eu statement on the 25th anniversary of the single market March 20, 2018
Posted by Bradley in : brexit , add a commentA joint statement from Antonio Tajani, President of the European Parliament, Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, and Boyko Borissov, holder of the rotating Council Presidency and Prime Minister of Bulgaria with the title, One Market- One Europe highlights a positive view of what the UK is seeking to leave behind (as it moves from being an internal (but perhaps not completely reliable) source of strength for the EU to being an external source of potential risk):
Over the past 25 years, the integration of our economies throughout the Single Market has generated millions of jobs, and made the EU the world’s largest economy. The Single Market is the jewel in the crown of our integration and this domestic market of 500 million people is the foundation for Europe’s strength, at home and abroad.
The Single Market provides Europe’s citizens with the freedoms and opportunities that were only a dream for our parents and grandparents, and our social market economy benefits us all. There are no second-class Europeans in our Single Market and so there is no room for second-class products or for second-class workers; meaning, the same pay for the same work in the same place, the same quality of food and the same safety of toys and other products….
The European Single Market is 25 years young. A generation of Europeans has grown up with it and benefitted from it. We will keep making it stronger so that the next generation will benefit even more.
art 50 notification withdrawal case to proceed March 20, 2018
Posted by Bradley in : brexit , add a commentThe Court of Session (Inner House) addressed a challenge to the rejection of a petition for a preliminary reference on the issue of withdrawal of the Art. 50 notification. The case should proceed to a full hearing. The Court said:
if this petition were shorn of its rhetoric and extraneous and irrelevant material and were reduced, after adjustment, to a manageable size which conformed to Lord Hope’s guidance in Somerville v Scottish Ministers … a case of substance, albeit not necessarily one which is likely to succeed, can be discovered. The issue of whether it is legally possible to revoke the notice of withdrawal is, as already stated, one of great importance. On one view, authoritative guidance on whether it is legally possible to do so may have the capacity to influence Members of Parliament in deciding what steps to take in advance of, and at the time of, a debate and vote on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. After all, if Parliament is to be regarded as sovereign, the Government’s position on the legality of revoking the notice may not be decisive. Whether such guidance falls within the proper scope of judicial review aises yet another issue. However, that scope is wide and … the law is always developing and, in certain areas,it can do so quickly and dramatically.The scope of judicial review of Government policy may be one such area, at least where no issue of questioning what is said in Parliament arises.
my article on european (dis)union published February 27, 2018
Posted by Bradley in : brexit , add a commentjohnson on brexit:”the great liberal project of the age” February 14, 2018
Posted by Bradley in : brexit , add a commentThe web page where the speech appears states “Delivered on:14 February 2018 (Transcript of the speech, exactly as it was delivered).” But I imagine that the Foreign Secretary did not in fact say “[political content removed].” I wonder what that political content was that is omitted from this “exactly as it was delivered” transcript. And this makes me wonder (as if I didn’t already) how much of what is left in is to be trusted. It’s mostly more careful than I expected, but it’s also all political rhetoric and magical thinking.
uk “technical note” on international agreements: let’s all eat cake February 8, 2018
Posted by Bradley in : brexit , add a commentAccording to the technical note:
The UK proposes that these third country agreements which apply to the UK in its capacity as an EU Member State (as referred to at paragraph 15 of the EU’s negotiating directives of 29 January) should continue to apply to the UK in the same way for the duration of the implementation period. In other words, the UK would continue to be bound by the rights and obligations flowing from the agreements for this period. Multilateral agreements to which the EU is a party raise different considerations and are not covered by this note.
I don’t see what is “technical” about pretending that the UK has a status it will not have. This seems the opposite of technical. I.e. fantastical. But, of course, that is now par for the course.
do uk citizens lose eu citizenship rights after brexit? February 8, 2018
Posted by Bradley in : brexit , add a commentThe Court of Justice is to be asked to answer this question on the basis of a preliminary reference by the Amsterdam District Court (the decision linked to by this post proposes two questions to be referred). Unfortunately this does not seem to be a hypothetical question.
court of session rejects petition for preliminary reference on withdrawal of art. 50 notification February 6, 2018
Posted by Bradley in : brexit , add a commentThe judgment is here. The petition is rejected because the issue raised is “hypothetical and academic.”
