Category Archives: Britain

Britain, European Court, European Parliament, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

EU law may have precedence over UK courts for years after Brexit

BREXIT

The position paper was released by David Davis’s Department for Exiting the EU.

The UK Government has denied watering down its Brexit plans as officials have admitted EU judges could have jurisdiction over Britain for years after it leaves the bloc.

The Prime Minister, Theresa May, insisted the UK would ‘take back control’ of its laws, saying: ‘When we leave the EU we will be leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.’

But a position paper published by the Government suggested the ECJ could continue to have control over Scots and English law for up to three years after Britain leaves at the end of March 2019.

That could mean EU judges will continue to pass down rulings on key issues until an independent new body is established to adjudicate on post-Brexit rows over trade or immigration.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Tory MP for North East Somerset, said: ‘If the ECJ has jurisdiction, you are part of a European superstate. Once you leave, it cannot have jurisdiction – that is the simple test.’

Officials have not been able to rule out the possibility that European judges could still have some influence even after the end of the three-year transition period. They highlighted the fact that trade deals that the EU has reached with other countries including Moldova force them to take account of European law.

Justice minister Dominic Raab admitted the Government would continue to keep ‘half an eye’ on EU laws after Brexit.

The prime minister said that after leaving the EU, ‘Parliament will make our laws – it is British judges who will interpret those laws and it will be the British Supreme Court that will be the arbiter of those laws’.

Mr Rees-Mogg welcomed the fact that the position paper made it clear the UK will eventually leave the influence of the ECJ.

But he added: ‘I would oppose the continuation of ECJ jurisdiction from the moment we leave the EU. If it continues beyond that, it is a problem. Once the European Communities Act is repealed, there will be no legal basis for ECJ jurisdiction.’

The position paper released by David Davis’s Department for Exiting the EU ruled out any ‘direct’ ECJ jurisdiction over Scots and English law after Brexit. It said legal disputes involving individuals and businesses should in future be decided in the UK judicial system, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter.

It added a new dispute resolution mechanism – which could involve a joint committee or arbitration panel – will have to be created to deal with disagreements over the interpretation and application of the Brexit deal.

But it did not rule out the ECJ maintaining its authority during the transitional period, expected to last a number of years after the March 2019 deadline for Brexit, saying only that Britain will ‘work with the EU’ on the design of interim judicial arrangements.

It set out a range of existing arrangements involving the ECJ that could act as possible models for the new mechanism. These include the EU’s agreement with European Free Trade Association states such as Norway and Iceland and a treaty with Moldova.

Norway has its own EFTA Court to rule on disputes with the EU but it has to ‘pay due account’ to all relevant ECJ decisions.

The EU-Moldova agreement requires that, where a trade dispute concerns an interpretation of EU law, an arbitration panel must refer the question to the ECJ and be ‘bound by its interpretation’.

The Government document makes it clear that Britain is not committed to following any of the existing models, but it does not explicitly rule out any scenario other than direct ECJ jurisdiction.

The main job of a resolution body would be to adjudicate on disputes between the EU and the UK on how a trade deal will operate. It could also have to pass judgment on immigration matters.

Remain-backing groups accused the Government of a climbdown for saying there would be no ‘direct’ jurisdiction of the ECJ compared with its previous position of no jurisdiction whatsoever.

UK officials said that Britain would seek ‘legal autonomy’ but that the remaining power of the ECJ to rule on UK matters depended on the ‘scope’ of the transition period, which could last until 2022.

. More on Brexit UK Government threatens to get tough if Brussels bars trade deal

Standard
Afghanistan, Britain, NATO, United States

Return to Afghanistan? Britain may help Trump beat Taliban

AFGHANISTAN

afghanistan-2014-600

President Donald Trump has declared that thousands of US soldiers will be deployed again to Afghanistan in reducing the threat of terrorism to the West. He has called on his NATO allies to provide resources and funding.

BRITISH warplanes and drones could be sent back to Afghanistan after Donald Trump announced a major policy U-turn and declared he is expanding the US military there.

A new strategy to defeat the Taliban and Islamic State could also see British personnel being sent back to Kandahar in southern Afghanistan – in a significant expansion of the UK’s current training operation.

US Secretary of Defence, General Jim Mattis, called his UK counterpart, Sir Michael Fallon, to discuss the plans prior to the speech given by the President earlier this week vowing to ‘kill terrorists’.

