Britain’s relationship with the EU post Brexit.

[Peter Kelford]

Will the end of the UK's EU transition period be put on hold whilst COVID19 shuts down any official interest in negotiating a trading agreement?

He says no.

 

[najaB]

He says no.

For now.

 

[Howardh]

He says no.

So that's a yes then.

 

[DerekC]

I think the fundamental difference between those who voted to leave and those who voted to remain is simply that Leavers want to see the UK electorate elect its government and for that government to be able to act without outside political influence. I don't know of any other major nation which is subject to widespread legislation framed and enacted by a foreign institution. Nor do I know of any who are subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign court to settle everyday disputes. That difference is intractable and that's why a referendum was necessary.

I appreciate that it's pointless discussing it because your view is fixed and immovable, but the EU is/was not "foreign". We were part of it and exercised considerable influence on its policies and legislation.

 

[jon0844]

I appreciate that it's pointless discussing it because your view is fixed and immovable, but the EU is/was not "foreign". We were part of it and exercised considerable influence on its policies and legislation.

Indeed, we were one of the most powerful members having been there from the start. If we have people here who like to think of us restoring the great British Empire, it seems odd to walk away from something where we had so much say and control. Isn't that what leavers wanted?

 

[AM9]

Indeed, we were one of the most powerful members having been there from the start. If we have people here who like to think of us restoring the great British Empire, it seems odd to walk away from something where we had so much say and control. Isn't that what leavers wanted?

It depends on what you mean by "the start". The EEC was created by the Treaty of Rome in 1957. We joined the EEC in 1972. That's 15 years after the start.
'.

 

[jon0844]

I think most people are looking at the early 1990s.

 

[Enthusiast]

It depends on what you mean by "the start". We joined the EEC in 1972. The EEC was created by the Treaty of Rome in 1957. That's 15 years after the start.
'.

Indeed. Older readers may recall the difficulties the UK had in joining, particularly the dogged resistance presented by one President Charles de Gaulle.

As for the "influence" we have had over its proceedings, I'm speechless! Despite its alleged "senior membership" (and ignoring the six monthly rotating "Buggins Turn" presidency of the EU Council which was ended with the Treaty of Lisbon) there have been only two UK politicians to hold a senior EU post and they were Roy Jenkins who was President of the European Commission from 1977 to 1980 and Henry Plumb who served as President of the EU Parliament from 1987-89. Since 1958 there have been 13 different people covering 17 terms of the Presidency of the EU Council. They were 2 Germans (one of whom served two terms) , 2 Italians, 2 Dutch, 1 French (who served three terms), 1 Portuguese (who served two terms), 1 Belgian, incredibly three from Luxembourg (population slightly less than any two of the ten largest London Boroughs) and of course Mr Jenkins. Since 2009 the Presidency of the European Council has been a permanent post. None of the three incumbents were from the UK. When looking at Presidents of the EU Parliament the UK has fared scarcely better. Just one incumbent of that post - Henry Plumb as mentioned above. Meanwhile there have been 6 Germans, 5 Italians, 5 French, 3 Spaniards, 2 Dutch, an Irishman, a Pole and (naturally) one from Luxembourg. If the UK has wielded so much influence over EU affairs why have only two out of 41 people appointed to the top posts in almost 50 years been from the UK? For the first nine years of our membership there were only nine members and no more than 12 by 1986. But in all that time only one UK politician made it to the top table. In that same time 5 French politicians held top posts, 4 Italian, 3 each from Germany, Belgium and Holland and 2 from Luxembourg (obviously).

If we have people here who like to think of us restoring the great British Empire, it seems odd to walk away from something where we had so much say and control. Isn't that what leavers wanted?

See above. Additionally, I don't know any Leavers who have visions of restoring the British Empire. Been there. Done that. Got the T-shirt (and I might add got castigated for our trouble - but that's another argument);

 

[najaB]

Despite its alleged "senior membership" (and ignoring the six monthly rotating "Buggins Turn" presidency of the EU Council which was ended with the Treaty of Lisbon) there have been only two UK politicians to hold a senior EU post and they were Roy Jenkins who was President of the European Commission from 1977 to 1980 and Henry Plumb who served as President of the EU Parliament from 1987-89.

Like most governments, the head/chair/president/etc. isn't where the real influence lies. It lies in committee, where the UK had significant sway. I can't find the source at the moment to give the exact figure, but the vast majority of EU rule-making was in line with the UK's position at the committee stage.

 

[Peter Kelford]

I appreciate that it's pointless discussing it because your view is fixed and immovable, but the EU is/was not "foreign". We were part of it and exercised considerable influence on its policies and legislation.