Given that neither Parliament nor the Government has any wish to withdraw the notification, the central issue which the petitioners ask the court to decide – whether the UK could unilaterally withdraw the Article 50(2) notification – is hypothetical and academic. In those circumstances it is not a matter which this court, or the CJEU, require to adjudicate upon.
Of course, if a hard Brexit comes to seem inevitable and there is interest in exploring withdrawal of the notification it will be too late, as the proponents of this litigation suggest:
It is also impossible sensibly to pretend that the question can be asked later.
Generally it may make sense for courts to decline to address hypothetical issues, but this issue isn’t the usual sort of hypothetical issue.
financial markets and fishing February 5, 2018
Posted by Bradley in : brexit , add a commentGood speech by Andrew Bailey of the Financial Conduct Authority here. And a nice contrast to the general dithering going on in other parts of government (for example the (in)decision to put off the publication of a white paper on immigration until the fall). Bailey discusses the importance of getting the technical details of any transition right and argues that it should be done by means of an agreement between the EU and the UK to avoid glitches. And he points out that it ought to be possible to imagine an agreement:
if it is possible to envisage a partnership agreement on fishing based on convergence of regimes, of course it is possible to have open financial markets and mutual recognition of regulatory regimes… The principles for mutual recognition would look a lot like the ones we already use to authorise the branches of banks from outside the European Economic Area, namely broad equivalence of regulation in terms of outcomes, supervisory co-operation and good information sharing. We would need to add on a robust dispute resolution arrangement, but this could be done. We are used to working very closely with other regulators, it is a big part of our job given London’s international role.
And let me comment on the negative arguments – ie the arguments against not having mutual recognition. First, it is not sensible to imagine material regulatory divergence, especially in wholesale financial markets. It is a false concept. Markets are global and we cannot in practice diverge much in terms of regulatory outcomes, and regulatory arbitrage is not an allowable ground for competition.
brexit “negotiations” round 2 July 20, 2017
Posted by Bradley in : brexit , add a commentAfter more than a year it is quite amazing that the UK “government” still seems to have no idea what its specific Brexit negotiation objectives are. Michel Barnier’s speaking points state that negotiations are not possible where there is no clear British position. This is a statement which is so blindingly obvious that it should not need to be made. So there were discussions about the British exit payment. The EU 27 have set out their thinking on this question and the UK, rather than setting out details of their own thinking seem to have just said they realize they will need to pay something (Boris Johnson’s unhelpful comments about how the EU 27 should just go whistle aside) but haven’t really spelled out their ideas about how to get to the right number. And the UK position on other issues doesn’t really seem to be much clearer than this (except they seem to think very many of the EU citizens living in the UK must be criminals). It is as if most of those involved think only of the impact of what they says and do in terms of short-term domestic UK politics rather than in terms of how to achieve a successful negotiation (maybe they recognize that all possible deals for the UK are worse than EU membership?), or how to protect the future of the country.
uk election: yet another broken promise April 21, 2017
Posted by Bradley in : brexit , add a commentI have lived outside the UK for long enough that I haven’t been able to vote in elections. This did not bother me too much to begin with because the constituency I lived in before I came to Miami was so obviously going to vote in a way that made one vote irrelevant. But it did bother me when the referendum happened: I would have liked to have a vote recorded on that issue. So I was very pleased to read that there was a new plan to allow expatriates to vote in UK elections. I know the theory was that most of them would be older and would vote conservative, but all the same. Now it seems that the election will take place without allowing a vote to the disenfranchised living abroad, probably because most of them are in other European states and worried (rightly) about their futures. So it is yet another lie/broken promise in this Brexit context.
For this election, where attitudes to the EU are significant they (we) don’t get a vote. But afterwards – after we are all disadvantaged by this decision – what chance any of those people will vote conservative in future? So probably a promise broken not just now, but for the future also.