EU member and has therefore ceased to be a party to any of the negotiations referred to in this document.

Also, the United Kingdom leaving the Union will impact EU businesses trading with and operating in the United Kingdom and UK businesses trading with and operating in the Union.


The EU and EU Council do not have any trading businesses as such. Interestingly, although the EU somehow holds status within the WTO as a "nation", it is not, in reality, a sovereign country or nation at all!

[From the WTO Website: The World Trade Organization (WTO) deals with the global rules of trade between nations.]

Whether the EU should ever have been permitted to become a WTO member looks rather questionable. Whether it should be allowed to continue as such begins to look even more questionable.

A single financial settlement - including issues resulting from the MFF as well as those related to the European Investment Bank (EIB), the European Development Fund (EDF) and the European Central Bank (ECB) - should ensure that the Union and the United Kingdom both respect the obligations resulting from the whole period of the UK membership in the Union. The settlement should cover all commitments as well as liabilities, including contingent liabilities
.

This seems to have been drafted of the basis that the UK will owe the EU massive amounts of money, but the reverse could also be possible, a small point which seems to have been conveniently ignored in this document.

What is "the rôle period of UK Membership" defined as: 1973 or 1977 (the latter being when the UK became a full member after its 5-year transitional period, during which tariffs were progressively reduced by 20% per year)?

The Union has consistently supported the goal of peace and reconciliation enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts, and continuing to support and protect the achievements, benefits and commitments of the Peace Process will remain of paramount importance. In view of the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland, flexible and imaginative solutions will be required, including with the aim of avoiding a hard border, while respecting the integrity of the Union legal order. In this context, the Union should also recognise existing bilateral agreements and arrangements between the United Kingdom and Ireland which are compatible with EU law.


It strikes me that this matter has nothing directly to do with the EU, and is a matter for negotiation between the N Ireland / UK and Eire governments.

If there has to be a hard border between N Ireland and Eire then so be it. In any event, the non-existence of a hard, passport-controlled border between Eire and N Ireland predates the UK's membership of the EU.

While the future location of the seats of EU agencies and facilities located in the United Kingdom is a matter for the 27 Member States to settle rapidly, arrangements should be found to facilitate their transfer.


There may not be any particular or real "need" to transfer any of them from their present UK locations and it may not be appropriate to do so. If the EU wants to transfer these agencies elsewhere, then the EU is free to transfer them as it chooses, bearing in mind that the UK will still be an EU member until 29 March 2019.

The EU stands ready to establish partnerships in areas unrelated to trade, in particular the fight against terrorism and international crime, as well as security, defence and foreign policy.


If the EU wants to continue the existing security-exchanging arrangements, the EU must realize that it cannot cherry-pick them to suit itself. This is arguably the most significant item in the list of issues.

After the United Kingdom leaves the Union, no agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom may apply to the territory of Gibraltar without the agreement between the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom.


This is a matter to be settled between the UK / Gibraltar and Spain and is not a matter which calls for or justifies EU interference, as Spain is still a sovereign country (not a State) being merely a member of the EU, which itself in no way equates to a "United States of Europe".
Last edited by miner on Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
miner
 
Posts: 2341
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:22 am

Re: Et avec ceci?

Postby miner » Sat Apr 29, 2017 11:56 pm

shootist wrote:.... If we have something worth offering to Europe then Europe will trade, as will the rest of the world.


That basically says it all!
miner
 
Posts: 2341
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:22 am

Re: Et avec ceci?

Postby diy » Sun Apr 30, 2017 7:08 pm

the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed


Is standard terminology that means if we agree points early in the negotiation and later get to a problem we are not held to the earlier agreement. Its standard stuff and a method I've used myself with good outcomes. It allows people to free their mind of the big picture and focus on the elements being negotiated.
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2575
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: Et avec ceci?

Postby miner » Sun Apr 30, 2017 7:24 pm

Whether it is standard terminology or not, it means what it says and should never be accepted by the UK. There is no "standard stuff" in the Brexit processes.

Agreements on a matter as wide-ranging, as involved and as important as Brexit terms and agreements are not to my mind to be dealt with in such a manner, as it is inappropriate to the subject.

I accept that you may have had good results using this standard terminology in a limited field, but in my view that is irrelevant in Brexit matters.

Accepting that terminology would mean that Brexit negotiations would go on for ever. That is the clear intention of the EU Council and its so-called negotiators.

Just look at the document the EU Council has produced. It introduced a number of issues out of the blue which have nothing to do with Brexit negotiations.

The more I see of how the EUrocrooks operate, the more I believe that they will ensure that making any agreements with them will be impossible as the vaguely positioned goalposts will be subject to endless moving by them.

Yanis Varoufakis, the former Greek finance minister, has made some very apposite comments on dealing with the EU hierarchy. He also said that the UK may as well not even both negotiating with the EU as they have no intention of ever reaching agreement and will simply waste our time with what will be a charade on their part.
miner
 
Posts: 2341
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:22 am

Re: Et avec ceci?

Postby Hairyloon » Mon May 01, 2017 11:16 am

miner wrote:Yanis Varoufakis, the former Greek finance minister, has made some very apposite comments on dealing with the EU hierarchy. He also said that the UK may as well not even both negotiating with the EU as they have no intention of ever reaching agreement and will simply waste our time with what will be a charade on their part.


Have you a link for that?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10016
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Et avec ceci?

Postby dls » Mon May 01, 2017 11:33 am

European integration has brought peace and prosperity to Europe


I really do not believe that. There has been a broad peace, and a degree of prosperity. The EC has made a contribution to both, but the terms used suggest that this is solely a consequence of the EU's beneficence. That is trite nonsense.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12195
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Et avec ceci?

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Mon May 01, 2017 11:45 am

If the basis of our negotiating position is going to be to pick holes in the sentiments expressed in the preamble to the EU's statement, then we're screwed. Do the Board's resident Brexiteers have anything to say about the substance of what they have to say? Just announcing that they are wrong is hardly sufficient.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6293
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: Et avec ceci?

Postby dls » Mon May 01, 2017 2:08 pm

There is no real substance to what they say. They are setting out a negotiation starting point. The sentence challenged is about the only assertion of fact. Is a shopping list true?
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12195
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Et avec ceci?

Postby miner » Mon May 01, 2017 2:33 pm

Smouldering Stoat wrote:If the basis of our negotiating position is going to be to pick holes in the sentiments expressed in the preamble to the EU's statement, then we're screwed. Do the Board's resident Brexiteers have anything to say about the substance of what they have to say? Just announcing that they are wrong is hardly sufficient.


The preamble is part of the EU's statement. Any aspect of it which the UK believes to be factually incorrect or untruthful must be responded to with the facts as the UK see them. If we don't challenge, we are deemed to have accepted what has been stated. We must remember that we are dealing here with an entity which is fundamentally dishonest and has only its own interests at heart.

Pussy-footing around with the EU is not a sensible policy for the UK to adopt in any dealings with these people.
miner
 
Posts: 2341
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:22 am

PreviousNext

Return to Brexit

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron