Brexit: give me a positive effect... XIII

[tones]

I wish I could actually spell Bundesverfassungsgericht. I'd like to be able to say it even more.

The Germans abbreviate it to BVerG, which I guess would be "Bay-Fer-Gay". It has the power to strike down any German law, and there is no appeal. It's a bit of a headache in my world:

https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/erneut-verzoegerungen-beim-eu-einheitspatent

It delays the dream of a single Europe-wide patent, with the potential for decreased costs and a single, simplified court procedure.

 

[Nick_G]

You seem to lack any kind of imagination, Colin, or perhaps your head is ruled by your heart in regard of your hatred of the tories.

Give us a reason to like them then. I'm all ears.

 

[Colin L]

From a person far smarter than me, a definitely smarter (and more principled) than ET.

Beware Lord Frost’s ‘legal purism’ line – for it means a disregard for the rule of law and is strategically unwise
by David Allen Green
9th June 2021

There is a new line-to-take.

This line is that a requirement to comply with legal obligations is to be dismissed as 'legal purism'.

This line is being promoted at the moment by Brexit minister Lord Frost in respect of the obligations of the United Kingdom under the Northern Irish Protocol (obligations that, of course, Frost himself negotiated and endorsed).

Frost avers that for the European Union to require the United Kingdom to comply with this obligations is to take a 'purist' approach.

For many years the United Kingdom was protected from the European Union's legal(istic) approach to its engagement with 'third countries'.

As one of the big three member states, it generally got its way internally, and had a number of opt-outs for things it did not like.

Trade agreements were left to the European Commission to negotiate: the United Kingdom just benefitted from the results like a teenager benefiting from the washing and ironing magically being done.

And now we are on the outside - looking in on an international organisation that, more than any other in the world, is a creature of law.

And the European Union takes law very seriously. We are going to have to get used to it.

That said: it is not unusual for a party to a serious agreement to want to re-negotiate terms.

And mocking Frost for wanting to change something he so recently approved can only go so far, and it does not rid us of his perceived concerns.

Perhaps there is a case for the protocol to be amended, or perhaps not.

But, either way, it is a folly for him to approach the problem by dismissing legal obligations as 'purist'.

For, if this is the United Kingdom's approach to law, why would one expect the United Kingdom to abide by any replacement legal obligations?

By attacking the very notion of legal compliance, Frost is not helping the long-term interests of the United Kingdom.

What he is doing is a silly thing, and he should not go there.

The rule of law matters - pure and simple.

 

[Barrymagrec]

Give us a reason to like them then. I'm all ears.

They have generous hearts towards racists and sexual harassment offenders.

 

[Nick_G]

From a person far smarter than me, a definitely smarter than ET.

Beware Lord Frost’s ‘legal purism’ line – for it means a disregard for the rule of law and is strategically unwise
by David Allen Green
9th June 2021

There is a new line-to-take.

This line is that a requirement to comply with legal obligations is to be dismissed as 'legal purism'.

This line is being promoted at the moment by Brexit minister Lord Frost in respect of the obligations of the United Kingdom under the Northern Irish Protocol (obligations that, of course, Frost himself negotiated and endorsed).

Frost avers that for the European Union to require the United Kingdom to comply with this obligations is to take a 'purist' approach.

For many years the United Kingdom was protected from the European Union's legal(istic) approach to its engagement with 'third countries'.

As one of the big three member states, it generally got its way internally, and had a number of opt-outs for things it did not like.

Trade agreements were left to the European Commission to negotiate: the United Kingdom just benefitted from the results like a teenager benefiting from the washing and ironing magically being done.

And now we are on the outside - looking in on an international organisation that, more than any other in the world, is a creature of law.

And the European Union takes law very seriously. We are going to have to get used to it.

That said: it is not unusual for a party to a serious agreement to want to re-negotiate terms.

And mocking Frost for wanting to change something he so recently approved can only go so far, and it does not rid us of his perceived concerns.

