Tel. +44 (0)20 7287 4414
Email. info@brugesgroup.com
Tel. +44 (0)20 7287 4414
Email. info@brugesgroup.com
The Bruges Group spearheaded the intellectual battle to win a vote to leave the European Union and, above all, against the emergence of a centralised EU state.
The Bruges Group spearheaded the intellectual battle to win a vote to leave the European Union and, above all, against the emergence of a centralised EU state.
Image
Image
Image
Image

Legal aspects of Brexit as the Brexit deadline of 29th March 2019 draws near

A no deal scenario is by no means a legal or economic vacuum.

After the UK leaves as seems increasingly likely it will be in a similar relationship with the EU as is any country outside of the EU (referred to in the EU Treaties as 'third States' or 'third countries'). 

This research addresses some legal aspects of the Brexit process as it enters the final six months before the deadline for withdrawal.

The EU is an international organisation (although it is much closer to being like a State than other international organisations in terms of the range of EU competences and powers), with legal personality so that it can make treaties and send and receive ambassadors. The EU accepts ambassadors from third States and sends EU ambassadors to them. All EU Member States already send ambassadors to the EU, so the UK ambassador to the EU can simply continue carrying out his or her functions after Brexit, but now as the ambassador of a third State instead of as a Member State of the EU.

The EU has entered into a range of agreements with third countries about trading arrangements with those countries. A high-profile example is the treaty between Canada and the UK, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), which has been concluded recently and is due to be fully ratified shortly. This has been proposed as a possible model for EU-UK relations after Brexit, including as the basis for the EU-UK withdrawal agreement. CETA is not as comprehensive as the EU Treaties themselves, naturally, but it is the most comprehensive of the EU free trade agreements and it should provide a ready basis for EU-UK relations after Brexit with adjustments to reflect that the UK already has a very high degree of alignment with the EU. The term 'Canada+' is quite apt to describe what is legally and economically feasible.

Brexit and to permit current arrangements to continue more or less even without a binding legal framework until a more settled policy is reached that could go further than the WTO minimum both the UK and EU will be bound to accept in any case. So a no deal scenario is by no means a legal or economic vacuum.

After the UK leaves, the relationship of the UK with the EU will be based on international law, as opposed to the 'special' rules of EU law. Thus, in the absence of an agreement under Article 50 TEU, the relationship between the EU and UK concerning trade in goods and services will be based on the law of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), of which both the UK and EU are members as contracting States. 

The 'problem' with the Irish border is easily fixable. It is not necessary to have customs checks at the Irish border if a modern customs infrastructure is implemented as has already been done in the form of TIR carnets to enable customs transit. A Canada-style CETA between the EU and UK deal will not impact on the Irish border question in a negative way, it will actually minimise customs issues since CETA involves the almost complete abolition of customs duties between Canada and the EU.

Dangers to National Security and Individual Freedo...
The Withdrawal Agreement's Protocol is neither a '...
 

Comments 1

Guest - jonathan evans on Sunday, 02 December 2018 13:21

Brexit 2018 - European 1848 “You never actually own the country: You merely look after it for the next generation”.
1918 - Swiss General Strike, Spanish Flu, German Humiliation at Versailles?

It's a pity the people have come to believe they are better without a "homeland" country and would rather give allegiance to an unknown, unelected autocracy.

The Brexit situation is incompetence beyond belief but ignorance and arrogance is never the best mix of skills to deploy. It certainly was not a negotiation.
The idea a Nation State cannot recover its sovereignty from a collective agreement with a group of other Nation States accepts the EU is, in fact, a take-over.
This Brexit capitulation could be considered analogous to the one-sided negotiation of the Treaty of Versailles and will likely have similar ramifications to the UK competitiveness, economy and independence.
In or out, it is the “EU State” that must be realigned with the realities of the global economy and European societal stability.
Ask what the EU provides the nationals of each Nation State? - Success in the societal and financial security for each Nation or just a seemingly totalitarian bureaucracy serving only its own existence?

Ask the mass of young people of the southern States of Europe who are unable to find a career if the EU has been a success. Ask if they see the legacy of the socialisation of a generation of debt caused by fictional growth, the burden of student debt, of unobtainable homes, is a success. Ask if they believe they still have the ability to change government at the 'whim' of the people; if they still have democracy. Ask if they believe the can elect intelligent, experienced, socially motivated representatives.

The EU bureaucracy must be culled to a minimum for an exchange for innovation, knowledge transfer and collaboration in trade and social stability. No European Flag of State. No pictures of the unelected governors.

It must act under the Nation States for the people of each European Country; people who remain Nationals of their founding homeland; these are not European citizens but the peoples of Europe.

Great Britain must play its leading part in this realignment: If not we risk a return to the unrest of 1848 and 1918.
Is this the centenary of European salvation remembered?
On the 11/11th did the world need to listen to the improper use of a day of reverence of two world wars, the affront by a globalist corporate stooge who has usurped a once proud French Nation?
Nationalism, they say, is the enemy of patriotism; an odd view of an antonym?
Not so long ago, in the fields, in the towns, the clouds, and on the beaches, the intelligence of young blood flowed.

