Category Archives: European Parliament

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 Once the European Communities Act is repealed, there will be no legal basis for ECJ jurisdiction.’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
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
Economic, Europe, European Parliament, European Union, Government, Politics, United States

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is proving controversial…

TTIP

Simmering tensions have surfaced within the European Parliament over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

Simmering tensions have surfaced within the European Parliament over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

Tensions have surfaced in the European Parliament over what could become the world’s biggest trade deal between Europe and the United States.

Jeering, booing and slow clapping were heard in the Strasbourg chamber after the controversial Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) was suspended.

Members of the public have also been protesting against the deal, fearing it will hand more power to large corporations at the expense of ordinary citizens.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is a free trade deal between the United States and Europe that has been under negotiation for almost two years. An agreement would see the dawn of the world’s biggest free trade zone, shaping the rules governing a quarter of all global trade.

It aims to cut red tape, making it easier to import and export goods, as well as to invest and set up new businesses abroad. The European Commission predicts that it would boost the size of the EU economy by €120bn and the US economy by €95bn by 2027. Supporters of the deal say these savings would filter back to individuals, who would also benefit from cheaper goods and greater choice.

Critics fear, however, that it will undermine democracy in Europe and the US by favouring the rights of large corporations and preventing governments from regulating in the public interest. The Corporate Europe Observatory, a research and campaign group, claims that 92 per cent of 560 lobby encounters with the commission have come from private sector companies, while just four per cent have come from public interest groups.

Campaigners in Europe think EU regulations on areas such as food safety, employment rights and the environment could be watered down. ‘TTIP is a huge threat to hard-fought-for standards for the quality and safety of our food, the sources of our energy, workers’ rights and our privacy,’ says a Green Party spokesperson. For example, it fears that by harmonising food standards, the UK would be forced to allow chemically washed poultry, livestock treated with growth hormones, and genetically modified crops – which are all allowed in the US. More than two million people have signed an online petition against the deal, describing it as a ‘threat to democracy, the environment, consumers and labour standards’.

Opponents say the guarantee of market access effectively outlaws state monopolies, which could pose a risk to government-run services such as the NHS. Critics have serious concerns about transparency and a clause called the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), which they claim would allow corporations to sue governments in private. 38 Degrees, an activist group campaigning against the deal, says its details are being ‘worked out in secret’ and will allow big corporations to take governments to court behind closed doors.

EU officials behind the negotiations insist TTIP would uphold current EU standards and leave governments free to run public services as they wish. Negotiators are being ‘as transparent as possible’ and have published fact sheets explaining every chapter of the TTIP, they say. Negotiators also want to tighten up existing ISDS regulation for settling disputes between foreign firms and governments, with public access to hearings. But judging by the ongoing campaigns against TTIP, it appears many don’t entirely trust the EU’s claims.

See also:

Standard