Mr Trump said that he would beef up the US military presence and others must do the same, adding that a withdrawal would create a vacuum for jihadis. The most senior American commander for the Middle East said the first deployment of new US forces would arrive in Afghanistan ‘pretty quickly’.

Mr Trump said: ‘The men and women who serve our nation in combat deserve the tools they need, and the trust they have earned, to fight and to win.’

It marks an abrupt turnaround from his election campaign, in which he regularly demanded an end to the 16-year conflict.

But since then, Taliban insurgents have recaptured swathes of the country, IS militants have waged terror, and US generals have publicly admitted the war is failing. The Taliban in Afghanistan responded by saying Mr Trump’s plans would make the country a ‘graveyard for the American empire’.

It is understood that during Sir Michael’s discussion with defence secretary General Mattis, the prospect of the UK sending ‘specific capabilities’ such as fighter jets and drones was raised. One option could be re-deploying air assets from Iraq where IS is on the back foot after being pounded by RAF warplanes.

Defence chiefs may also send RAF troops back to southern Afghanistan if they are asked to do so. They would be stationed in Kandahar, previously NATO’s regional HQ, and would form part of a plan to build an Afghan air force training academy.

A senior RAF officer said: ‘Kandahar will be one of the training locations. We are doing an awful lot of work in Kandahar right now to make sure the facilities are right … If the demand signal is to send people to Kandahar we will.’

A further 85 UK troops will be sent to the country in the coming weeks after requests by NATO. The Ministry of Defence commented by saying it is ruling out further increases.

The Defence Secretary welcomed President Trump’s pledge. Sir Michael said he had agreed with General Mattis that ‘we have to stay the course in Afghanistan to help build its fragile democracy and reduce the terrorist threat to the West. It’s in all our interests that Afghanistan becomes more prosperous and safer.’

Mr Trump made repeated calls ahead of his election for US troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan, where they have been involved in military operations since 2001. But in an address at Fort Myer near Washington DC, he said he had decided to go against his ‘original instinct’.

US policy would now focus not on nation-building but on ‘killing terrorists’, he said, adding: ‘From now on, victory will have a clear definition – attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing Al-Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge. We will ask our NATO allies and global partners to support our new strategy with additional troop and funding increases in line with our own – we are confident they will.’

General Joseph Votel, top US commander for the Middle East, estimated the first new deployments would arrive in a few weeks or even days.

COMMENT

AFTER the horror of 9/11, there were clear and persuasive arguments for sending British forces to Afghanistan to join our American allies in attacking Al-Qaeda terrorist training camps.

But more than 15 years on – and three years after we withdrew our combat troops, leaving only some 500 behind to train the local military – shouldn’t we be thinking very carefully before answering Donald Trump’s call to rejoin the war?

During his election campaign, the President pledged to withdraw the 8,400 American soldiers who have remained in Afghanistan since combat operations officially ended in 2014.

But now, under pressure from his generals, he has changed his mind. And though he won’t specify numbers, he is widely expected to send some 4,000 extra troops – and says he expects his NATO allies to beef up their commitment too.

The President declared: ‘From now on, victory will have a clear definition – attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing Al-Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge.’

These are laudable objectives. But at the height of its deployment in 2010-11, the US had 100,000 personnel in Afghanistan (with similar aims). If they failed to beat the terrorists and the Taliban, why should Mr Trump believe the smaller force he envisages will enjoy more success?

In the course of a conflict that has already lasted more than twice as long as the Second World War, 456 British personnel have been killed, with thousands more wounded – many on battlefields now back under Taliban control.

Indeed, though it will grieve many to say so, it is very far from clear how much their heroic sacrifice achieved. Is there any reason to believe putting more troops in danger will accomplish anything beyond making more families torn by the futility of returning to fight in Afghanistan?

Standard
Britain, European Parliament, European Union, Government, Politics

UK Government threatens to get tough if Brussels bars trade deal

BREXIT

BRITAIN has threatened to impose customs duties and VAT on all goods coming from Europe if the EU blocks a trade deal.

Brexit Secretary David Davis warned Brussels it would suffer if trade is disrupted as EU countries sell 60billion euros more in goods and services to us than we do to them.

Ministers set out post-Brexit plans that would allow lorries to clear customs checks at Channel ports within seconds thanks to an online border system and number-plate recognition technology.

However, they said MPs and peers will legislate to impose new customs duties and VAT tariffs on trade with the EU, in case no Brexit deal can be agreed by March 2019.

In the first of 12 documents setting out its negotiating position, the Government said that if there is no deal, ‘the UK would treat trade with the EU as it currently treats trade with non-EU countries’.

