UK’s Trade Future with EU Raises Concerns Over Return to ECJ Jurisdiction

[scottiejohn]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I do hope that’s not you trying to be more precise.

 

 

It is precise enough for those who are not blinkered by your Stammer/labour bias!

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, scottiejohn said:

It is precise enough for those who are not blinkered by your Stammer/labour bias!

It’s not precise enough to back up your earlier claim:

 

4 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

His Party's manifesto!

Bias you say?!

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, RayC said:

 

I don't think that inflation is being ignored. GDP figures quoted by the ONS are real i.e. adjusted for inflation, so I would have thought the OBR uses the same datasets although I can't confirm that for certain.

 

Well you said "as a result of Brexit" but with no mention of Covid at all. 

[nauseus]

32 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

We checked out in 2020 but the question is, 'Is it in our best interests to use some of the hotel's facilities?'

 

Wrt the three 'major' benefits of Brexit, the first, fishing, is almost insignificant in terms of its' economic importance. It represents 0.03% of economic activity in the UK and employs 11k people and these numbers are still declining  Why fishing became such a major issue (for both sides) in the original negotiations is a mystery to me.

 

I also don't understand why the free movement of EU nationals under 30 should present a problem. This is the group who, pre-Brexit, used to be employed in the seasonal, part-time jobs which are now proving so difficult to fill. Moreover, many (most?) of this group will not wish to settle permanently in the UK. If it is considered desirable to reduce the number of 'permanent' immigrants, surely this is one way of doing so?

 

The article suggests that the UK would be st the ECJ in matters relating to Food and Agricultural standards. In practice, currently this wouldn't be a problem. UK food standards are consistent with EU regulations and, in many cases, are stricter than the minimal requirements set by EU regulations. I accept that adhering to EU food and agriculture might be a problem when it comes to negotiating a free trade deal with the US - and if we wanted to amend standards in the future - but I would make the following two points: Firstly, is it desirable to drop our standards in such an important sector such as food and Agriculture? Secondly, given Trump's pronouncements about US trade policy, a free trade deal with the US isn't going to happen any time so in that regard, the issue of food standards is pretty irrelevant.

 

Fishing was not the main benefit of leaving. The EU has retained significant control of it anyway and it will be years before that ends.

 

Free movement has allowed significant migrant travel through continental Europe. For those determined to enter the UK, the Schengen Zone made this far easier than before for them to get as close as the Channel (beaches and ports) after 2015, which is when mass movement began. The end of FoM should have been one of the main benefits of leaving but it has been seemingly willfully mishandled by the post Brexit Conservatives and now by this hopeless Labour mob. This migration is causing several problems in the UK and larger EU. It is now interesting to see that several EU states have now acknowledged this by applying border controls - temporary - I wonder? 

https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/schengen-borders-and-visa/schengen-area/temporary-reintroduction-border-control_en

 

 

Influence of the EU courts over the UK was the biggest reason for the leave vote - i.e. loss of UK sovereignty.

[Maybole]

I was in UK at the time of the referendum. I cannot recall any reference to the ECJ.

[stevenl]

10 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

Fishing was not the main benefit of leaving. The EU has retained significant control of it anyway and it will be years before that ends.

 

Free movement has allowed significant migrant travel through continental Europe. For those determined to enter the UK, the Schengen Zone made this far easier than before for them to get as close as the Channel (beaches and ports) after 2015, which is when mass movement began. The end of FoM should have been one of the main benefits of leaving but it has been seemingly willfully mishandled by the post Brexit Conservatives and now by this hopeless Labour mob. This migration is causing several problems in the UK and larger EU. It is now interesting to see that several EU states have now acknowledged this by applying border controls - temporary - I wonder? 

https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/schengen-borders-and-visa/schengen-area/temporary-reintroduction-border-control_en

 

 

Influence of the EU courts over the UK was the biggest reason for the leave vote - i.e. loss of UK sovereignty.

Immigration was the main reason, citing 'influence of EU courts ' as the reason is just political correctness. And look at what happened to immigration since.

