Brexit discussion thread II

ambro25 wrote:

I don't think murpharph has suggested UK would be treated worse than other 3rd party countries with reciprocal immigration agreements/treaties. But that, "immigration agreements/treaties", is the rub: the problem is the period of legal vacuum which the cliff-edge scenario entails.

He was talking about visas to enter EU countries. That won't happen.

Nody wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

He was talking about visas to enter EU countries. That won't happen.

No that is very likely to happen; UK is likely to be entered into the visa Schengen agreement as the solution to UK travel. This means they would need to apply for a two year travel visa and submit certain information up front, pay the registration fee etc. for review similar to what the USA uses.

To come is a tourist or for a short business trip?

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

The bias of the ECJ is obvious. There is firstly a numerical bias. All 27 members will be the EU member states. There is also the obvious fact that the ECJ is the court of the European Union. It can't be trusted to rule in the interest of the UK post-Brexit.

You have an odd definition of bias. A tribunal which could be trusted to rule in the interests of the UK would biassed by definition. A non-biassed tribunal will not be ruling in the interests of either party; it will be finding the facts, and applying the relevant rules of law to them.

solodeogloria wrote: »

This is why an arbitration panel with the UK and third country observers is a better arrangement. Dominic Raab proposed this a few weeks ago.

He proposes this in relation to disputes between an EU citizen and the Home Office?

solodeogloria wrote: »

Firstly - it does depend on the negotiations. This is why both parties need to be reasonable and get a deal.

Good of you to finally accept that this proposal by the UK is still only pie-in-the-sky. Thank you.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Secondly - the only "downgrade" I can see is that EU citizens will have the same restrictions on non-EU spouses as British citizens. This is fair.

Notwithstanding the present situation, rights <etc.> of EU migrants already in the UK :rolleyes:

I'm not surprised your bias is clouding your assessment.

But that is a circle which is hardly going to get squared on here any time soon, by the evidence of your opinions.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Thirdly - the ECJ isn't an independent body. It is biased to one side of the argument. This is why the UK are proposing a truly impartial arbitration mechanism.

You keep mentioning this bias of the ECJ, but "I've been through this with you already" myself, and you still haven't supported your claim.

In passing, you do realise, of course, that the ECJ would hearing cases of Brits settled in the EU as well as those of EU nationals settled in the UK? For Brits, is that preferable to national courts, you think?

Still, applying your own logic, the UK Courts would be just as biased as the ECJ, so they're no good either. So that leaves the 'impartial arbitration mechanism' (which Barnier has nixed).

For the time being (-subject to how negotiations reboot and then go on), I very much doubt that the EU is willing to foot the first € of its budget, so long as the UK's position about the exit bill remains for the EU to 'go whistle'.

Much work left to do by No.10 and the DfEEU :pac:

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK Government proposes this for all aspects of the deal from what I understand.

A non-biased tribunal is ideal. The point is that the UK doesn't want to be subject to a body which has an inherent bias towards the EU and a body in which they would have zero representation. This is the ECJ post-Brexit.

This is hardly surprising and the UK have proposed a good alternative model. Being subject to an EU court post-Brexit is completely unacceptable for obvious reasons.

Unless the UK wants to participate/have access to parts of the EU. If you want to borrow money from a bank and you don't want to sign up to the terms and conditions then you cannot ask for a "alternative" terms because you think they may be biased against you.

In any case you are wrong to assert the ECJ would be biased. In the same way that the UK courts aren't biased when they decide a case involving the government, the ECJ would not be biased in a case involving the EU. They would look at the law only. If the UK has a case against the EU and they are on sound legal footing they have nothing to fear from the ECJ. If they want to load the dice in a crap shoot against the EU, then asking for more UK participation when deciding disputes is the way to go.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

British politics means that unless you're either red or blue you're never getting into power.

This is also why Corbyn was so weak in the Remain campaign. He thinks that the EU is too pro-big-business, and not strong enough on rights of workers and the poor.

Immediately post Brexit, with the Tories in charge, workers and the poor will lose the protections they have under the EU. But Corbyn knows that the pendulum will swing and the Tories will eventually lose an election, and that Labour will get in. Then, without the EU interfering with its fiscal rules and business focus, Labour will be free to tax the crap out of the rich and rebuild the NHS and social services.

But he has to make things worse before he can make them better. Personally, I am very dubious of politicians who think that way, since making things worse is easy, make them better is hard.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And, to clarify, has the UK proposed that the rights of EU citizens in the UK post-Brexit be guaranteed by, or adjudicated by, a "truly impartial arbitration mechanism"?

