PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   BREXIT (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/619673-brexit.html)

ORAC 21st Dec 2020 10:12

THP,

Actually it makes a lot of sense. English law governs most international commerce, and most such contracts are written stating that any disputes will be settled in an English court.

All EU companies could use the English courts whilst we were in the EU, I presume there are various legal reasons why a business presence is required in the UK to allow that to continue.

Note that the article does not state they are moving their funding, tax base, operations or the HQs to the UK - only such part is necessary for them to “benefit from stronger legal protections”.

In the same way many City financial companies have set up nameplate offices in Hannover etc, I presume many EU companies will be setting up nameplate officers around Gray’s Inn London.

https://www.qlts.com/blog/why-englis...cial-contracts

Theholdingpoint 21st Dec 2020 10:21


Originally Posted by ORAC (Post 10951671)
THP,

Actually it makes a lot of sense. English law governs most international commerce, and most such contracts are written stating that any disputes will be settled in an English court.

All EU companies could use the English courts whilst we were in the EU, I presume there are various legal reasons why a business presence is required in the UK to allow that to continue.

Note that the article does not state they are moving their funding, tax base, operations or the HQs to the UK - only such part is necessary for them to “benefit from stronger legal protections”.

In the same way many City financial companies have set up nameplate offices in Hannover etc, I presume many EU companies will be setting up nameplate officers around Gray’s Inn London.

https://www.qlts.com/blog/why-englis...cial-contracts

Not valid for intra-EU businesses. Anyway, let's assume you're correct: why did these "German companies" (not even a single one specified) wait until the 21st of December 2020, 10 days from a no-deal Brexit, to realize the extreme need to use UK courts for their businesses?

ORAC 21st Dec 2020 10:36

Not sure they will, it may just be a move to ensure a side deal is done, as with aviation, to ensure UK commercial courts are recognised

Sallyann1234 21st Dec 2020 10:37


Originally Posted by ORAC (Post 10951616)
Seriously? I’t just about the Brussels EU in house newspaper.

https://www.politico.eu/


I find it amusing that one article in a highly respected European news site excites such rage - and accusations of bias against. Shooting the messenger comes to mind.
Make up your mind, ORAC :E

ORAC 21st Dec 2020 10:51

Sallyann1234,

Both, or either, depending which parts you read or sign up to a subscription for.....

https://www.politico.eu/

Bergerie1 21st Dec 2020 12:09

How absolutely stupid can you get. Why curtail the possibility of a deal? Surely it is best to continue talking to try to rescue something from tha ashes.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-55390304

Alsacienne 21st Dec 2020 12:22


Surely it is best to continue talking to try to rescue something from the ashes.
Absolutely spot on Bergerie1 and if UK turkeys* are in short supply, I'll readily settle for a phoenix or two.

* My turkey is on order ... and with the choice between one from Alsace or one from Gers, I've plumped for the local variety!




ORAC 21st Dec 2020 12:44

Can't be done.

Firstly the deadline, as written into the WA, for the EU to approve any further extension passed on 1st July 2020. Secondly the date is written into UK law and changing it would require the recall of both Houses of Parliament and the passing of primary legislation before the end of the year.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...ion/33/enacted

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020

Section 33 - Prohibition on extending implementation period

After section 15 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (publication and rules of evidence) insert—

A Minister of the Crown may not agree in the Joint Committee to an extension of the implementation period.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This has been looked at many times of the past few months and the following options are what remain, if both sides were willing:
.
  • Try using Article 50. It has been argued that, under international law, extending the transition would constitute an amendment to an existing agreement so Article 50 could still be used as a legal basis. However, many EU lawyers argue that Article 50 was turned off, for the UK, on Brexit day, 31 January 2020.
  • As a variation to the above, the EU/heads of state and government and the UK could enter into an international agreement outside EU law to agree to an extension. However, this seems difficult legally because an extension of the transition would extend EU law and so the EU would need a ‘legal basis’ (that is, a provision in the EU Treaties) to act – which takes us back to the problem in (1). There are a number of other legal bases in the Treaty, such as Articles 207 (allowing for agreements to be concluded with third countries, such as the UK, on trade issues) and 217 (allowing for association agreements to be concluded with third countries), but these might well require unanimous agreement between member states in the EU Council. Moreover, if the agreement touches areas of member state powers, it will be a so-called ‘mixed agreement’, and this means national (and some regional) parliaments must also give their approval. The ECJ may also be required to give its opinion under Article 218(11) TFEU. At best, this will be highly time consuming.
  • Reach an agreement with the EU by 31 December 2020 which envisages a fairly lengthy implementation period to turn off existing rules of EU law and to enter into the new arrangements, conceivably over a number of years. However, this will need a legal basis in the Treaty and is likely to be a mixed agreement which, again, would need ratification by all member states. This would have to be done by December 2020.
  • A decision of the Joint Committee to agree to a new extension. While the Joint Committee can amend the Withdrawal Agreement, its powers do not include amending Article 132 (the provision on agreeing an extension to transition by 1 July 2020).
  • Using Article 352 TFEU, as a legal basis to ‘attain one of the objectives of the Treaty’. However, these objectives (set out in Article 3 TEU) do not include withdrawing from the EU. Moreover, Article 352 can be used only where no provision in the treaty provides for action to attain the ´objective` (and Article 50 does that). Finally, Declarations 41 and 42 in the same EU Treaty make clear that Article 352 cannot be used to widen the scope of Union powers, which its deployment in this case would imply.