 

Want to have free trade, have to accept influence of EU courts. 

 

[nauseus]

50 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Immigration was the main reason, citing 'influence of EU courts ' as the reason is just political correctness. And look at what happened to immigration since.

 

Want to have free trade, have to accept influence of EU courts. 

 

 

Rubbish.

[RayC]

15 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

Well you said "as a result of Brexit" but with no mention of Covid at all. 

 

That it is what the OBR report says. The costs are directly attributable to Brexit 

[RayC]

18 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

Fishing was not the main benefit of leaving. The EU has retained significant control of it anyway and it will be years before that ends.

 

Free movement has allowed significant migrant travel through continental Europe. For those determined to enter the UK, the Schengen Zone made this far easier than before for them to get as close as the Channel (beaches and ports) after 2015, which is when mass movement began. The end of FoM should have been one of the main benefits of leaving but it has been seemingly willfully mishandled by the post Brexit Conservatives and now by this hopeless Labour mob. This migration is causing several problems in the UK and larger EU. It is now interesting to see that several EU states have now acknowledged this by applying border controls - temporary - I wonder? 

https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/schengen-borders-and-visa/schengen-area/temporary-reintroduction-border-control_en

 

 

Influence of the EU courts over the UK was the biggest reason for the leave vote - i.e. loss of UK sovereignty.

 

Schengen came into operation in 1995 so it predates the migrant crisis. 

 

It is obviously easier to move between nations with open, rather than closed borders, so reintroducing border controls might mitigate some of the problems of illegal migration, but it almost certainly won't solve the problem. Europe's internal borders are simply too large to be made completely secure. Moreover, Schengen has brought significant benefits and there would be an economic cost if it were to be abolished/ suspended.

 

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2016/579074/EPRS_ATA(2016)579074_EN.pdf

 

You state that, "The end of FoM should have been one of the main benefits of leaving ..." but don't elaborate about why this should be the case.

 

I agree that Johnson's government mishandled Brexit. However, even if it had been handled perfectly I very much doubt that we would now be experiencing any benefit.

[nauseus]

45 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Schengen came into operation in 1995 so it predates the migrant crisis. 

 

It is obviously easier to move between nations with open, rather than closed borders, so reintroducing border controls might mitigate some of the problems of illegal migration, but it almost certainly won't solve the problem. Europe's internal borders are simply too large to be made completely secure. Moreover, Schengen has brought significant benefits and there would be an economic cost if it were to be abolished/ suspended.

 

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2016/579074/EPRS_ATA(2016)579074_EN.pdf

 

You state that, "The end of FoM should have been one of the main benefits of leaving ..." but don't elaborate about why this should be the case.

 

I agree that Johnson's government mishandled Brexit. However, even if it had been handled perfectly I very much doubt that we would now be experiencing any benefit.

 

Schengen came into operation in 1986 for 5 EEC members but what matters now is that rejoining the EU Schengen is mandatory.

 

Yes, it is obviously easier to move between nations with open borders. A big problem is that many people that have managed to illegally land within the Schengen Area are obviously not challenged when they start to move across EU borders. Europe's internal borders are not so large that they cannot be made reasonably secure - ask the Hungarians. Yes, Schengen has brought economic benefits to the EU but also at the likelihood of increasing numbers if illegal migrants accessing France and then landing in the UK, which never signed up to Schengen but now suffers extra financial and social costs partly because of it. Schengen is a system to be used to ease of movement of EU nationals only, but it has also eased movement of all. due to lack of control at EU internal borders and that is why "the end of FoM should have been one of the main benefits of leaving ..." ...

 

Well Cameron and May fumbled Brexit before Johnson mishandled it. A different path needed to be taken for long-term benefit but there is no chance to see a true comparison now - it's way too late. As far as high UK immigration overall goes. then that trend can be tracked to the nineties and noughties, starting with Blair.

[RayC]

17 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Schengen came into operation in 1986 for 5 EEC members but what matters now is that rejoining the EU Schengen is mandatory.