‘Customs duty and import VAT would be due on EU imports,’ it said. ‘Traders would need to be registered. Traders exporting to the EU would have to submit an exploration declaration, and certain goods may require an export licence.’

But the document said it hoped for a deal with the EU and set out two customs options – a streamlined customs arrangement or a new customs partnership.

Under the first proposal, Britain and the EU would use technology to help goods pass speedily through ports.

Mr Davis said they would replicate techniques used for products coming from outside the EU, which ‘get 90 per cent of containers through in a matter of seconds’.

Companies would fill out customs declarations using an online system in advance, with number-plate recognition allowing vehicles to be waved straight through. Spot checks would affect only a small proportion of lorries. The second proposal, for a new customs partnership, would see the EU’s customs rules mirrored by the UK so that ‘all goods entering the EU via the UK have paid the correct EU duties’.

‘This would remove the need for the UK and the EU to introduce customs processes between us, so that goods moving between the UK and the EU would be treated as they are now for customs purposes,’ the document said.

Holidaymakers would face no extra checks under either option, the Government said, and people on so-called ‘booze cruises’ to France would not be affected.

Brussels said it would not begin discussing the UK’s proposals for customs until more progress is made in negotiations on the Brexit divorce bill.

However, Mr Davis reminded EU countries it was in their interest to reach a mutually beneficial arrangement.

‘We sell about 230billion euros of goods and services to the EU each year, they sell 290billion to us. I was in Bavaria only two or three weeks ago. They sell BMWs, they sell agricultural produce, they sell electronic goods.

‘They have got an incredibly strong interest in something like this, so there is an interest on both sides of not doing each other harm.’

Michel Barnier, The EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, tweeted: ‘The quicker the UK and EU27 agree on citizens, settling accounts and Ireland, the quicker we can discuss customs and the future relationship.’

A European Commission spokesman said: ‘We take note of the UK’s request for an implementing period and its preferences as regards the future relationship, but we will only address them once we have made sufficient progress on the terms of the orderly withdrawal.

‘An agreement on a future relationship between the EU and the UK can only be finalised once the UK has become a third country … frictionless trade is not possible outside the single market and customs union.’

Guy Verhofstadt, the European Parliament’s chief Brexit co-ordinator, also took to Twitter and wrote: ‘To be in and out of the customs union and [have] “invisible borders” is a fantasy. First need to secure citizens’ rights and a financial settlement.’

Mr Davis said he did not expect the Brexit divorce bill to be agreed this year.

. Britain to demand no barriers at Irish border

The British Government has said that no check points or CCTV cameras should be put on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic after Brexit.

Ministers have said their top priority is keeping the frontier free of border posts and have made clear there will be ‘no return to the hard borders of the past’.

In a paper, the Government said that Brussels could agree to there being no checks on goods crossing the border.

Under one proposal put forward, small businesses that make up 80 per cent of cross-border trade would be exempted from customs rules.

Larger companies would be trusted to declare what goods they are carrying between the two countries, with spot checks taking place away from the border.

Another option would see the Government work with Brussels on a special customs agreement that would eliminate checks on goods moving between any EU country and the UK.

The Government paper dismisses any suggestion a customs border could be shifted to the Irish Sea with checks and tariffs only at entry and exit points between the island and Great Britain.

Creating such a barrier between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK is ‘not constitutionally or economically viable’, it says.

It also makes clear that the UK plans to protect the Common Travel Area – the open borders agreement predating our EU membership – that allows British and Irish citizens to move freely around the two countries. A Government source said: ‘Both sides need to show flexibility and imagination when it comes to the border issue in Northern Ireland and that is exactly what our latest position paper will do.

‘As [the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator] Michel Barnier himself has said, the solution cannot be based on a precedent so we’re looking forward to seeing the EU’s position paper on Ireland.

‘But it’s right that as we shape the unprecedented models, we have some very clear principles.

‘Top of our list is to agree upfront no physical border infrastructure – that would mean a return to the border posts of the past and is completely unacceptable.

‘Our paper sets out some creative options on customs … Protecting trade is vital for the UK and Ireland … so we’re prioritising finding a solution that protects businesses’ ability to access these important markets.’

The Irish government has welcomed the UK’s position paper. A spokesperson said: ‘Protecting the peace process is crucial and it must not become a bargaining chip in the negotiations.

The spokesperson added that the publication of the position paper was ‘timely and helpful’ as it offers more clarity.

. Ancillary: 

Brexit Timeline

Standard