Crossing the Border in the event of Brexit: Whats gonna happen?

First Up wrote: »

Oh yeah?

That certainly won't make the rebuttal of the year shortlist

The article in the Lisbon treaty sets out a framework for leaving the EU. It doesn't mention the EEA. In any case the EEA members must accept most regulations and directives from the Commission with no input from them. EEA members must also pay into the EU budget and the biggest contention from the UK- continued free movement of people.

brandodub wrote: »

The article in the Lisbon treaty sets out a framework for leaving the EU. It doesn't mention the EEA.

Exactly, it's about leaving the EU, not the EEA. Membership of the EEA is governed by the EEA Agreement, not any EU agreements.

brandodub wrote: »

In any case the EEA members must accept most regulations and directives from the Commission with no input from them. EEA members must also pay into the EU budget and the biggest contention from the UK- continued free movement of people.

EEA payments are considerably less than EU payments. A guide to the estimated costs of the EEA vs the EU is here:-

http://euquestion.blogspot.ie/2016/04/the-cost-of-eu-membership-versus-efta.html

EU costs for 2016 is estimated to be £8.427 billion when you take away rebates, funding, grants etc, estimated EEA costs for 2016 would be £1.079 billion – massive difference.

EEA member states implement about 75% of EU rules, however something too few may be aware of is under Article 102 of the EEA agreement there is a “right of reservation” which provides EEA members with the right to reject a particular piece of EU legislation, even if it is relevant and falls within their membership agreement. However, the consequence of exercising this right is that the EU can choose to suspend any associated rights of the EEA states to linked benefits, such as market access. Moreover, when using the reservation rights, the EEA states are obliged to enter into negotiations to find a suitable solution for all parties. This entire process, and the extent to which single market access would be limited, remains untested. Norway used, but then withdrew, the right of reservation for the first time over the EU postal directive in 2011.

First Up wrote: »

OK - here's a slightly longer one:

Have you got that in writing?

I could ask you the exact same thing.

The EEA agreement does not state that leaving the EU also means leaving the EEA, thus this will become a matter of political discussion.

As per Article 128 of the EEA Agreement application for membership (as opposed to actual membership) is conditional of being part of the EU or EFTA, but the UK passed the application stage and satisfied the requirements of Article 128 23 years ago.

http://www.efta.int/media/documents/legal-texts/eea/the-eea-agreement/Main%20Text%20of%20the%20Agreement/EEAagreement.pdf

Article 128
1. Any European State becoming a member of the Community shall, and the Swiss Confederation or any European State becoming a member of EFTA may, apply to become a party to this Agreement. It shall address its application to the EEA Council.

2. The terms and conditions for such participation shall be the subject of an agreement between the Contracting Parties and the applicant State. That agreement shall be submitted for ratification or approval by all Contracting Parties in accordance with their own procedures.

Now unless you have actually seen the terms and conditions of the UKs agreement then you can’t say with any certainty that the UK would automatically leave the EEA, but I’m pretty confident that there isn’t any such term stating they must be part of the EU since the UK Governments report “Alternatives to Membership. Possible models for the United Kingdom outside the European Union” states that the UK can seek to remain in the EEA with the agreement of all EEA members. The “Houses of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Union Affairs UK/EU Future Relationship: Implications for Ireland” also suggests the UK can remain in the EEA.

The EEA Agreement is a bilateral agreement covered by treaty law and the UK could not be expelled without consent of ALL contracting parties – a catch 22 if the UK don’t want to leave and refuse to agree to their own expulsion.

The only mention in the EEA Agreement about leaving the EEA is that any contracting member can leave provided they give 12 months notice as per the terms of treaty law.

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) comes into play.

Article 62. FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES
1. A fundamental change of circumstances which has occurred with regard to those existing at the time of the conclusion of a treaty, and which was not foreseen by the parties, may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from the treaty unless:
(a) The existence of those circumstances constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the treaty; and
(b) The effect of the change is radically to transform the extent of obligations still
to be performed under the treaty.