 

Yes, it is obviously easier to move between nations with open borders. A big problem is that many people that have managed to illegally land within the Schengen Area are obviously not challenged when they start to move across EU borders. Europe's internal borders are not so large that they cannot be made reasonably secure - ask the Hungarians. Yes, Schengen has brought economic benefits to the EU but also at the likelihood of increasing numbers if illegal migrants accessing France and then landing in the UK, which never signed up to Schengen but now suffers extra financial and social costs partly because of it. Schengen is a system to be used to ease of movement of EU nationals only, but it has also eased movement of all. due to lack of control at EU internal borders and that is why "the end of FoM should have been one of the main benefits of leaving ..." ...

 

Well Cameron and May fumbled Brexit before Johnson mishandled it. A different path needed to be taken for long-term benefit but there is no chance to see a true comparison now - it's way too late. As far as high UK immigration overall goes. then that trend can be tracked to the nineties and noughties, starting with Blair.

 

Hungary secured its' borders by erecting a fence. I'm not sure that the majority of EU citizens would consider erecting fences all over Europe a price worth paying.

 

You place great store on the perceived costs to the UK of Schengen but what about the costs of abolishing/ suspending it? Would you be happy for the UK to compensate EU states for their losses if Schengen were to be abolished?

 

The majority of illegal immigrants land in Italy, Greece and Turkey, who are unable and unwilling to accommodate all these individuals. Some in other nations might say, "Bad luck but not our problem".However if that is the attitude, who could blame Italy, Greece and Turkey if they do little to prevent their unwanted 'guests' from leaving their territories? Illegal immigration is a problem for all of Europe and it therefore needs co-ordinated action.

 

You state correctly that, Schengen's main objective is to ease of the movement of EU nationals, " ... but that " ... it has also eased movement of all", which is also true. However, what has this to do with Brexit? Schengen has nothing to do with the UK ending FOM post-Brexit. I still do not understand how "the end of FoM should have been one of the main benefits of (the UK) leaving (the EU)".

 

You'll get no argument from me when you criticise Cameron, May and Johnson for their handling of the Brexit process, but - as I said previously - what I don't understand is 1) what "different path" should have been taken and 2) what these benefits would be and how they would be delivered?

[nauseus]

52 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Hungary secured its' borders by erecting a fence. I'm not sure that the majority of EU citizens would consider erecting fences all over Europe a price worth paying.

 

You place great store on the perceived costs to the UK of Schengen but what about the costs of abolishing/ suspending it? Would you be happy for the UK to compensate EU states for their losses if Schengen were to be abolished?

 

The majority of illegal immigrants land in Italy, Greece and Turkey, who are unable and unwilling to accommodate all these individuals. Some in other nations might say, "Bad luck but not our problem".However if that is the attitude, who could blame Italy, Greece and Turkey if they do little to prevent their unwanted 'guests' from leaving their territories? Illegal immigration is a problem for all of Europe and it therefore needs co-ordinated action.

 

You state correctly that, Schengen's main objective is to ease of the movement of EU nationals, " ... but that " ... it has also eased movement of all", which is also true. However, what has this to do with Brexit? Schengen has nothing to do with the UK ending FOM post-Brexit. I still do not understand how "the end of FoM should have been one of the main benefits of (the UK) leaving (the EU)".

 

You'll get no argument from me when you criticise Cameron, May and Johnson for their handling of the Brexit process, but - as I said previously - what I don't understand is 1) what "different path" should have been taken and 2) what these benefits would be and how they would be delivered?

 

Hungary secured its' borders by erecting a fence and policing its borders. I'm sure that the majority of EU citizens would not want this but as Jagger would sing "you can't always get what you  want". At least border checks that people crossing there are indeed EU "citizens" would help, just as a properly policed internal purge of people smugglers within the EU would.

 

I expect that this Schengen pillar will be one of the last of these to fall but the UK is not a member of the EU so any any costs of abolishing/ suspending it would need to be borne by the EU? What costs are you thinking of anyway and why on earth should the UK need to compensate EU states if Schengen were to be abolished? 

