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

The Natural Philosopher · 2018-07-11T04:32:36+00:00

Full text: 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 ...

Jul 11, 2018 50 Replies

Rate this thread:

Saved reading

T i m 8 years ago

Nor me (nor anyone I know, irrespective of how they voted).

However and under the circumstances at the time, we had a better idea that the status quo would be retained, at least beyond the time it would take to actually leave the EU.

Not unreasonable.

Yup. ;-(

We don't know what we are actually going to get yet do we?

I wonder if *they* actually consider that they have won?

If only even one of them could explain what minimum they would still consider 'a win'? [1]

(At least that would be one leavers pov, even if it didn't match any others).

Cheers, T i m

[1] I guess for them to do that they would risk exposing all their misunderstandings (and worse) about what actually impacts them. ;-(

Vote

Dave Plowman (News) 8 years ago

Yes - but he and some others on here are rather more than just rabid Brexiteers. Other agendas too.

I have a good pal who is very anti EU. But has his own far better reasons than any I read on here from the likes of Turnip and Doom. And certainly enough to make me think hard about how I'd vote.

Vote

michael adams 8 years ago

Presumably anyone who voted "remain" expected remain to win.

But if remain was seen to have won, then how could the British Government force any more concessions out of anyone ?

michael adams

...

Vote

harry 8 years ago

If we remain, things will not stay the same. There will be increasing demands for money for a start.

Vote

Sam 8 years ago

What are the reasons?

Vote

michael adams 8 years ago

Will be ?

I was talking about remaining as a result of "remain" having won the referendum two years ago.

Not as a result of our now having to crawl on our hands and knees and begging to be allowed to stay in.

michael adams

...

Vote

Dave Plowman (News) 8 years ago

He was a fairly high up civil servant and quite a bit of it on the limits of my comprehension. But have no wish to give the idiot Brexiteers on here some decent reasons, since they can't provide any themselves.

Vote

pamela 8 years ago

s/enter/attempt to enter/

Vote

Cursitor Doom 8 years ago

martin-howe-qc/

So... we'd become a vassal state of the EU, then? No surprise there! Not with old 'Theresa the Appeaser' running the show. :(

Vote

dennis 8 years ago

because any increase in the vote to leave would threaten the status quo.

Vote

T i m 8 years ago

What is it with this suggestion that it's only threats that can get things moving?

Like I said, if it was something that all the member states wanted and agreed on, then the 'EU' would be obliged to rubber stamp it. Or we all pull out of it and create a new one that will (but the key there being 'we all').

Cheers, T i m

Vote