Why sacrifice the culture of a thousand years, of innovation, of societal stability, of wealth, the future generation, only to surrender to a corporatocracy takeover.

The corporate cause of steel and wheat has become the Nations’ defeat.
What Frankenstein did the Nations States’ create?

An “EU State”; with its pictures of flag and emperor, EU run military and rule of law supreme?

Suffrage is lost under such yoke: no longer the freedom of dissent, no more freedom to vote, no more the whim of the people to decide their fate.
When did we desire to surrender to this unelected autocracy?

No, this Brexit has not been a negotiation. It's a capitulation designed to forever stymie the UK competitiveness, personal freedoms, and a centre for future foreign direct investment in business and innovation.

Any negotiation commences on the basis of both parties want an agreement. It requires clarity of the criteria you want to be met and an understanding of what one expects the corresponding party wants. It accepts there must be the basis for a mutually beneficial outcome.

What did the EU want? On whose behalf was the EU negotiating? Which of the Nation States and for what benefit?

What benefit does the EU provide the UK? Is this Free Trade? Really? Of course, mutually beneficial trade exchange between UK and European markets is critical. This is true between all countries around the world; we all need competitive trading and one that benefits from innovation and efficiency in cross-border logistics and security.

The "UK Plc" depends upon the innovation, competitiveness, and efficiency of UK's businesses. But, this demands control on the economy and societal stability; control the EU seeks to subvert.

So, Brexit is not about insurmountable problems in logistics or the Irish border; ports operate in other parts of the world without being in the EU single market, visit Switzerland's many crossings with EU, assess the minimal value of trade transported across Ireland.

Why has the UK been, “…trying very hard, with many hours, trying very hard”, as Ms May says? Has the EU been, “Trying very hard”?
Will the German tax-payers be happy to pick up the lost of UK payments to the EU?
Why has the UK “negotiated” with this "Representative" Body, an institution we fund, from a position of weakness?
Why does anyone believe that the UK, France, Spain, Italy, Germany etc cannot survive as an independent Nation State?

Is the UK so unique it cannot act as many Nations do and who trade under WTO or under mutually better terms agreed with the European States?
Why does anyone accept there is an “EU State” with which we need to be subservient if we are to be able to trade?

Why pay €40bn++ for the pleasure of the humiliating destruction of UK’s competitiveness and loss of sovereignty? One can only wonder if the Government’s ‘negotiating’ team were, in fact, working for the EU.

Of course, the UK is an integral community of the people of Europe. But Europe is not a 'country'.
And, it is not that the EU should be blamed for Brexit. It is that as the "EU State" is being extended under an autocratic, unelected, and unaccountable rule.

Moreover, the EU State does not deliver wealth and stability to all the people of Europe, especially in the southern Countries (e.g. Italy, Spain, Greece).

A stable society is founded on the people's will and their belief that their needs at a local level are properly represented by the governing body they elect; a body they can call-out if it does not enact what the people want and one they can remove at their whim.

The EU, as it is being deployed, is no longer fit for this purpose. Governing 300m+ people with differing societal, economic and cultural traits cannot be sustainable without proper representation for all the people and this has never proved a viable democratic model. Indeed, it turns into a totalitarian rule focused on its own existence.

The real concern with the aim of the people's vote for Brexit is that UK politicians are not acting under some intelligent Machiavellian strategy to remain in the EU under the worse terms of any other Nation State (inc. USA, Canada, Switzerland, Norway, or India and China..).

No, it is the reality that all our ‘professional’ inexperienced politicians are so incompetent and duplicitous that the un-elected EU bureaucrats needn’t get out of bed to get their way; we can only be embarrassed.