 

I understand the need for compassionate assistance for genuine refugees who have to flee danger (anywhere). To protect them, the UN policy exists and for true refugees, then I agree that safe countries should jointly share the job of accommodating them, at least until their native countries become safe again. But the high percentage of lone men seen arriving in these small boats, trucks and by other means, fairly suggests that these people are not refugees but rather economic migrants.

 

I am familiar with the main routes and the methods used to move these migrants. The EU should protect its members with stronger external border controls but, because these are weak, that is why Italy, Greece and Spain became so much affected by the initial waves of landings from Africa and the ME. Yes, you can't blame overrun countries for wanting the migrants to move on but you can expect more of the EU to try to manage itself and its external borders better. After the UK, there is little choice for migrants to move on (northward) further and it looks like that  it is a popular final destination for many, anyway. EU freedom FoM and Schengen should be EU internal only. The French seem not require a passport or any ID to allow for these non-EU migrants to enter and leave France (as they should) and even use their naval forces to escort these small boats to open sea. The UK has been affected by illegal migration but has not benefitted from it at all, as far as I can see. That is why this should have been one of the main benefits of the UK leaving the EU.

 

The different path? As I said, it's way too late.

 

 

[RayC]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

Hungary secured its' borders by erecting a fence and policing its borders. I'm sure that the majority of EU citizens would not want this but as Jagger would sing "you can't always get what you  want". At least border checks that people crossing there are indeed EU "citizens" would help, just as a properly policed internal purge of people smugglers within the EU would.

 

I expect that this Schengen pillar will be one of the last of these to fall but the UK is not a member of the EU so any any costs of abolishing/ suspending it would need to be borne by the EU? What costs are you thinking of anyway and why on earth should the UK need to compensate EU states if Schengen were to be abolished? 

 

I understand the need for compassionate assistance for genuine refugees who have to flee danger (anywhere). To protect them, the UN policy exists and for true refugees, then I agree that safe countries should jointly share the job of accommodating them, at least until their native countries become safe again. But the high percentage of lone men seen arriving in these small boats, trucks and by other means, fairly suggests that these people are not refugees but rather economic migrants.

 

I am familiar with the main routes and the methods used to move these migrants. The EU should protect its members with stronger external border controls but, because these are weak, that is why Italy, Greece and Spain became so much affected by the initial waves of landings from Africa and the ME. Yes, you can't blame overrun countries for wanting the migrants to move on but you can expect more of the EU to try to manage itself and its external borders better. After the UK, there is little choice for migrants to move on (northward) further and it looks like that  it is a popular final destination for many, anyway. EU freedom FoM and Schengen should be EU internal only. The French seem not require a passport or any ID to allow for these non-EU migrants to enter and leave France (as they should) and even use their naval forces to escort these small boats to open sea. The UK has been affected by illegal migration but has not benefitted from it at all, as far as I can see. That is why this should have been one of the main benefits of the UK leaving the EU.

 

The different path? As I said, it's way too late.

 

 

It is very easy for Brits - who would potentially benefit for the enclosing of the European mainland in fencing so far as illegal migration flows are concerned - to casually insist that such a measure is necessary, but quite another matter for the denizens of Europe who would be negatively affected economically, societally, environmentally, etc by such a development.

 

In future, there may be an increase in the number of times Schengen is temporarily suspended and in the number of temporary border checks, but I doubt that Schengen will be abolished. I provided a link in a previous post regarding the costs of abolishing and suspending Schengen. That paper was published in 2016 and probably understates the amount: There are now 2m daily cross-border workers in the EU, and 1,857 billion tonne-kilometres of freight is transported by road (2022 figures). Imagine the chaos if border checks were reintroduced throughout the Schengen zone.

 

My comment about the UK footing the bill for the abolition of Schengen was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Nevertheless, in the extremely unlikely event that it were to happen at the UK's behest, why shouldn't the UK bear (at least) some of the cost?

 

I am not accusing you of being uncompassionate - your comment shows that you are not - and I share your concern about economic migrants abusing the system. However, I do think that you understate and over-simplify the complexity of the problem. Securing Europe's borders (internal and external) is no simple matter as the attached link clearly illustrates.