ORAC 21st Dec 2020 13:08

Further to the above - with the number of Conservative MPs who would vote against an extension , and without Labour support - a change to the current UK legislation is not something the government will contemplate.

https://labourlist.org/2020/12/starm...iod-extension/

Starmer rejects calls for Brexit transition period extension

Keir Starmer has rejected calls for an extension to the Brexit transition period, demanding that the Prime Minister agrees a trade deal with the European Union this week and arguing that “delaying it further isn’t going to help”......

Sallyann1234 21st Dec 2020 13:11


Originally Posted by ORAC (Post 10951828)
Keir Starmer has rejected calls for an extension to the Brexit transition period, demanding that the Prime Minister agrees a trade deal with the European Union this week and arguing that “delaying it further isn’t going to help”......

Sound advice.
Time your friend Bozo took it.

Krystal n chips 21st Dec 2020 15:55

There must be some sort of magnetism that draws the incompetent to become Transport Minister.....Grayling was an outstanding success as we know in this respect, but now, clearly wishing to reach the same level comes Shapps.......

France's ban on UK transport came as surprise, says Grant Shapps | World news | The Guardian

Bergerie1 21st Dec 2020 16:19

We lost out on 30bn - 50bn euros aid from the EU to help with Covid. But Brexit stopped it. Tant pis!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...et-over-crisis

M.Mouse 21st Dec 2020 16:57

Given that the €750 billion Covid fund is borrowed by the the EU, issuing bonds with maturities of three to 30 years planned to be reapid from 2027 on, with the tab to be settled by 2058.

Historically the UK was a net contributor to the EU so this piece of EU largesse we have missed out on would have been a loan by any other name.

WestofEMA 21st Dec 2020 16:59

Also, given the UK would have to continue paying £15.5 billion , just to get 30-50 billion euros loan, the deal doesn't seem that good to me. Roll on Brexit, I say.

Effluent Man 21st Dec 2020 18:09

£15.5 billion was the gross figure 52 x the infamous bus side £350 million. Most of that comes back in the form of CAP subsidies which will probably have to be increased now the farmers can't sell their meat into the EU.

M.Mouse 21st Dec 2020 18:22

Most of it?

Office for National Statistics

keith williams 21st Dec 2020 18:40

As CJ said at post 8034, A lie told often enough becomes regarded as the truth.

SWBKCB 21st Dec 2020 18:51


I don't know how that effects anything. Fact remains that every EU country has the right to open or close it's borders in an emergency, and that word "emergency" is very much in the eye of the beholder. The UK could, and should have banned travel from Italy back in March, it chose not to. Had it, it might have bought some time to get that world beating trach and trace system up and running.....not!
And that behold includes the Commission. Member States have have far more autonomy in health issues - Brussels would be taking action against them if they shut the borders because, for example, a collapse in the price of fish.

Deltasierra010 21st Dec 2020 19:06

There should not be an extension, we have been arguing for 4 yrs in another month we will still be arguing, just declare “no deal” and deal with the consequences whatever they are.
.
That will not be the end of the talking every sector will have to be negotiated piecemeal, some will be easy some will take years, personally I think it will be hard on the UK. I will take great pleasure in reminding leavers which way they voted,

Deltasierra010 21st Dec 2020 19:46


Originally Posted by Effluent Man (Post 10952040)
£15.5 billion was the gross figure 52 x the infamous bus side £350 million. Most of that comes back in the form of CAP subsidies which will probably have to be increased now the farmers can't sell their meat into the EU.

Fake news

Farming gets about £3.5 billion from the CAP, more comes back in regional development and other schemes, but there is no denying that the UK is a net contributor to EU budgets.
Other estimates say that the net contribution to EU is around £8 billion which seems a reasonable amount to me, bearing in mind that the UK GDP is £2,400 billion, the EU has been costing us £0.3% of GDP. Financially it is a non issue replacing the EU beaurocracy with our own will cost at least as much, particularly if we don’t get a free trade deal.


All times are GMT. The time now is 22:48.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.