...Dancing in the dark has a new meaning…
Italians should take note

Brexit 2018 - European 1848 “You never actually own the country: You merely look after it for the next generation”. 1918 - Swiss General Strike, Spanish Flu, German Humiliation at Versailles? It's a pity the people have come to believe they are better without a "homeland" country and would rather give allegiance to an unknown, unelected autocracy. The Brexit situation is incompetence beyond belief but ignorance and arrogance is never the best mix of skills to deploy. It certainly was not a negotiation. The idea a Nation State cannot recover its sovereignty from a collective agreement with a group of other Nation States accepts the EU is, in fact, a take-over. This Brexit capitulation could be considered analogous to the one-sided negotiation of the Treaty of Versailles and will likely have similar ramifications to the UK competitiveness, economy and independence. In or out, it is the “EU State” that must be realigned with the realities of the global economy and European societal stability. Ask what the EU provides the nationals of each Nation State? - Success in the societal and financial security for each Nation or just a seemingly totalitarian bureaucracy serving only its own existence? Ask the mass of young people of the southern States of Europe who are unable to find a career if the EU has been a success. Ask if they see the legacy of the socialisation of a generation of debt caused by fictional growth, the burden of student debt, of unobtainable homes, is a success. Ask if they believe they still have the ability to change government at the 'whim' of the people; if they still have democracy. Ask if they believe the can elect intelligent, experienced, socially motivated representatives. The EU bureaucracy must be culled to a minimum for an exchange for innovation, knowledge transfer and collaboration in trade and social stability. No European Flag of State. No pictures of the unelected governors. It must act under the Nation States for the people of each European Country; people who remain Nationals of their founding homeland; these are not European citizens but the peoples of Europe. Great Britain must play its leading part in this realignment: If not we risk a return to the unrest of 1848 and 1918. Is this the centenary of European salvation remembered? On the 11/11th did the world need to listen to the improper use of a day of reverence of two world wars, the affront by a globalist corporate stooge who has usurped a once proud French Nation? Nationalism, they say, is the enemy of patriotism; an odd view of an antonym? Not so long ago, in the fields, in the towns, the clouds, and on the beaches, the intelligence of young blood flowed. Why sacrifice the culture of a thousand years, of innovation, of societal stability, of wealth, the future generation, only to surrender to a corporatocracy takeover. The corporate cause of steel and wheat has become the Nations’ defeat. What Frankenstein did the Nations States’ create? An “EU State”; with its pictures of flag and emperor, EU run military and rule of law supreme? Suffrage is lost under such yoke: no longer the freedom of dissent, no more freedom to vote, no more the whim of the people to decide their fate. When did we desire to surrender to this unelected autocracy? No, this Brexit has not been a negotiation. It's a capitulation designed to forever stymie the UK competitiveness, personal freedoms, and a centre for future foreign direct investment in business and innovation. Any negotiation commences on the basis of both parties want an agreement. It requires clarity of the criteria you want to be met and an understanding of what one expects the corresponding party wants. It accepts there must be the basis for a mutually beneficial outcome. What did the EU want? On whose behalf was the EU negotiating? Which of the Nation States and for what benefit? What benefit does the EU provide the UK? Is this Free Trade? Really? Of course, mutually beneficial trade exchange between UK and European markets is critical. This is true between all countries around the world; we all need competitive trading and one that benefits from innovation and efficiency in cross-border logistics and security. The "UK Plc" depends upon the innovation, competitiveness, and efficiency of UK's businesses. But, this demands control on the economy and societal stability; control the EU seeks to subvert. So, Brexit is not about insurmountable problems in logistics or the Irish border; ports operate in other parts of the world without being in the EU single market, visit Switzerland's many crossings with EU, assess the minimal value of trade transported across Ireland. Why has the UK been, “…trying very hard, with many hours, trying very hard”, as Ms May says? Has the EU been, “Trying very hard”? Will the German tax-payers be happy to pick up the lost of UK payments to the EU? Why has the UK “negotiated” with this "Representative" Body, an institution we fund, from a position of weakness? Why does anyone believe that the UK, France, Spain, Italy, Germany etc cannot survive as an independent Nation State? Is the UK so unique it cannot act as many Nations do and who trade under WTO or under mutually better terms agreed with the European States? Why does anyone accept there is an “EU State” with which we need to be subservient if we are to be able to trade? Why pay €40bn++ for the pleasure of the humiliating destruction of UK’s competitiveness and loss of sovereignty? One can only wonder if the Government’s ‘negotiating’ team were, in fact, working for the EU. Of course, the UK is an integral community of the people of Europe. But Europe is not a 'country'. And, it is not that the EU should be blamed for Brexit. It is that as the "EU State" is being extended under an autocratic, unelected, and unaccountable rule. Moreover, the EU State does not deliver wealth and stability to all the people of Europe, especially in the southern Countries (e.g. Italy, Spain, Greece). A stable society is founded on the people's will and their belief that their needs at a local level are properly represented by the governing body they elect; a body they can call-out if it does not enact what the people want and one they can remove at their whim. The EU, as it is being deployed, is no longer fit for this purpose. Governing 300m+ people with differing societal, economic and cultural traits cannot be sustainable without proper representation for all the people and this has never proved a viable democratic model. Indeed, it turns into a totalitarian rule focused on its own existence. The real concern with the aim of the people's vote for Brexit is that UK politicians are not acting under some intelligent Machiavellian strategy to remain in the EU under the worse terms of any other Nation State (inc. USA, Canada, Switzerland, Norway, or India and China..). No, it is the reality that all our ‘professional’ inexperienced politicians are so incompetent and duplicitous that the un-elected EU bureaucrats needn’t get out of bed to get their way; we can only be embarrassed. ...Dancing in the dark has a new meaning… Italians should take note
Already Registered? Login Here
Guest
Tuesday, 18 June 2019
Copyright ©1989-2019 The Bruges Group. All Rights Reserved.
Site designed by WA Designs