How it Works4 mins ago
Overview Of Brexit Legal
The overview of the legal document for Brexit says...
The UK would be "indefinitely committed" to EU customs rules if Brexit trade talks broke down, the chief law officer has said....... That’s not an insentive to get a trade deal by the EU is it and of course the weak UK government will be falling over themselves and get the worst deal possible.
The attorney general said it was a "calculated risk" and "I do not believe we will be trapped in it permanently"...... He obviously has more faith in the EU than most people I know.
https:/
The UK would be "indefinitely committed" to EU customs rules if Brexit trade talks broke down, the chief law officer has said....... That’s not an insentive to get a trade deal by the EU is it and of course the weak UK government will be falling over themselves and get the worst deal possible.
The attorney general said it was a "calculated risk" and "I do not believe we will be trapped in it permanently"...... He obviously has more faith in the EU than most people I know.
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by cassa333. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There is no "legal opinion" needed. If you read the relevant parts of the "agreement" (i.e. what the EU has told the UK it is having) there is no doubt that the deal ties the UK to the EU's customs union and single market regulations unless and until the EU decides that there is something else they are prepared to concede to. Since their aim is to tie us to their regulations (because to do otherwise would mean we are free to gain an advantage over the EU27) they have no incentive whatsoever to make any progress towards any other arrangement. If our MPs accede to this agreement they will shackle the UK to the EU in perpetuity - even more perpetuity than if we do not leave at all (when we would still have A50 at our disposal). Anyone suggesting otherwise is telling porkies.
It depends how you view “being committed to EU customs rules”: as I said elsewhere, economically that is good for the UK and not necessarily good for the EU. The wording makes it sound like the opposite. But from a sovereignty point of view of course it’s bad and it means NI being different from the rest of the U.K. That particularity irks the DUP of course, who otherwise are quite happy for there to be differences so long as they only relate to things like abortion :-)
I think the reason the attorney general didn’t want the full text published is probably because there are some frank and less than flattering things said about some of the European partners. Reading neteeen the lines of what was said anyway. Otherwise I can see no reason not to publish it as all the stuff about the “backstop” is probably known anyway.
Yes it is all known, as I said earlier. What was not known is the A-G's opinion of the "risk" involved (i.e. the risk that it will never end). He believes that he EU has no more wish to see it permanent than the UK. Two things spring to mind:
1. The EU has every reason to see it permanent because it ties us to the Customs Union and prevents us from taking advantage of the freedom to negotiate trade deals that Brexit offers.
2. There are many in the UK (including Mrs May) who I'm quite sure would love to see it permanent because it effectively continues a large aspect of our membership which they never wanted us to relinquish anyway.
1. The EU has every reason to see it permanent because it ties us to the Customs Union and prevents us from taking advantage of the freedom to negotiate trade deals that Brexit offers.
2. There are many in the UK (including Mrs May) who I'm quite sure would love to see it permanent because it effectively continues a large aspect of our membership which they never wanted us to relinquish anyway.
Why would EU want to “tie us to the customs union?” It’s not a state of affairs that suits them really as it gives us free access to the single market while not being subject to open borders.
The backstop is only there because no one has come up with a solution to the Irish border. That is the only reason that clause is in there but it’s quite an important reason. Being in the customs union benefits us economically, however it’s an issue if you believe that the U.K. needs to break free of the EU. But the issue of what to do about the border is not one that seems to have a solution and THAT’S the thing that worries people because now with the agreement people have been forced finally to see the consequences.
The backstop is only there because no one has come up with a solution to the Irish border. That is the only reason that clause is in there but it’s quite an important reason. Being in the customs union benefits us economically, however it’s an issue if you believe that the U.K. needs to break free of the EU. But the issue of what to do about the border is not one that seems to have a solution and THAT’S the thing that worries people because now with the agreement people have been forced finally to see the consequences.