 

https://www.frontex.europa.eu/what-we-do/monitoring-and-risk-analysis/migratory-routes/migratory-routes/

 

Given that it's too late to take a different (Brexit) path and following the current one has hardly been successful, wouldn't it be logical to at least, inquire about rejoining the EU?😉

 

[nauseus]

15 hours ago, RayC said:

 

It is very easy for Brits - who would potentially benefit for the enclosing of the European mainland in fencing so far as illegal migration flows are concerned - to casually insist that such a measure is necessary, but quite another matter for the denizens of Europe who would be negatively affected economically, societally, environmentally, etc by such a development.

 

In future, there may be an increase in the number of times Schengen is temporarily suspended and in the number of temporary border checks, but I doubt that Schengen will be abolished. I provided a link in a previous post regarding the costs of abolishing and suspending Schengen. That paper was published in 2016 and probably understates the amount: There are now 2m daily cross-border workers in the EU, and 1,857 billion tonne-kilometres of freight is transported by road (2022 figures). Imagine the chaos if border checks were reintroduced throughout the Schengen zone.

 

My comment about the UK footing the bill for the abolition of Schengen was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Nevertheless, in the extremely unlikely event that it were to happen at the UK's behest, why shouldn't the UK bear (at least) some of the cost?

 

I am not accusing you of being uncompassionate - your comment shows that you are not - and I share your concern about economic migrants abusing the system. However, I do think that you understate and over-simplify the complexity of the problem. Securing Europe's borders (internal and external) is no simple matter as the attached link clearly illustrates.

 

https://www.frontex.europa.eu/what-we-do/monitoring-and-risk-analysis/migratory-routes/migratory-routes/

 

Given that it's too late to take a different (Brexit) path and following the current one has hardly been successful, wouldn't it be logical to at least, inquire about rejoining the EU?😉

 

 

I'll only comment on your last question. Only if the EU was a fair-minded economic trading bloc, then joining that would be logical. But with the EU as it is then, no  - IMOO the UK would end up with even less advantage than before, especially w.r.t to our own currency,  plus the pre-Brexit surviving rebates and opt-outs would all be gone. All of the previous disadvantages would still exist. 

[sandyf]

On 12/18/2024 at 7:55 AM, stevenl said:

Want to export more, have to accept the rules and regulations of the countries you're exporting to.

Indeed, and a deal with the EU would be far more beneficial than the US which uses ISDS, that can lead to governments being held to ransom.

 

The ISDS system has been criticized for its perceived failures, including investor bias, inconsistent or inaccurate rulings, high damage awards, and high costs,^[3] and there have been widespread calls for reform. Since 2015, the European Union has been seeking to create a multilateral investment court to replace investor-state arbitration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor–state_dispute_settlement

[Chomper Higgot]

30 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

I'll only comment on your last question. Only if the EU was a fair-minded economic trading bloc, then joining that would be logical. But with the EU as it is then, no  - IMOO the UK would end up with even less advantage than before, especially w.r.t to our own currency,  plus the pre-Brexit surviving rebates and opt-outs would all be gone. All of the previous disadvantages would still exist. 

“plus the pre-Brexit surviving rebates and opt-outs would all be gone”

I wonder how that happened?!

[sandyf]

On 12/18/2024 at 9:06 AM, jippytum said:

one of the main  benifits  touted pre Brexit was to dissociate the UK from the European court of justice. 

More a question of having the cake and eat it.

The UK did not dissassociate itself from EU legislation, laws that suited the agenda were retained.

Brexit would never have happened if it had been clear 261/2004 was to be repealed along with all other EU legislation.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

“plus the pre-Brexit surviving rebates and opt-outs would all be gone”

I wonder how that happened?!

 

Automatically on leaving.

[Chomper Higgot]

40 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Automatically on leaving.

Yes the certainties of BREXIT all showed up, the promises have yet to materialize.

 

[nauseus]

20 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Yes the certainties of BREXIT all showed up, the promises have yet to materialize.

 

 

Are you at a Christmas Party?