We have long been playing an important role in the EU. There were three countries who had to effectively give their consent for something to become law, namely France, Germany and the UK. The UK voluntarily gave up their veto.

 

[furnessvale]

We have long been playing an important role in the EU. There were three countries who had to effectively give their consent for something to become law, namely France, Germany and the UK. The UK voluntarily gave up their veto.

Certain UK politicians gave up the veto without reference to the people, and now having consulted the people, we are taking it back.

 

[najaB]

Certain UK politicians gave up the veto without reference to the people, and now having consulted the people, we are taking it back.

That makes zero sense. If you're not in the club you don't have a vote, never mind a veto.

 

[Esker-pades]

Certain UK politicians gave up the veto without reference to the people, and now having consulted the people, we are taking it back.

No we're not. We now have 0 influence on EU law. Given our proximety to the EU, and how close a relationship we have with it and member states, we will be affected by EU law whether in or not.

 

[Peter Kelford]

That makes zero sense. If you're not in the club you don't have a vote, never mind a veto.

No we're not. We now have 0 influence on EU law. Given our proximety to the EU, and how close a relationship we have with it and member states, we will be affected by EU law whether in or not.

Yes, and in fact one big area of EU jurisdiction (ECHR) will still have jurisdiction over us as long as we sign up to the convention on human rights, which is more or less the same as the Human Rights Act 1998, but leaving would certainly be very bad press: 'The UK leaves gold-standard human rights agreement' sounds undesirable for any British government.

 

[Domh245]

leaving would certainly be very bad press: 'The UK leaves gold-standard human rights agreement' sounds undesirable for any British government.

Amongst certain demographics and outside of the UK yes. But for many within the UK that'll be seen as a good thing, fairly sure it was even government policy

 

[Peter Kelford]

Amongst certain demographics and outside of the UK yes. But for many within the UK that'll be seen as a good thing, fairly sure it was even government policy

It doesn't actually help the UK much to have a bad international reputation though. It might make it difficult for the UK to extradite people who have absconded as well.

 

[nidave]

Certain UK politicians gave up the veto without reference to the people, and now having consulted the people, we are taking it back.

Thats what you elected them to do. They don't ask your opinion on every decision. So much for "taking back control"

 

[Enthusiast]

Yes, and in fact one big area of EU jurisdiction (ECHR) will still have jurisdiction over us as long as we sign up to the convention on human rights, which is more or less the same as the Human Rights Act 1998, but leaving would certainly be very bad press: 'The UK leaves gold-standard human rights agreement' sounds undesirable for any British government.

The 1998 HRA is near enough identical to the ECHR. It was designed so that people in the UK who sought the protection of the ECHR had no need of recourse to the Strasbourg Court. Its preamble actually stipulates that UK courts and tribunals must take account of rulings and precedents determined by the European Court. I cannot fathom how leaving the ECHR would be "bad press" when the UK has domestic law which provides equal protection. The fact is that appellants from the UK who are dissatisfied with the UK's Supreme Court rulings under the 1998 Act still have recourse to the Strasbourg court and that somewhat defeats the purpose of our 1998 Act.

The ECHR (the Convention) was designed to prevent over-zealous governments trampling on the rights of their citizens. It was drafted at a time when the possibility of that happening was quite high. I don't know today too many people in the UK who have genuine fear to see their human rights jeopardised to such a degree that recourse to a supra-national court is warranted. I see plenty of occasions where applicants seek a derogation from the laws that the rest of us are obliged to comply with but I should think the UK's Supreme Court is more than qualified to rule on them.

 

[edwin_m]

The 1998 HRA is near enough identical to the ECHR. It was designed so that people in the UK who sought the protection of the ECHR had no need of recourse to the Strasbourg Court. Its preamble actually stipulates that UK courts and tribunals must take account of rulings and precedents determined by the European Court. I cannot fathom how leaving the ECHR would be "bad press" when the UK has domestic law which provides equal protection. The fact is that appellants from the UK who are dissatisfied with the UK's Supreme Court rulings under the 1998 Act still have recourse to the Strasbourg court and that somewhat defeats the purpose of our 1998 Act.

The ECHR (the Convention) was designed to prevent over-zealous governments trampling on the rights of their citizens. It was drafted at a time when the possibility of that happening was quite high. I don't know today too many people in the UK who have genuine fear to see their human rights jeopardised to such a degree that recourse to a supra-national court is warranted. I see plenty of occasions where applicants seek a derogation from the laws that the rest of us are obliged to comply with but I should think the UK's Supreme Court is more than qualified to rule on them.

So why is requiring the UK courts to take account of decisions made in an overseas court acceptable, when accepting the jurisdiction of the ECJ apparently isn't?