“Being in the customs union benefits us economically,…”
No it does not. It compels us to collect tariffs (which we might not choose to impose) and remit 80% of the sums collected to the EU. At the same time it prevents us negotiating trading arrangements which may suit us but which may never be agreed by the EU because they do not suit some or all of the other 27 members. Whatever “trade offs” must be agreed to secure those deals they will be the ones which suit us and not Poland or Bulgaria (for example).
As I repeatedly contend (as which seems to be dismissed even when an MP voiced the same contention in Parliament) the Irish border is a non-issue. Neither the UK nor Ireland has any intention whatsoever of enforcing a hard border on the island however the UK leaves the EU. The matter has simply been weaponised by the EU to secure their demands. More than 70% of the trade across the Irish border comes from small businesses and there are schemes already in operation across the EU that allow frictionless trade between the EU and elsewhere. Less than 2% of goods arriving in the UK from non-EU countries (and hence into the EU) are physically checked and to suggest that a solution cannot be found during the “transition period” (i.e. the period beyond next March when the UK remains in the UK in all but name) is simply laughable. The idea that a “backstop”, from which the UK cannot unilaterally escape is utterly ridiculous.
I don’t know what is wrong with this country. It has the opportunity to set off in a different direction, make closer trading ties with countries where most of our economic growth will be found whilst retaining a sensible trading arrangement with Europe that does not involve it succumbing to ridiculous almost religious political dogma. Instead its politicians are scared witless to take that decision and prefer to become hopelessly bound up in the minutiae of trading arrangements as if the very trade involved depends on it. Far too much emphasis has been placed on trade and commerce in the last two years and it’s about time politicians looked beyond the trees to discover the woods.
As an aside it is interesting that the ECJ’s “advocate general” should voice his opinion on A50 whilst his court is hearing a case on the very issue. In the UK if a Supreme Court member voiced an opinion on a matter whilst it was being heard the parties could quite rightly suggest that such a move was prejudicial to the outcome. But then of court the ECJ never did act in an impartial manner.
No it does not. It compels us to collect tariffs (which we might not choose to impose) and remit 80% of the sums collected to the EU. At the same time it prevents us negotiating trading arrangements which may suit us but which may never be agreed by the EU because they do not suit some or all of the other 27 members. Whatever “trade offs” must be agreed to secure those deals they will be the ones which suit us and not Poland or Bulgaria (for example).
As I repeatedly contend (as which seems to be dismissed even when an MP voiced the same contention in Parliament) the Irish border is a non-issue. Neither the UK nor Ireland has any intention whatsoever of enforcing a hard border on the island however the UK leaves the EU. The matter has simply been weaponised by the EU to secure their demands. More than 70% of the trade across the Irish border comes from small businesses and there are schemes already in operation across the EU that allow frictionless trade between the EU and elsewhere. Less than 2% of goods arriving in the UK from non-EU countries (and hence into the EU) are physically checked and to suggest that a solution cannot be found during the “transition period” (i.e. the period beyond next March when the UK remains in the UK in all but name) is simply laughable. The idea that a “backstop”, from which the UK cannot unilaterally escape is utterly ridiculous.
I don’t know what is wrong with this country. It has the opportunity to set off in a different direction, make closer trading ties with countries where most of our economic growth will be found whilst retaining a sensible trading arrangement with Europe that does not involve it succumbing to ridiculous almost religious political dogma. Instead its politicians are scared witless to take that decision and prefer to become hopelessly bound up in the minutiae of trading arrangements as if the very trade involved depends on it. Far too much emphasis has been placed on trade and commerce in the last two years and it’s about time politicians looked beyond the trees to discover the woods.
As an aside it is interesting that the ECJ’s “advocate general” should voice his opinion on A50 whilst his court is hearing a case on the very issue. In the UK if a Supreme Court member voiced an opinion on a matter whilst it was being heard the parties could quite rightly suggest that such a move was prejudicial to the outcome. But then of court the ECJ never did act in an impartial manner.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank18 mins ago
Is This Man A Good Pick For Secretary Of...
News26 mins ago
Crime Cases Still Using Cassettes
Technology60 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.