Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

What now for the EU ?

Inasmuch as the EU, qua EU, has no power to bring a case to the ICJ, no, but the individual MS can. See @LeoRoverman ’s post.
The more I think about - and I’ve obviously been a bit slow - this may explain the ‘invention’ of the ECJ and the EU’s insistence on the ECJ being the legal forum.
Obviously open to correction.
...but that gives the lie to the EU saying they have no intention of taking sovereignty from member states. There is an an underlying necessity for them to do so in their law and order issues, not to mention the intent of the ECB To centralise budgetary control.
 
I had reason to order a new diff gear set for my a Triumph from a German vendor....
utterly painful experience. IBAN transfer, faxes, no ability to do electronic payments.
most of Europe is the same, very hard to do business with, little interest in e commerce, let alone cross border trade.

meanwhile, I can order parts online from LA, pay online, and have them with me in 24 hours.
even Japanese vendors are fairly painless to deal with.
Didn’t you try Rimmer Bros first? That said, it’ll be them reaping the whirlwind especially given we are in the transition period and are arguably breaching EU rules.
 

Oyibo

LE
Don't forget plenty of signs along the way proudly proclaiming this was paid for by the UK

Yup - That's what I meant by putting the flegs everywhere
 

oldbaldy

LE
Moderator

oldbaldy

LE
Moderator
Sovereignty is central to the Brexit negotiations.
The EU treats sovereignty as a tradable chip and is hoping the UK will do the same. For the EU plays a giant shell game in its legal system, treating both the Eurozone system and the member state fiscal arrangements as sovereign when these two propositions cannot be true at the same time – so both are false. The system’s setup leaves the Eurozone with no centralised fiscal capacity. At the same time, Eurozone members are unable to order the ECB to print more money to repay their debts, so run the constant risk of default in the way that true sovereigns do not.
This sub-sovereign Eurozone arrangement operates to the detriment of the UK. Unaffordable piles of southern member state debt pull down the value of the Euro to the benefit of the north’s exporters, allowing them to dump underpriced goods on the UK market. Technical TARGET2 mechanisms provide unlimited subsidisation for Eurozone producers, and member states never repay the debts that result.
EU banks operate under an EU law system that defies international regulatory standards, providing artificially low-cost financing to Eurozone companies. And by pretending that Eurozone members are sovereign, EU law creates vast unmanaged financial risk, which seeps into the global financial system at the expense of savers and investors.
The UK can protect its economy outside the EU system of law by applying the WTO’s self-help remedies of tariffs and duties, along with international regulatory rules. WTO charges would put Eurozone imports back at their correct pricing levels. Most Eurozone producers would then absorb the expense to protect their market share. New trade deals with other countries will enable the UK to buy the products from elsewhere at competitive world prices. And international regulatory standards provide protection against systemic risk arising from the Eurozone.
But the UK needs to avoid the trap of EU law, since its acceptance would prevent the UK from protecting itself. The Withdrawal Agreement commits both parties to achieving a sovereignty-compliant outcome by year end. By definition any resulting arrangements cannot include EU law, unless Parliament were to hand back sovereignty. This means replacing the Northern Ireland Protocol, which imposes EU law requirements. If left in place, the Protocol would deny UK businesses with NI operations the shield of WTO protections, leaving them open to unfairly priced Irish (and other Eurozone) competition.
Fortunately, there are sovereignty-compliant solutions to all of the problems the EU negotiators throw our way. An invisible North-South Irish border can be addressed by so-called “alternative arrangements”, or by guarantees under a mechanism known as “mutual enforcement”. A level playing field can easily be addressed through WTO-based disciplines.
Now the EU may not wish for that. Providing for a sovereign but invisible North-South border would effectively mean the EU has to agree to a favourable trade deal with the whole of the UK. It is only then that the EU gets out cleanly from its WTO obligations to offer the same invisible border treatment to the other 44 countries with which it has a land border. The EU may also recoil from a WTO-based approach to the level playing field since this would undo the distortions created by the Eurozone. However, as a sovereign, the UK needs to protect its economy for the benefit of its citizens.
In addition, the UK needs its sovereignty to address the financial risk pumped by the Eurozone into the UK and global financial markets. At present, the UK mitigates this risk on behalf of the EU and the rest of the world by imposing top-up capital requirements on businesses operating here. The UK can carry on performing this service after year end, if the EU agrees in an FTA to recognise UK financial law and regulation, whatever the shape the UK decides this should have. The EU should feel safe in recognising the UK’s regime since the UK properly applies international standards.
If the EU fails to agree a satisfactory sovereign relationship, the UK should tear up the Withdrawal Agreement, including the Protocol. The EU would be in breach of its commitments, and the UK will then be forced to apply its sovereignty on the basis of unmodified WTO protections after year end. The UK will also need (along with the US, the other host of the global financial market) to apply international standards to impose costly capital, collateral and liquidity requirements on exposures to EU financial institutions, to address Eurozone risk. This would include restrictions on intra-group exposures to Eurozone-based subsidiaries of UK/US-headquartered institutions.
Of course, applying the global rules in this way would cause crippling expense for EU financial firms, and material damage to the EU’s growth aspirations. That is not the outcome the UK seeks. To avoid it, the UK’s ask is minimal: a sovereign relationship which continues trade on a basis no worse than that used by the EU for other countries to which it is less close. If the EU rejects this it would be an unfriendly act – and one of self-harm.
Barnabas Reynolds is a partner at Shearman & Sterling LLP and co-author of “Using Negotiating Leverage to Achieve a Sovereignty-Compliant Exit from the Transition Period”, just published by the Centre for Brexit Policy
 
The wailing is a joy to behold, poor Remainers.

