OT: A QC's opinion of the chequers 'plan'

Full text:
https://briefingsforbrexit.com/the-chequers-conclusion-a-memorandum-by-martin-howe-qc/
Summary:
* The Chequers proposals would involve the permanent continuation in the UK of all EU laws which relate to goods, their composition, their packaging, how they are tested etc etc in order to enable goods to cross the UK/EU border without controls. All goods manufactured in the UK for the UK domestic market, or imported from non-EU countries, would be permanently subject to these laws.
* There would be a general obligation to alter these laws in future whenever the EU alters its own laws, with a mechanism for Parliament to block such changes which is probably theoretical rather than practical.
* This would put the EU in a position to fashion its rules relating to goods so as to further the interests of continental producers against UK competitors, when we will have no right to vote on those rules.
* The obligation to follow the EU rulebook for goods would gravely impair our ability to conduct an independent trade policy. In particular, it will prevent us from including Mutual Recognition Agreements for goods in trade treaties and this is likely to destroy the prospect of successfully achieving meaningful agreements with some of the prime candidates such as the USA and Australia.
* The ECJ jurisdiction proposals would put us in the same position as Moldova, an applicant/supplicant state which is willing to accept binding ECJ rulings on the conformity of its laws with EU law as part of the preparations for its accession. Quite why this is thought to be a suitable model for a country which has left the EU and is the 5th largest economy in the world is unclear. The supremacy of the UK courts over laws in the UK would not be restored, contrary to the claim made in para 6(g) of the Chequers statement.
* The new “Facilitated Customs Arrangement” seeks to solve one of the problems of the NCP (collection of EU level tariffs with rebate system on goods destined for the UK market) by imposing on UK-destined goods the administrative burdens of a tracking system. This would (1) increase the likelihood of this system being found in breach of the national treatment principle in GATT Art.III, and (2) apparently extend yet further the timescale for implementation of this Heath Robinson system, locking the UK in the mean time into the EU’s common external tariff, preventing the electorate from benefiting from Brexit in time for the next General Election.
* However, there is no indication at least from what has been made public that the FCA has solved or alleviated any of the other problems of the NCP proposal. It is not clear how the problem of rules of origin controls on UK manufactured goods imported into the EU will be addressed in the absence of customs controls on the UK/EU border, or how this issue can be solved in compliance with WTO rules.
* These proposals will not be accepted by the EU since in their perception they amount to unacceptable “cherry picking” of the “benefits” of the single market. However the EU is unlikely to reject the UK’s position outright, but will instead keep the UK inside a “lobster pot” where it negotiates rather than prepaing for no-deal. When the negotiation time runs down, the EU will then demand huge last minute concessions in return for not taking away the transition period.
* These proposals therefore lead directly to a worst-of-all-worlds “Black Hole” Brexit where the UK is stuck permanently as a vassal state in the EU’s legal and regulatory tar-pit, still has to obey EU laws and ECJ rulings across vast areas, cannot develop an effective international trade policy or adapt our economy to take advantage of the freedoms of Brexit, and has lost its vote and treaty veto rights as an EU Member State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Remoaners accuse brexiteers of 'not knowing what they voted for'
The truth content of that statement is indecidable.
But I, and other brexiteers, know damn well what we did NOT vote for, and that is it, right there.
--
“A leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader,
who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/07/2018 05:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Undeniable? Indeterminable? Or Unknowable? Anyway, it is pretty much known that most wanted a 'kingdom' of some sort. An abstract construct driven by a range of motives, incapable of realisation. Like in a fairy tale.

I couldn't comment - I've nothing approaching the technical expertise. And if I had I wouldn't waste it trying to interpret what looked to me (from May's* speech) like a proposal that Barnier would kick into touch at frist glance. Although his '80% agreed' statement this morning is interesting . . .
* post Johnson resignation white paper speech - she sounded much like somebody who knows exactly how this is going to play out.
--
Cheers, Rob

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/07/18 08:06, RJH wrote:

Indecidable.

Oh dear, Use of the construct 'it is pretty much known' implies that in fact its completely the opposite. Troll technique 147. Use constraucts that assert and are unchallengeable, but untrue. .
An abstract construct

No that is the EU, dear - a 'kingdom' of some sort. An abstract construct driven by a range of motives, incapable of realisation. Like in a fairy tale.
Mama Merkels Kindergarten where we all play Jeux sans frontieres, live in cardboard eco boxes, and do what the big boys and girls tell us.

And yet you do, endlessly.

Why wouldn't you?
Arent you the person who wants to know what brexit means?
Well here is a well written piece explaining exactly what THIS particular flavour of brexit means, and you put your fingers in your ears..