2. A fundamental change of circumstances may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty:
(a) If the treaty establishes a boundary; or
(b) If the fundamental change is the result of a breach by the party invoking it either of an obligation under the treaty or of any other international obligation owed to any other party to the treaty.

3. If, under the foregoing paragraphs, a party may invoke a fundamental change of circumstances as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty it may also invoke the change as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty.

As there isn’t actually a provision in the EEA Agreement for continued EU membership to be in place for continued EEA membership a change of circumstances can’t be invoked as a ground for termination or withdrawal from the treaty as there isn't anything in the treaty stating that EU membership is an essential basis of the consent of the UK to be bound by the treaty.

Deleted User wrote: »

And it appears the British remain undecided as to which option they want to go with in the event of a Brexit.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/david-cameron-issues-warning-over-brexit-border-controls-1.2685814

To be honest I think threats like the CTA future being unknown and the borders issues are simply scaremongering to try and secure a stay vote and nothing more. Just like the stay campaign say the various non EU trade agreements would have to be re-negotiated which isn’t necessarily true.

The CTA is legally protected by EU law and the various trade agreements are most likely protected by the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties (VCSST), and the borders/trade issue will be easily dealt with under the provisions of EU law.

Article 50 requires the EU to conclude an agreement with the seceding state, “taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union“. Notably, Articles 3,4 8 and 21 of the TFEU require the EU to “contribute to … free and fair trade” and to “work for a high degree of cooperation in all fields of international relations, in order to … encourage the integration of all countries into the world economy, including through the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade” and to adhere to the “principle of sincere cooperation […] in full mutual respect” and “assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Treaties.”

Moreover, the VCLT obligates negotiators to act in “good faith” and “good faith” itself is an underlying principle of international law.

The EU negotiators must therefore endeavour to reduce trade restrictions in accordance with treaty provisions and, crucially, their actions are justiciable. If EU negotiators were to veer away from treaty provisions, or indeed if any other EU member sought to impose sanctions or restrict trade, the UK could lodge a formal complaint with the European Court of Justice (ECJ), and block the discriminatory action.

It must be remembered that during the Article 50 negotiations the UK remains a member of the EU and enjoys the full rights and privileges of membership. The Commission itself may be legally obliged to step in and begin infringement proceedings against the offending member state.

However, it is important to note that negotiations conducted within the remit of the treaties still allows the EU flexibility in the nature of the trade agreement concluded with the seceding state. The EU is not obliged to conclude a FTA within two years (even if this was feasible there is no legal obligation).

The isea that the EU could possibly refuse to unilaterally impose trade barriers on Britain is not true. It would be a violation of EU law, which is further reinforced by international law.

A more valid concern would be that the EU would not necessarily readily embrace an outcome favourable to the UK and perceivably detrimental to the EU. Hence the absolute necessity of choosing the option that is right for the UK, but also acceptable to the EU.

SeanW wrote: »

The rest of the EU sells more stuff to the United Kingdom than the reverse. The EU would want to have a free trade agreement with the UK as a matter of urgency. Anything else would be the EU cutting off its nose to spite its face.

You need to look at that more closely. The EU represents almost 45% of the UK's export market in goods, whereas the UK accounts for 10% of EU countries' exports. At individual country level, the UK represents about 7% of German and French exports. Only 15% of Irish exports go to the UK, although the percentage for indigenous companies is about twice that. Germany and Netherlands account for most of the EU's surplus in goods. Few of the other 25 record a trade surplus - and they all have a vote.

You also forgot to include service exports (especially financial services) which account for 40% of total UK exports and which are heavily dependent on the UK's access to the EU .

So think again about who needs who.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

If you travel the N53 from Dundalk to Castleblaney, you would be going in and out of NI like a yoyo.

in the mid 1970s,when I was driving on a provisional licence, I always made it my business to avoid straying into NI.
One day, travelling without a map, I blithely cruised from Castleblayney towards Dundalk, in blissful ignorance. I nearly had an accident (in one sense), when I had to stop and found myself looking into the barrel of a gun, held by a camouflaged soldier lying in the ditch.
Cullaville still has an El Dorado feel about it, which will grow if Brexit comes about.

