^ Does he? Do you have a link to that? I was under the impression ECJ would rule on matters of EU law that apply to the FTA only.
^ Does he? Do you have a link to that? I was under the impression ECJ would rule on matters of EU law that apply to the FTA only.
The EU wishes to retain the ECJ as the arbitration forum for the resolution of breaches of agreements signed off by Britain and the EU. This is obviously the logical venue given the UK is merely a satellite in the orbit of the EU insofar as it impinges on trade, level playing field protocols and observance of compliance standards.
The ECJ is neither biased nor broken, only an idiot unhampered by any knowledge of the subject could possibly allege such a stupid thing, or of course a demented old frazzled buffoon marinated in bigotry and xenophobic prejudice drinking from his cup of bile in the Last Chance Saloon of an unremarkable and undistinguished life.
Was the ECJ biased when it found in favour of the City of London's banking industry in its action against the Euro countries which argued that it was unlawful for the UK banks to trade in the Euro because the UK was not a Euro member state?
Be honest, when the EU goes pop will you blame Brexit or the virus?
Credit where due, you're liberal with zeros.
I rather think your natural inclination towards rabid incoherence has got the better of you there, Chas.
Generally speaking, if one is seeking to trade and deliver products to a different country and the contract or agreement giving substance to the enterprise originates in that country then it is logical to assume that the jurisprudence of that country will be the venue for resolution of any conflict arising therefrom.
Now, I know this might be difficult for you to grasp but the EU is not an entity "of itself" it is an association of 27 member states sharing four fundamental principles sustaining their membership viz. the free movement of capital, goods, labour and people, and that association inter alia has agreed that conflict arising out of the operation of their membership will be resolved at the ECJ.
Now Britain has left the EU. Period. But it wants benefits under the legacy of its erstwhile membership in the form of trade between it and the EU member states, the terms of which are currently under negotiation. Assuming there can be agreement, the UK and the 27 members states will sign a trade pact that will permit the exchange of goods but this will depend on a quid pro quo from the UK that it will not seek to gain an unfair advantage by undermining the competitiveness of any or all of the member states by deviating from the socio-economic protocols that sustain them and constituted Britain's modus operandi before it left.
Britain has announced as its trading stance that it wants the Canada - EU trade pact as an "off the peg" template but the EU quite rightly has countered that this cannot be agreed without modification given the UK is a mere 22 miles away and not 3000 miles, a significant factor in weighing the impact of any trade negotiations upon indigenous trade sectors e.g. product A would be subject to quota but given its unit price will be increased by transport costs to a degree that it would not affect the stability of the market for indigent suppliers then the quota rate will be raised significantly.
If an agreement is found and the UK agrees to a "level playing field ", in order that unit costs are not unfairly influenced by differing socio-economic factors, then that agreement must be enforceable in law. Given that the "level playing field " is one which is established by the socio-economic status of the 27 member states comprising the EU and the UK agrees to match it substantively then it follows that any conflict arising from disputes should be resolved in a forum that is the arbiter for the association representing the overwhelming majority of those states engaged in its trade, the ECJ.
Only an idiot could argue otherwise.
Gove is a doctrinal nutcase, you of course are merely ignorant and not a little stupid.
Last edited by Seekingasylum; 28-04-2020 at 05:20 PM.
Essentially, disputes are resolved under agreed mechanisms incorporated in bi-lateral agreements modelled under WTO guidelines and protocols.
But the UK is a different animal entirely, it is unique and unlikely to be repeated ( no other country would, or could, be that stupid ) and therefore it falls to be treated differently.
Obviously.
As I said before, many times, if the UK fails to agree terms and reverts to WTO status with a tariff regime synonymous with a coon state then it will achieve parity but eventually that will diminish further and 90-95 cents would be the floor.
Obviously.
Are you being obtuse for the sake of it?
Clearly, you fail to understand.
No matter, do you not have some concrete you could lay?
Sausages what about suggesting Benidorm to Chaidee, the transition from pattaya to there won't seem so difficult for him.
OK well we'll find somewhere else. Now WTO is looking extremely likely, Barnier has his hands tied by France so he really cannot do much about the EU red lines poor chap. It really does look like they've backed themselves into a corner. The July deadline for extension is not far off so they don't have long to make their minds up.
Their dogmatism in failing to see there has been no, nor will be, any benefit from Brexit is really quite depressing.
Britain is diminishing itself from one year to the next in the eyes of the world and the puerile attempts by the Brexit loons to bluster their way through the current negotiations merely compounds that perception among the market leaders and their political lobby. Indeed, from a domestic point of view, the COVID shambles has now dispelled what illusion of competence many may have entertained about this dreadful Tory government of the stupid and inept whom they had previously supported.
What a drearily awful prospect there is in store for Blighty over the next four years.
Still, at least one can derive some consolation from the knowledge that many of those 17.6 million who voted for this catastrophe will languish in abject economic misery for years to come. One relishes the sound of their inevitable caterwauling as they bear the scourge of poverty and loss.
The most comforting aspect of this debate is that Barnier, SA and buttplug will have absolutely no impact on the date, the means and the actual departure of the UK from a pitiful, unraveling institution that will never be fit for purpose.
The EU continues to struggle with internecine warfare of historic proportions. Add the muted and appalling response to the covid 19 debacle, and it’s easy to see the collapse of this tawdry monolith.
Europe may survive, but the much vaunted institutions will fall like dominoes, freeing a further 27 countries from the ensuing rapture as SA self immolates.
So - here we go. If you check the progress of some acts going through Parliament, you will not that they are all stil pushing the UK further into the EU.
"But but but boris said we are leaving"? you all cry.
Ahh well children, you make a mistake of believing a single word s tory scum says.
So, here it is the play.
"In order to release you all from lock down you need the vaccine. To ensure you all have this, you need the app or non removable bracelet (you can have a chip if you prefer - we are nice like that). This needs to be done on a European basis though due to blah blah so because of Corona we have to stay in a bit longer, and reverse Brexit. We will have another referendum in 10 years and you can try again if you like. However, of course, you can Brexit, but well, you will remain in lockdown for ever. What would you like to do?"
Referendum - Remain in the EU or Remain locked up.
Which way are you voting?
There's so much unfounded assertion there that it's difficult to know where to start.
Or perhaps 'bollocks' might be a better word.
I get that bit.
Sorry mate, bit early in the day for that, will come back to it later.So, here it is the play.
"In order to release you all from lock down you need the vaccine. To ensure you all have this, you need the app or non removable bracelet (you can have a chip if you prefer - we are nice like that). This needs to be done on a European basis though due to blah blah so because of Corona we have to stay in a bit longer, and reverse Brexit. We will have another referendum in 10 years and you can try again if you like. However, of course, you can Brexit, but well, you will remain in lockdown for ever. What would you like to do?"
Ok, that's on someone's agenda for sure.Referendum - Remain in the EU or Remain locked up.
Which way are you voting?
One doesn't wish to be too personal but reading Chas's increasingly wild and febrile interventions in this debate one can't help but think he is corresponding to a different audience on another thread elsewhere, possibly even on another board ( or indeed on another planet!).
There are currently 25 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 25 guests)