 

[najaB]

I don't know today too many people in the UK who have genuine fear to see their human rights jeopardised to such a degree that recourse to a supra-national court is warranted.

Yesterday I'd have agreed totally. Today I watched policemen stopping people on the street in broad daylight, asking them to state their business. Tomorrow? Six months or a year from now....?

 

[Enthusiast]

So why is requiring the UK courts to take account of decisions made in an overseas court acceptable, when accepting the jurisdiction of the ECJ apparently isn't?

Neither is as far as I am concerned. I was simply explaining the relationship between the ECHR and our own 1998 Act.

Yesterday I'd have agreed totally. Today I watched policemen stopping people on the street in broad daylight, asking them to state their business. Tomorrow? Six months or a year from now....?

And you believe this in only happening in the UK? And you think the measures that governments are taking are an affront to Human Rights (rather than an attempt to prevent spread)? And you think these "abuses" will continue when this crisis is over, police still stopping people asking them to state their business and denying them their rights to such a degree that UK citizens will need recourse to a supra-national court to have their rights restored? If you answer "yes" to any or all of these, regretfully I disagree.

 

[Kingspanner]

Once again it falls to me to inject facts into the situation.
Article 5 of the ECHR and indeed the Human Rights Act in the UK (remembering that the ECHR was written in effect by UK lawyers after the war, and being compatible with English Law principles is no threat to us at all) are about Liberty and Security of Person. Enshrined in the rights are the fact that public authorities can only detain you if they are acting within the law. There is a specific provision for your detention if you are capable of spreading infectious diseases. See the Equality and Human Rights Commission here https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-5-right-liberty-and-security

 

[najaB]

If you answer "yes" to any or all of these, regretfully I disagree.

The problem is that I can't, confidently, answer "No" to all of them. History is replete with examples of emergency powers being granted, the exercise of which have extended significantly past the end of the emergency.

For two examples: the Law to Remedy the Distress of People and Reich and the Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State of 1933.

Do I believe anything similar is going to happen to us now? No. But again, the people of Germany probably didn't see how things were going to turn out either. I don't see any harm in having at least one external brake on the handcart.

 

[Domh245]

The problem is that I can't, confidently, answer "No" to all of them. History is replete with examples of emergency powers being granted, the exercise of which have extended significantly past the end of the emergency.

The legislation that passed the commons on monday, granting Government emergency powers re COVID19 being a good example. Originally would have granted powers for 2 years regardless, but now subject to review every 6 months, thankfully. Was all the more worrying when Boris has been talking about "beating the virus in 12 weeks" - so why does he need 104 weeks of emergency powers?

 

[edwin_m]

The legislation that passed the commons on monday, granting Government emergency powers re COVID19 being a good example. Originally would have granted powers for 2 years regardless, but now subject to review every 6 months, thankfully. Was all the more worrying when Boris has been talking about "beating the virus in 12 weeks" - so why does he need 104 weeks of emergency powers?

Reported today that Parliament will be shut down indefinitely once it has passed the necessary powers. Netanyahu appears to be using the situation to enact a power grab in Israel, and I hope Boris isn't tempted to do the same.

 

[Senex]

Reported today that Parliament will be shut down indefinitely once it has passed the necessary powers. Netanyahu appears to be using the situation to enact a power grab in Israel, and I hope Boris isn't tempted to do the same.

I wouldn't put it past him — that would suit the Tory Brexiteer gang just fine! Sir Iain Duncan Smith as new Head of State?

 

[cb a1]

The ECHR (the Convention) was designed to prevent over-zealous governments trampling on the rights of their citizens. It was drafted at a time when the possibility of that happening was quite high. I don't know today too many people in the UK who have genuine fear to see their human rights jeopardised to such a degree that recourse to a supra-national court is warranted.

Personally, if the possibility exists at all (and it always does), then having recourse to a supra-national court is something I find reassuring.
In my lifetime (>50 years), I feel that this possibility is now greater than it's ever been. This didn't start with COVID19, but the attempts by politicians in western democracies to overturn liberal democracy with 'strong man' populism. COVID19 is then an opportunity to slowly erode our human rights 'for our own good'. On one level, I am in support of the current government policy on COVID19, but I do worry that in the UK a competent opposition party is currently absent; that is sorely needed to keep powers taken proportionate.
For example, it is good to see in New Zealand that they have set up a special committee chaired by the opposition leader and with the majority of seats on the committee held by opposition MPs. That in itself doesn't stop the NZ government from overstepping its legitimacy, but it's the sort of response that gives me confidence in a well functioning democracy.

 

[Meole]

I wouldn't put it past him — that would suit the Tory Brexiteer gang just fine! Sir Iain Duncan Smith as new Head of State?

The Cummings plan ?