Speaking of the German exports, the first proper analysis of the result of Brexit on another economy was released yestey and it's from none other than Germany Institute for Economic Research (DIW).

http://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.536402.de/16-24.pdf

UK Business Insider wrote:

A Brexit would have a materially negative effect on the biggest economy in Europe and reduce German gross-domestic-product growth by as much as half a percentage point in 2017, with GDP growth losing one-tenth of a percentage point this year as a result of the vote.

Brexit "could dampen growth of German exports. According to the DIW calculations ... this would in itself reduce the growth of GDP by 0.5 percentage points next year and by 0.1 percentage points this year. It should be noted that this is only the direct effects that are reflected in the German exports to the UK. Indirect effects, such as financial market turmoil, declining FDI and price effects are difficult to estimate accurately and therefore not considered in the calculations."

Ferdinand Fichtner, the head of economic policy at DIW, added "In addition, the Brexit referendum discussion is responsible for a lot of uncertainty. Should Britain's population decide to leave EU, it could slash Germany's economic growth already this year."

Those hoping Britain stays in the EU have already released numerous doom-laden predictions about what could happen in a Brexit, with the International Monetary Fund, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the Bank of England, and US President Barack Obama all warning that Britain leaving the EU would crush growth in the UK and have a knock-on effect for the rest of the world. Wednesday's data, however, is one of the first times a deep-dive analysis of the actual impact of Brexit on another individual nation has been published.

The big driver of the drop in German GDP growth following Brexit would be the impact on trade. Here's more from the DIW (again translated from the original German):

Since the United Kingdom is the third largest trading partner of the German economy, the effects are likely to be acutely felt, especially in export-oriented industries such as the automotive, chemical and pharmaceutical industries as well as mechanical engineering. Overall, Germany exported goods and services worth about 120 billion euros to the UK, or about eight percent of all German exports.

A Brexit is generally disliked as an idea in Germany, with many of the country's biggest and most influential media organisations backing the Remain campaign in recent weeks. According to the BBC, the influential news magazine Der Spiegel said in this week's edition that: "The only internationally known politician in favour of a Brexit, is Donald Trump - and, if nothing else does, that alone should make the British worry." The magazine goes on to say that Brexit would be "a threefold catastrophe: bad for Germany, bad for Britain and cataclysmic for Europe."

GM228 wrote:

I never insisted that similar predictions for the UK are scaremongering, the post is about Germany's economy and reduction of GDP growth from Germany's leading economic research institution, I suggest you re-read the point I made about scaremongering because not once have I said similar predictions are scaremongering, I said "CTA future being unknown and the borders issues are simply scaremongering", but you do realise that any negative report is actually scaremongering weather it's true or not don't you, that's generally the idea of such reports.

By your definition, any warning about anything is "scaremongering" - smoking, falling from high buildings, touching live electricity wires or eating rat poison.

The term is generally used by those who would prefer that the warnings are not taken seriously because they don't have a counter argument.

GekkePrutser wrote: »

To be honest I really hope they close that border with the North. Because that means Ireland would finally be free to join Schengen, the only reason we're not in it is because Ireland succumbed to pressure from the UK due to the border with them (and their xenofobia)

I travel a lot to the rest of Europe (mainly Eastern) and I'm quite sick of being treated as a second-rate citizen when arriving, these queues take ages. Especially when arriving back in Ireland, several times I arrived back near midnight when many flights arrive and had to wait 45 mins to clear the passport check (arriving from low cost carrier terminal 1). All for something which shouldn't even be there except for undue pressure from the UK.

I really hope the UK just close themselves off and stop bothering us, I never go there anyway. It's not like border checks are really needed in any case. Between Netherlands and Belgium/Germany we've had no border checks way before Schengen became a thing.

do not know what part of Ireland you inhabit, but I live in Dublin and like to be able to visit Newry or Enniskillen, just as I visit Waterford or Limerick.

GekkePrutser wrote: »

PS: Found the article but it's behind a paywall unfortunately.

It is circulating widely in the blogosphere so you should be able to find it.