No - May in her recent speech said the UK courts would handle this, and that no-one could possibly think they are less than perfect in every way.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The obvious solution when the EU won't trust British courts to rule on UK law (I don't know why this would be the case) and when the British don't trust the ECJ (this is obvious). Then the best solution is an arbitration mechanism with a third party observer to mediate. It's a reasonable solution with international precedent.

I should have clarified, like in the recent case against the Home Office about the deportation of Samim Bigzad the UK courts didn't have the interest of the UK government at heart but it was about the law. The same would apply with the EU and the ECJ. Its about the law being applied by the EU and nothing else. If the ECJ were to be the dispute resolution chamber between the UK and EU it would only consider the law.

You haven't shown that the ECJ has shown any legal bias so we can safely exclude your opinion of bias as rubbish.

The scrappage scheme seems to have alot to answer for in promoting PCP uptake. PCP in itself being the latest bubble.

No doubt will pop as the economy takes a steeper nose dive in the UK with all this uncertainty. Nothings certain till its certain similar to nothings agreed until everything is agreed.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I wasn't referring to this case. I didn't know about it until you highlighted it but there is no good reason as to why the UK should subject itself to the ECJ as a non-member of the EU.

A tribunal with equal EU and UK representatives with a third party could resolve issues in a way that would be fair and satisfactory. This is a good compromise and a fair one.

The EU can have zero direct jurisdiction over the UK after the Brexit transition is over. That has to be a red line. It isn't a true Brexit if this continues because the UK will not have regained control over their own laws.

I was referring to that case. Do you accept that the courts can be impartial and will not just do what the ruling party wants? I have shown that the UK courts do go against the government and with regards to the ECJ, they have found in favour of the UK with regards to the single market.

In any case the court you really should have a problem with is the ECHR, which has nothing to do with the EU as they have been the ones telling the UK when they can and cannot deport individuals. They have been taking away control from the UK.

In any case when you conclude a trade deal, and if it is a very close trade deal between two countries, there will be some measure of giving up control. Take the US as an example, they could insist on lowering of standards to allow you access to their market (chlorinated chickens). You are giving up control of standards in that case, but not to the EU? Seems a little strange to me, then again if you shout control loud enough people may just start believing it, as you have done.

Reality Check: What is the European Court of Justice?

ambro25 wrote: »

The only country in the world that does not share or pool sovereignty with others in any way, is the Democratic People's Republic of (North) Korea. Food for thought. Perhaps.

True. Whenever a country engages in trade deals, becomes part of an international body (NATO, the UN), they give up some sovereignty. And this is coming from the UK, which after leaving the EU will have every trade deal ever with every country ever, now free from the chains of the EU. But they will be 100% sovereign. I can't help but roll my eyes at the UK's constant neurotic desire to have mutually exclusive things.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I wasn't referring to this case. I didn't know about it until you highlighted it but there is no good reason as to why the UK should subject itself to the ECJ as a non-member of the EU.

A tribunal with equal EU and UK representatives with a third party could resolve issues in a way that would be fair and satisfactory. This is a good compromise and a fair one.

The EU can have zero direct jurisdiction over the UK after the Brexit transition is over. That has to be a red line. It isn't a true Brexit if this continues because the UK will not have regained control over their own laws.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I think the 27 EU countries should have a representative each, and the UK should have one. If you need an independent person as well, so be it, giving the court 29 members.

By the way, that is not a serious proposal, it just highlights the arrogance of the UK position, that they should somehow be treated as more special than any of the EU 27.

It is time that May realises the meaning of her words, that the UK cannot expect to stay outside the EU and get any of its benefits.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I wasn't referring to this case. I didn't know about it until you highlighted it but there is no good reason as to why the UK should subject itself to the ECJ as a non-member of the EU.

A tribunal with equal EU and UK representatives with a third party could resolve issues in a way that would be fair and satisfactory. This is a good compromise and a fair one.

The EU can have zero direct jurisdiction over the UK after the Brexit transition is over. That has to be a red line. It isn't a true Brexit if this continues because the UK will not have regained control over their own laws.

Thats a different thing to the ECJ. What the ECJ does is interpret EU law - there is no partiality involved (and even at that, as far as I know, if there is a UK v Ireland case for example, you will not have any British or Irish judges involved.

So, to accommodate what the UK wants, a judge from a different jurisdiction (Canada, USA etc. would have to interpret EU law which has been transposed into British law).