Perhaps there is a case for the protocol to be amended, or perhaps not.

But, either way, it is a folly for him to approach the problem by dismissing legal obligations as 'purist'.

For, if this is the United Kingdom's approach to law, why would one expect the United Kingdom to abide by any replacement legal obligations?

By attacking the very notion of legal compliance, Frost is not helping the long-term interests of the United Kingdom.

What he is doing is a silly thing, and he should not go there.

The rule of law matters - pure and simple.

That last line - the rule of law matters. Well, it used to. But now that we are descending into the Endarkenment/CHAOS, it doesn't seem to matter much any more. How many times in the last couple of years have the Tories broken the law, been in breach of ministerial code, or been in contempt of Parliament? A few. And the consequences? There weren't any.

It sets a dangerous precedent and only accelerates the downward spiral towards an authoritarian nightmare.

 

[tonerei]

Irish MEP in the Irish Times today on Frosty Purism.

Difficult to understand how anyone who looks on the facts here can come up with any puerile excuse for the behaviour of Boris and the well padded legal purists sent to negotiate.
But once you have a little look at the type of posts here you get a fair idea of the level of sausage meat that is being thrown around by this Tory gov.



“Being quite honest, I don’t say this lightly but I don’t believe David Frost is a trustworthy interlocutor,” Mr Andrews told the Committee, chaired by Senator Lisa Chambers.

“He is of a cohort that has consistently underplayed the significance of Brexit for the island of Ireland. They have consistently ignored warnings about the effects of it on the island of Ireland and rammed through the Northern Ireland protocol to get Brexit done.

“They are now blaming the EU saying the British did not understand the circumstances in which the protocol was written even though it was drafted in English by those who speak English as a second language.

“None of this is very credible. Unfortunately for Ireland we run the risk of being collateral damage in increased tensions between the EU and the UK.”

 

[SteveS1]

From a person far smarter than me, a definitely smarter (and more principled) than ET.

Beware Lord Frost’s ‘legal purism’ line – for it means a disregard for the rule of law and is strategically unwise
by David Allen Green
9th June 2021

There is a new line-to-take.

This line is that a requirement to comply with legal obligations is to be dismissed as 'legal purism'.

This line is being promoted at the moment by Brexit minister Lord Frost in respect of the obligations of the United Kingdom under the Northern Irish Protocol (obligations that, of course, Frost himself negotiated and endorsed).

Frost avers that for the European Union to require the United Kingdom to comply with this obligations is to take a 'purist' approach.

For many years the United Kingdom was protected from the European Union's legal(istic) approach to its engagement with 'third countries'.

As one of the big three member states, it generally got its way internally, and had a number of opt-outs for things it did not like.

Trade agreements were left to the European Commission to negotiate: the United Kingdom just benefitted from the results like a teenager benefiting from the washing and ironing magically being done.

And now we are on the outside - looking in on an international organisation that, more than any other in the world, is a creature of law.

And the European Union takes law very seriously. We are going to have to get used to it.

That said: it is not unusual for a party to a serious agreement to want to re-negotiate terms.

And mocking Frost for wanting to change something he so recently approved can only go so far, and it does not rid us of his perceived concerns.

Perhaps there is a case for the protocol to be amended, or perhaps not.

But, either way, it is a folly for him to approach the problem by dismissing legal obligations as 'purist'.

For, if this is the United Kingdom's approach to law, why would one expect the United Kingdom to abide by any replacement legal obligations?

By attacking the very notion of legal compliance, Frost is not helping the long-term interests of the United Kingdom.

What he is doing is a silly thing, and he should not go there.

The rule of law matters - pure and simple.

Frost would be out of his depth in a foot spa. Johnson surrounds himself with lightweights in a vain attempt to make himself look better. This is the problem when nobody sensible is prepared to slavishly follow this line.

 

[SteveS1]

if the EU continues to insist upon its deeply stupid and clearly vindictive maximalist interpretation of the protocol.