But president of the European Council, Charles Michel, told reporters the EU had a "clear position" and they were "very calm".

Of course you are, you Belgian tw@t

EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has called for post-Brexit trade talks to "intensify" ahead of a call with Boris Johnson on Saturday.

That must be why Von der Lying is calling for intensified talks.

With H Hour fast approaching, Ohhhh we need to talk.
 

oldbaldy

LE
Moderator
Of course you are, you Belgian tw@t



That must be why Von der Lying is calling for intensified talks.

With H Hour fast approaching, Ohhhh we need to talk.
Snip from my post above, twichy bum time perhaps?
If the EU fails to agree a satisfactory sovereign relationship, the UK should tear up the Withdrawal Agreement, including the Protocol. The EU would be in breach of its commitments, and the UK will then be forced to apply its sovereignty on the basis of unmodified WTO protections after year end. The UK will also need (along with the US, the other host of the global financial market) to apply international standards to impose costly capital, collateral and liquidity requirements on exposures to EU financial institutions, to address Eurozone risk. This would include restrictions on intra-group exposures to Eurozone-based subsidiaries of UK/US-headquartered institutions.
Of course, applying the global rules in this way would cause crippling expense for EU financial firms, and material damage to the EU’s growth aspirations.
 
Snip from my post above, twichy bum time perhaps?

I have consistently said, that I believed that the EU believed or hoped that by means foul or fair, the result of the Referendum would be overturned.

The May / Robbins capitulation team must have been manna from heaven for the EU.

When May / Robbins got the boot, they still believed / hoped that their would be enough remainers in Parliament to ensure that whatever was eventually passed would be more beneficial to the EU ( Keeping the UK under the EU's thumb ) than it would be for the UK.

I think Johnson and his team have long known this. They have also long known that they had enough ammunition written into the WA ( Clause 38 ) to say nothing and let the EU carry on with it's red lines strategy, before firing the bazooka.

The Internal Markets was not something that was produced overnight. It is fairly watertight, hence passing with something like an 84 majority.

That bazooka has now been fired. The EU know they are up sh1t creek without a paddle, hence the cries for increased dialogue.

Unless the EU drops their red lines of ECJ and level playing fields ( seriously, who is going to agree to be subjected to EU rules that have not even been written yet ? ) it will be WTO on 01 Jan.

I think Johnson and his team have played a blinder on this. The EU have made an ARRSE of themselves by starting infringement proceedings on something that has not even happened and may never happen.

If that is representative of your friends and partners - TBH, a size 11 boot would have been applied a long time ago.
 
I have consistently said, that I believed that the EU believed or hoped that by means foul or fair, the result of the Referendum would be overturned.

The May / Robbins capitulation team must have been manna from heaven for the EU.

When May / Robbins got the boot, they still believed / hoped that their would be enough remainers in Parliament to ensure that whatever was eventually passed would be more beneficial to the EU ( Keeping the UK under the EU's thumb ) than it would be for the UK.

I think Johnson and his team have long known this. They have also long known that they had enough ammunition written into the WA ( Clause 38 ) to say nothing and let the EU carry on with it's red lines strategy, before firing the bazooka.

The Internal Markets was not something that was produced overnight. It is fairly watertight, hence passing with something like an 84 majority.

That bazooka has now been fired. The EU know they are up sh1t creek without a paddle, hence the cries for increased dialogue.

Unless the EU drops their red lines of ECJ and level playing fields ( seriously, who is going to agree to be subjected to EU rules that have not even been written yet ? ) it will be WTO on 01 Jan.

I think Johnson and his team have played a blinder on this. The EU have made an ARRSE of themselves by starting infringement proceedings on something that has not even happened and may never happen.

If that is representative of your friends and partners - TBH, a size 11 boot would have been applied a long time ago.
But,..... bus, international law, Cummings, Boris doesn't do detail. Surely we're all doomed.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
I have consistently said, that I believed that the EU believed or hoped that by means foul or fair, the result of the Referendum would be overturned.

The May / Robbins capitulation team must have been manna from heaven for the EU.

When May / Robbins got the boot, they still believed / hoped that their would be enough remainers in Parliament to ensure that whatever was eventually passed would be more beneficial to the EU ( Keeping the UK under the EU's thumb ) than it would be for the UK.

I think Johnson and his team have long known this. They have also long known that they had enough ammunition written into the WA ( Clause 38 ) to say nothing and let the EU carry on with it's red lines strategy, before firing the bazooka.

The Internal Markets was not something that was produced overnight. It is fairly watertight, hence passing with something like an 84 majority.

That bazooka has now been fired. The EU know they are up sh1t creek without a paddle, hence the cries for increased dialogue.

Unless the EU drops their red lines of ECJ and level playing fields ( seriously, who is going to agree to be subjected to EU rules that have not even been written yet ? ) it will be WTO on 01 Jan.

I think Johnson and his team have played a blinder on this. The EU have made an ARRSE of themselves by starting infringement proceedings on something that has not even happened and may never happen.

If that is representative of your friends and partners - TBH, a size 11 boot would have been applied a long time ago.
Aye, the EU are definitely in the soup now.
 
But,..... bus, international law, Cummings, Boris doesn't do detail. Surely we're all doomed.

Don't forget Brexit will die this winter
 
Top