Plays well in Germany, apart from maybe hardcore Eurosceptics of which there aren’t that many. Overall I think it’s fair to say the general public here has other priorities atm and Brexit hasn’t been that big of an issue anyway.
2 Likes
I think that’s true.
But there is no course of action the EU can take to win over Eurosceptics, so fuck it.
We’re completely in the wrong.
I’m not referring to Brexit, I’m referring to the EU threatening legal action against a sovereign state for enacting domestic legislation that may contradict EU law. Germany’s position on the primacy of national law and sovereignty has been pretty well documented since Solange II and, of course, by the recent decision of the Constitutional Court in May this year (re CJEU and the ECB).
I thought you were talking about the general public’s reaction. And even in the political elites I don’t think there will be much of an outrage over this. I’m not a lawyer so I’m not going to speculate on that front.
2 Likes
I don’t there is a great deal of sympathy anywhere for the primacy of the right of a sovereign legislature to enact domestic legislation that explicitly fails to live up to an international agreement that legislature had ratified earlier. The matter of EU law is secondary in this instance.
5 Likes
Not much sympathy for the right of a sovereign nation to pass domestic legislation in primacy to EU law? Perhaps not. But threatening legal action against that sovereign state just for drafting domestic legislation that provides that country’s government with the (domestic) authority, where necessary, to act contrary to a specific aspect of a Treaty?
That is a significant attempt by the EU to supersede the sovereignty of individual Parliaments.
I think this is a strategic error by the EU.
UK is a third country now (voluntarily).
2 Likes
Most of the coverage I have seen outside the UK frames this as a simple matter of enforcing an agreement between two parties.
Consider, for example, how any government negotiating a trade agreement with the UK can interpret the assumed prerogative to alter the UK’s adherence to the terms of that agreement?
2 Likes
Oh…perhaps we’re talking at cross-purposes? I don’t think it’s a good idea for the UK to breach an agreed Treaty obligation. I would hope that it would work with the other contracting party (the EU here) to agree a variation if it is evident that there is something problematic with the way each party is interpreting a provision. For me I’d use the analogy of freedom of speech. The principle of “I don’t agree with what you’re saying but I will wholly defend your right to say it”.
I don’t agree with the steps taken by the government here - I have no idea if it is as necessary as is being suggested - but I think they are absolutely entitled to pass into domestic legislation whatever the UK Parliament approves. However, I would raise it as a dispute under the mechanisms provided for within the Treaty first rather than seek the (domestic) ability to just ignore it if needs be. I don’t think that’s a particularly good idea but equally I think that the EU taking this action, not only when the law hasn’t even been enacted but before the UK government has even sought to rely on it, is also an error.
Still, now that they have formally raised the issue of “bad faith” things are going to get fiery. The EU doesn’t exactly come to the table with clean hands.
I’m massively in the dark on this topic and even more so on the legal side but could this be treated as something along the lines of contract law?
i.e. the UK breaking it’s contract (withdrawal agreement) with the EU?
Anticipatory breach. Can give cause for the non-defaulting party to treat it as a repudiatory breach and treat the agreement as being at an end, if the breach was fundamental enough. Would also entitle the non-defaulting party to seek damages.
This is why I think the EU has perhaps overstepped the mark here. My feeling is that they’ve gone too early. We’ll have to see how it all unfolds. Whether you’re for or against Brexit it can hardly be described as boring. Fuck me, what a 4+ years we’ve had.
1 Like
I think you’re interpreting way too much into all of this. Personally think this is just the latest example of the UK government trying to counter what it lacks in substance/seriousness and political/economical leverage in the negoatiations with tactical maneuvers. The EU’s response was equally predictable.
4 Likes
I was wondering that. As you say they’ve handed a wonderful example to the hardline Brexiteers on what a horrible institution they are. Conversely it also highlights what they think of Boris and co.
I can also understand why they feel necessary to argue the repudiatory breach though. But as in all things Brexit I suspect this will be lost in the mire.
This.
Trade talks are ongoing. The legal action would take quite some time to come to anything, with the EU just kicking off the process.
3 Likes
Good to see that HRH Harry and HRH Meghan have called out the structural racism so prevalent in the UK.
It is about time that the barriers which prevent people of all races becoming Lords, Ladies Dukes, Duchesses, or even Princesses were torn down and consigned to history.
Hang on a minute…
You really couldn’t make it up…
BBC News - MP Margaret Ferrier’s Covid Parliament trip ‘indefensible’
*It is also more serious than the lockdown travels of the prime minister’s advisor, Dominic Cummings, who Mrs Ferrier called on to resign.
It is no surprise then that the Conservatives are demanding the MP for Rutherglen and Hamilton West stands down from Parliament.*
Our BBC reporting for you.
Well, according to Gov.uk, that’s where you are wrong:
The UK-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement…
… is tailored to the UK economy and secures additional benefits beyond the EU-Japan trade deal, giving UK companies exporting to Japan a competitive advantage in a number of areas. It will help to create jobs and drive economic growth throughout the whole of the UK.
However, according to the BBC, all might not be quite so rosy:
…this deal largely mirrors the agreement which already exists between the EU and Japan.
And with trade with Japan accounting for just 2% of the UK’s total, the expected boost to GDP of 0.07% over the long term is a tiny fraction of what might be lost from leaving the EU.
And there is good reason for Japan cooperating to ensure this deal was secured in record time. It stands to get the lions share, 80%, of the total estimated £15bn boost to trade for both countries.
Furthermore, according to the FT:
The UK’s new trade deal with Japan commits it to tougher restrictions on state aid than the ones it is currently offering the EU in the Brexit talks, potentially undermining its negotiating position with Brussels.
In the bilateral UK-Japan agreement announced in principle on Friday [11th September 2020], London and Tokyo have agreed to replicate the restrictions on subsidies in the EU-Japan deal that went into effect last year. That agreement prohibits the governments from indefinitely guaranteeing the debts of struggling companies or providing an open-ended bailout without a clear restructuring plan in place.
By contrast, the UK has repeatedly told the EU that it must have total freedom over state aid after the end of the Brexit transition period with complete autonomy over future subsidy decisions, subject to WTO rules.
So much for Brexit freeing us from the restrictions imposed by the EU, or is it a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing?
2 Likes
You can certainly look at the UK/Japan trade deal in a number of ways. However, just the fact that it comes so close to replicating the EU/Japan deal speaks volumes. There have been numerous voices saying that any deal the UK agreed with Japan was never going to be anywhere near as good as the one we had with Japan when we were a member of the EU. Even taking the most negative assessment of the deal (it being on a par with the EU deal) those predictions were obviously overly pessimistic.
I think the reality in the medium term is that the UK is going to be able to hammer out deals that replicate those that it left behind, because in most instances the counterparty will essentially getting back to what it had already agreed to and the corresponding benefits. There may be a couple where the UK’s economic configuration was perceived to load more costs than benefits than a EU-wide deal would, but it is not readily obvious what countries those would be - there are probably more of those countries inside the EU than outside, because they would have to be advanced economies with industries in direct competition with the UK for market share. With Japan, there are likely a few sectors where that is the case, but in general not a great deal of overlap.
Correspondingly, the UK did not ask Japan for the sectors that Japan wanted to insulate from the EU. Trade deals on that sort of ‘backfill’ basis make good sense for the UK to focus on over the next few years.
2 Likes