--
“Progress is precisely that which rules and regulations did not foresee,”

– Ludwig von Mises
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

< snipped 70 lines of QC's opinion >
There was never any possibility of the EU agreeing to any of that in the first place.
That will be ?500 please.
I accept Paypal.
michael adams
...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05:32 11 Jul 2018, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

You can imagine you'll get a Ferrari if you like but, wake up. it wasn't on offer. The referendum wasn't run by the tooth fairy granting all wishes.
The referendum was only about this:
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I assume you voted. If so, you must have had some idea what "remain" meant, and what "leave" meant. Perhaps you could tell us what those ideas were.
--
The truth of the matter is that we Scots have always been more divided amongst
ourselves than pitted against the English. Scottish history before the Union of
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11:58 11 Jul 2018, Tim Streater wrote:

It's simple.
"remain" = remain a member of the European Union "leave" = leave the European Union
Some voters thought they were voting for ?350 million per week but they were mistaken.
Others thought they were voting to prohibit the UK being a member of a free trade area or a customs union but they too were mistaken.
Some thought they were voting to deport all recent migrants and they too were mistaken.
Some thought they were voting to prevent the UK ever working closely with the EU and they again were mistaken.
Some thought the UK would walk away with no deal but they expected too much.
Others thought there wouldn't be a $40 billion severence payment but they didn't thnk it through.
And so on.
None of these were in the referendum.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The ones who thought we will be teleported back to 1972 however, are likley to get their wish.
--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/07/18 12:42, Graham. wrote:

How is it that whenever its a truly stupid bigoted and emotional remark, its made by a remoaner?
I conclude that these people are not in touch with reality: Their source of information on what poeole who voted brexit wanted is entirely fictional as handed down by the BBC, the Guardian and the project fear team.
I think its a fortunate thing that they are in a minority.
A majority who believe everything they are told without question is no longer fit to survive as a culture.
--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, 11 July 2018 12:42:06 UTC+1, Graham. wrote:

actually it was 1993 when we 'joined the EU' before that we were in the EEC , so those that want to leave the EU doesn't mean they want to leave the EE C too.
But then who can tell the difference between the EEC and the EU ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bet they don't, if only because the WTO rules are now nothing like what the GATT was then.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ah Brexit means Brexit

Only remainers

Really? Who thought that apart from remainers.

Only the closet racist remainers thought that.

Not even remainers thought that.

"Could" not "would".

There was no need for that. Apparently Davies did not want to accept the EUs sequence of negotiations but No 10 (I specifically do not say May) overruled him. Just what have we got in return?

All were in the referendum otherwise people couldn't have thought that was what they were voting for.
--
bert

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

OK. Now tell me what remaining in the EU would actually mean (for the UK), and what leaving it would actually mean (for the UK).
--
Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it, and Hell
where they already have it.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18:14 11 Jul 2018, Tim Streater wrote:

Leaving means we would cease to be a member and, if we so chose, we could enter into all the arrangements and agreements we had before and more if we wanted although that is up to Parliament.
No binding promises were given to the electorate.
When Leave won the referendum, in a failure of comprehension, many thought all the dreamy nonsense mentioned in the campaign would now get delivered. I listed some of them but the government was not consulting the electorate about what hopes it had about any of these.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes. I explained elsewhere about the EU Withdrawal Bill acting as a Reception Statute, and I agree that once having left, we can vary the received law and enter new arrangements and agreements later if we wish to. Things like CERN are unaffected, of course.

No reason it should; no part of the Remain or Leave campaigns constitutes the Government, and if people wish a promise or suggestion to be taken up they have to campaign for it in the usual way.
You didn't mention what you saw as remaining in the EU would mean. To me it meant ever closer union, more interference from Brussels, but most of all that such interference would be by an unelected oligarchy calling itself the "EU Commission". Having had some slight exposure to the innards of that during my working life, I didn't like the look of it. There was arrogance even from the lackeys I had to deal with.
--
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Indeed ! There's nothing more irritating in life, than arrogant lackeys !
I couldn't agree more.
Far better to stick with our far more deferential cap-doffing lackeys as one comes across, back here in the UK.
What possibly better reason could there be than this, to leave the EU ? Even if it means destroying the UK economy in the process.
Say goodbye to arrogant lackeys forever !
You know it makes sense !
michael adams
...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/07/2018 19:15, pamela wrote:
8<

No, its up to the others we want to join with. Parliament can only negotiate and may get the/an agreement. We can't actually send a fleet out and force people to enter into anything with us, like we can't nuke them unless we want to die too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 16:17 12 Jul 2018, dennis@home wrote:

s/enter/attempt to enter/
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wrong given they are all WTO signatorys.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/07/2018 20:07, Rod Speed wrote:

Idiot, we don't trade with the other EU countries under WTO rules ATM.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.