Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
News articles of interest (Brexit)
#21
If the usual procedure in due diligence of equity and fairness takes two years to sought the truth before imposing sanctions on an accused rogue nation. Then having the EU break its own rules to suit itself (as usual), would undermine the ethical, moral and possibly legal decisions made by the event of an immediate sanction. That would be the unreasonable issue if that 'punishment clause' had been retained.

You talk the EU trusting the UK. No, the punitive talk was reigned in at a time when pragmatism on the EU's side of the table prevailed over dogmatic ideology. The EU have already had an uncanny knack for 'dramatising' these negotiations, as well as having a record for causing dramatic dialogue in negotiations. Then when things seem to get a bit hot, Barnier for example wants to 'de-dramatise' the talks the EU are guilty of dramatising! This happened again in this instance, because as you have repeatedly pointed out elsewhere, the UK was a Trojan Horse inside the EU at the behest of the US - or so the conspiracy goes. You, like the ideological elites inside the EU don't trust "perfidious Albion" but its clear she still has some pragmatic allies inside the bloc.

Again, more "punishment clauses" have been discussed in the event of a FTA which is one of the reasons May has stepped back from a Canada type agreement. Even outside the EU, the EU want to control the UK's economic policy by raising tariffs on British exports to the EU, in case the UK diverges on regulation. In other words, it doesn't want the competition from a non-member and wants to initiate a punishment clause that can raise tariffs on different key sector exports. 

It does seem this glorious huge elephant really is scared of the inward looking mouse and would like to control the mouses diet even though it isn't in the elephant's circus anymore.
Reply
#22
Guest

1) Better get used to it, all trade and other agreements contain what you call "punishment clauses" in case the contract is violated.The UK includes such clauses in its own contracts too. Everybody does.

2) And no, there was abolutely nothing contradicatory or immoral or whatever to the proposal of a special clause for the post-Brexit transition period, because the contract for other members is long term, while the contract for the UK is limited period. So obviously you need special mechanisms for the latter. The EU was under no obligation whatsoever to grant the UK its request for a post-Brexit transition period, but generously granted it. But of coure you will keep complaining, no matter what  the EU does.
Reply
#23
(01-10-18, 12:54 PM)Real European Wrote: Guest

Better get used to it, all trade and other agreements contain what you call "punishment clauses" in case the contract is violated.

The UK includes such clauses in its own contracts too. Everybody does.

You asked me what was unreasonable, I told you. You didn't say whether you agreed with it or not (but I suspect I already know the answer).

And now, you freely admit this, we can tot up the punitive measures the EU will make along the way in negotiations and simultaneously say ' the EU are not being punitive, we trust the UK and have negotiated in good faith', at least we don't have to hide behind all the BS anymore.
Reply
#24
You will have to explain that again, because I honestly have no idea what you are saying.

Let's sum up:

1. ALL trade agreements and ALL contracts between states contain what you call "punishment clauses" but what in legal terms are called dispute settlement clauses. The US has such clauses in its agreements, Japan has them, China has them, Russia has them, the UK has them, African countries have them, all countries around the world use such clauses in their agreements.

Somehow you consider it a sign of the awfullness of the EU that the EU has such clauses too. Would you care to explain that?

2. The UK requests a SPECIAL deal with the EU for somewhat less than two years,  but wants THE SAME benefits and regimen as regular members. Not logical, is it? You think that is a legimate request?

The dispute settlement clauses in the Singe Market are based on the premise that all participating members are in it for the long run. They last more than 2 years, but that is OK since by  the time the procedure is finished, the country still is member of the EU.

You say: the rules should be the same for everyone.

Fair enough: then the EU cannot agree with a post-brexit transition period requested by the UK since this is an exception. The rule for all members is that they are in it for the long run, not for 16 months.

And since you say it is immoral to deviate from the rules for one member, the EU must not deviate from this for the UK and thus cannot possibly agree with a 16 months deal as this violates the principle of same rules for all members.

Case closed.
Reply
#25
Buddy, seems you are firmly in the "it's so unfair, the EU wants to punish us" camp.
It is what we in Holland call a Calimero Complex.

It's also laugable. The UK chose to leave the EU -which means everything-, by invoking A50 and that is what will happen next year. Completely your own choice, so I do not see how any punishment could be applied since there is nothing left to punish on. Please do stop crying.

Beyond that, the UK can talk with the EU about doing trade on more favorable than WTO rules, but that will be a negotion at which the EU should see benefit in. I am sure the UK would want benefits too.
Crying foul in those negotiations is quite irrelevant too. It's just a business transaction. Emotions have no place.
Reply
#26
An interesting debate (youtube)

Jason J Hunter: Brexit - What Leaving On WTO Terms Will Mean - Q&A
Reply
#27
EU court may decide before Christmas if UK can unilaterally reverse Brexit.

Reuters

The Scottish are uneasy with Brexit, and they are doing something about it.
Reply
#28
I wish guests would give themselves an on-line name other than just "Guest". It would make following the debate so much easier and would also be in the interest of "Guest" making his/her points clearer to understand.
Reply
#29
EU leaders won’t even consider trade deal with UK at Brexit summit this week because of talks collapse
(The Independent, 16 October 2018)

Leaders will not be presented with a draft of the political declaration on the future relationship

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po...86201.html


Nasty flaggers are very busy in the comments section of the above Indy article. You can post your flagged-up comments below, and of course new ones too.


__________________


Message for newcomers:

Commenting at Debate Uncensored is open to guests (you do not have to register to post a comment). See instructions for posting:
http://debateuncensored.x10host.com/foru....php?aid=2

Links to the Brexit debates are here:
http://debateuncensored.x10host.com/foru....php?fid=2

To explore other topics on the forum, go here:
www.DebateUncensored.co.uk
Reply
#30
Flagged up three times at Indy:

@BarryMac: "Your premise is false. Remain in not unavailable. The ECJ will consider that next month and rule on it."-

It is clear what the ECJ will rule - the exiting member cannot revoke its notification. The spirit, intention and logic of Article 50 (which is what the judges will evaluate) can tell you that.

Else, an EU member could invoke exit, then revoke it a few days before the two-year period runs out, then invoke exit a few days later again - thus using Article 50 as a weapon to blackmail other members. This clearly is not the intention of A50.

The two-year period in A50 after which there is an automatic exit if there is no deal is there to protect BOTH sides: 

* the remaining members cannot prevent exit by refusing to sign a withdrawal agreement, and 

* the exiting member cannot keep the remaining members in limbo forever by refusing to sign the withdrawal agreement.

Notification under A50 is a point of no return. After notification, the only way back into the EU is via Article 49 TEU.




Copy of reply to my post at Indy by BarryMac:

It’s like a bloodbath round here. I saw your comment referring to my post and in the time it took me to find Sir John Kerr’s remarks on the scenario you presented, a third of the posts had been unpublished.

Anyway, what John Kerr said last March and you, being widely read, probably read it, is that if Article 50 were revocable (and legal opinion was evenly divided on that), someone like Britain would keep chancing its luck until it got the result it wanted. So, while it could well be revocable, everyone should accept that there would be a political price to be paid.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)