Or follow what was agreed as it's more commonly known.

 

[Brian]

Or follow what was agreed as it's more commonly known.

What was agreed does not work and will not work.

What do you suggest because following what was agreed will cost lives?

 

[SteveS1]

What do you suggest because following what was agreed will cost lives?

From #1960 earlier today.

Right so what's the solution? Mine would be stop trying to manage the media and start negotiating in better faith, face down a few of the extremist ERG and find a way out of the ridiculous red lines over SM/CU alignment - of all the concerns with EU membership, commonality of standards and rules would have been the least controversial. The moronic insistence of symbolic divergence is damaging more than just the NIP.

A mechanism involving some contribution, both to governing and finance (that could be paid for my sharing the admin) in any future development of the custom and market regs and standards ought to be possible. Divergence is of little value to the UK other than as symbolism. For divergence to be worthwhile there would have to be a far bigger group of countries that currently don't trade with the EU, or are prepared to run two different regimes. It would have to be very big to be worth it to them to do that and they would want a higher price for that.

 

[russel]

What was agreed does not work and will not work.

What do you suggest because following what was agreed will cost lives?

Well Brian it’s a bit like telling someone not to jump off a cliff without a parachute and when they ignore the advice and realize on the way down they are going to get hurt they start blaming gravity.

 

[Brian]

From #1960 earlier today.



A mechanism involving some contribution, both to governing and finance (that could be paid for my sharing the admin) in any future development of the custom and market regs and standards ought to be possible. Divergence is of little value to the UK other than as symbolism. For divergence to be worthwhile there would have to be a far bigger group of countries that currently don't trade with the EU, or are prepared to run two different regimes. It would have to be very big to be worth it to them to do that and they would want a higher price for that.

Thanks, sorry I had missed the post.

 

[Brian]

Well Brian it’s a bit like telling someone not to jump off a cliff without a parachute and when they ignore the advice and realize on the way down they are going to get hurt they start blaming gravity.

That makes no sense at all, it has no relevance to what I said.

I’m talking about the here and now. The reality is a workable agreement needs to be reached, insisting something unworkable must be followed is pushing someone off your cliff.

 

[tonerei]

It doesn't work so something has to be done.

Ok well go back to the EU and say you have seen sense and for the common good and to avoid bloodshed etc the UK will agree to the sensible route of a soft Brexit. We are sorry for playing the fool all this time and ramming home this stupid version of Brexit. We acknowledge you were prepared to give us more time to get things sorted and we threw it back in your face.

There you go very easy.
But they are not the solutions offered here or by Frosty man. Just throw the hands in the air and tell the other side to sort it.

Very simple either they go back and face reality or face what Hugh advises is tariffs on any goods going to the EU.

 

[russel]

That makes no sense at all, it has no relevance to what I said.

I’m talking about the here and now. The reality is a workable agreement needs to be reached, insisting something unworkable must be followed is pushing someone off your cliff.

Unworkable from who’s perspective?, if the U.K. does what it agreed to, it works.

 

[Colin Barron]

In other quite exciting news, battle royal commences as the ECJ files a writ against the German Federal Constitutional Court over which of the two is supreme in regard of EU law. The Bundesverfassungsgericht is the defender of Basic Law, and doesn't recognise the EU as a legal sovereign entity, and thus the primacy of the CJEU. The ECJ has instigated proceedings against Karlsruhe over the Federal court having ruled the ECJ's covid relief bond purchasing and QE of last year in breech of the Treaties, and thus beyond its remit, and unlawful.

This matter goes to the heart of Colin's post of this morning, and the result may well be fundamental to the process of fiscal, and thus political, union.

All is not well aboard EU Titanic, they lose the positive contributing UK and now they take the Germans to court. A compromise will be reached no doubt but to wind up sectors of the largest positive contributor is not a good idea.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...er-alleged-breach-of-eu-law-primacy-principle

 

[Brian]

Unworkable from who’s perspective?, if the U.K. does what it agreed to, it works.

Ah, righto.

 

[John Barry]

What goods do you see as being at risk of being smuggled? Excluding Tesco sausages, which no civilised person would want to eat.

Have you ever tried to take an apple, given to you on an American airline, which you intend to eat on the taxi ride into New York, through USA border control?

$300 fine & might be lucky if they let you in again. It's a rules based construct, and arguing you think it's 'bonkers' will only get you into deeper water....

And now I've broken my promise never to post on these threads

 

[eternumviti]

Give us a reason to like them then. I'm all ears.

It has nothing to do with whether or not anyone likes the tories. Colin's post illustrated very clearly that his prejudices are more about the tories (short term) than the UK's future relationship with the EU and the unique matter of NI (long term).

Irish MEP in the Irish Times today on Frosty Purism.

Difficult to understand how anyone who looks on the facts here can come up with any puerile excuse for the behaviour of Boris and the well padded legal purists sent to negotiate.
But once you have a little look at the type of posts here you get a fair idea of the level of sausage meat that is being thrown around by this Tory gov.



“Being quite honest, I don’t say this lightly but I don’t believe David Frost is a trustworthy interlocutor,” Mr Andrews told the Committee, chaired by Senator Lisa Chambers.

“He is of a cohort that has consistently underplayed the significance of Brexit for the island of Ireland. They have consistently ignored warnings about the effects of it on the island of Ireland and rammed through the Northern Ireland protocol to get Brexit done.

“They are now blaming the EU saying the British did not understand the circumstances in which the protocol was written even though it was drafted in English by those who speak English as a second language.

“None of this is very credible. Unfortunately for Ireland we run the risk of being collateral damage in increased tensions between the EU and the UK.”

No mention of the Varadkar government's substantial part played in weaponising the border question on behalf of its EC masters, instead of continuing the engagement which had been taking place directly with the UK in the search for smart solutions. We all make choices, and we have to bear the consequences of those choices.

Or follow what was agreed as it's more commonly known.

I'm fascinated by this slavish determination. There is no compromise possible in this blinkered world - whatever the cost.

From #1960 earlier today.



A mechanism involving some contribution, both to governing and finance (that could be paid for my sharing the admin) in any future development of the custom and market regs and standards ought to be possible. Divergence is of little value to the UK other than as symbolism. For divergence to be worthwhile there would have to be a far bigger group of countries that currently don't trade with the EU, or are prepared to run two different regimes. It would have to be very big to be worth it to them to do that and they would want a higher price for that.

Then this. Did you write this? It looks like engaged debate.

Well Brian it’s a bit like telling someone not to jump off a cliff without a parachute and when they ignore the advice and realize on the way down they are going to get hurt they start blaming gravity.

Russell, there is absolutely no equivalence. If someone jumps off a cliff, there's no going back. If one party reaches an agreement with another party that has unwelcome consequences, the opportunity remains for the two parties to seek a better alternative.

If this is the level of intellectual engagement on this thread, it really does make me despair.

It doesn't work so something has to be done.

Ok well go back to the EU and say you have seen sense and for the common good and to avoid bloodshed etc the UK will agree to the sensible route of a soft Brexit. We are sorry for playing the fool all this time and ramming home this stupid version of Brexit. We acknowledge you were prepared to give us more time to get things sorted and we threw it back in your face.

There you go very easy.
But they are not the solutions offered here or by Frosty man. Just throw the hands in the air and tell the other side to sort it.

Very simple either they go back and face reality or face what Hugh advises is tariffs on any goods going to the EU.

Looks like tariffs then. It's going to hurt, all round, but everyone will adapt eventually, say in about 50 years.

 

[eternumviti]

Have you ever tried to take an apple, given to you on an American airline, which you intend to eat on the taxi ride into New York, through USA border control?

$300 fine & might be lucky if they let you in again. It's a rules based construct, and arguing you think it's 'bonkers' will only get you into deeper water....

John, its a very long time since America was a province of Great Britain.