Are we bovvered?

[GerryT]

Did they?
All it says on the government website is that it will be looked at.
The body gives recommendation.
I see no written agreement to impliment anything this body comes up with.
That was notably missing, I thought when I read it.



And what will keep them to that agreement if they no longer feel like it?
How are they "bound" other than by their own good will?
What enforcement mechanism does this body wield?

How is any of this to be considered "binding"?

The only method of binding the EU has, is to threaten sanctions of some kind.
In this case the threat is of a "no deal".

A threat they have already overplayed to the point where most people are factoring for this to happen anyway.

Laws are there and people have to abide by them or face sanctions (fines/imprisonment etc) but those laws have to be also followed by the people that make them. It's not a one way street, if your going to argue that then no point in reading any further.
An international agreement is a set of rules that both countries or parties to the agreement are bound by. This would include items such as the treaty duration or exit mechanism and also how disputes are resolved.

This is not a domestic dispute that will be thrashed out in the HOC, this is a matter between the UK and EU and the WA has a resolution process, written into the agreement. You can find it for yourself but the relevant clause is:

Title 111 Dispute resolution There are 15 pages in the agreement. You need to look beyond the Govt website in that case, slightly misleading.

Article 168 For any dispute between the Union and the United Kingdom arising under this Agreement, the Union and the United Kingdom shall only have recourse to the procedures provided for in this Agreement.
Article 169 The Union and the United Kingdom shall endeavour to resolve any dispute regarding the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Agreement by entering into consultations in the Joint Committee in good faith, with the aim of reaching a mutually agreed solution.
Article 170 Without prejudice to Article 160, if no mutually agreed solution has been reached within 3 months after a written notice has been provided to the Joint Committee in accordance with Article 169(1), the Union or the United Kingdom may request the establishment of an arbitration
panel. Such request shall be made in writing to the other party and to the International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
Article 171 The Joint Committee shall, no later than by the end of the transition period, establish a list of 25 persons who are willing and able to serve as members of an arbitration panel.....An arbitration panel shall be composed of five members.

Article 175 The arbitration panel ruling shall be binding on the Union and the United Kingdom. The Union and the United Kingdom shall take any measures necessary to comply in good faith with the arbitration panel ruling and shall endeavour to agree on the period of time to comply with the ruling in accordance with the procedure in Article 176.

That last bit is the binding part.

[Baff]

Did they?
All it says on the government website is that it will be looked at.
The body gives recommendation.
I see no written agreement to impliment anything this body comes up with.
That was notably missing, I thought when I read it.



And what will keep them to that agreement if they no longer feel like it?
How are they "bound" other than by their own good will?
What enforcement mechanism does this body wield?

How is any of this to be considered "binding"?

The only method of binding the EU has, is to threaten sanctions of some kind.
In this case the threat is of a "no deal".

A threat they have already overplayed to the point where most people are factoring for this to happen anyway.

[GerryT]

In what way is it "binding"?

Both parties agreed that the outcome would be binding, that way.

[Baff]

The WA had a resolution process to settle disputes. The UK has remained a party to the WA and the outcome from the resolution process is binding. An arbitration panel, which has from memory 10UK and 10EU nominated people. I presume this is the first step in taking a case.

In what way is it "binding"?

[Streetwalker]

The WA had a resolution process to settle disputes. The UK has remained a party to the WA and the outcome from the resolution process is binding. An arbitration panel, which has from memory 10UK and 10EU nominated people. I presume this is the first step in taking a case.

I think your talking about the joint committee .

The arbitration panel would only be set up if the joint committee can not agree on  a WA dispute and they then have 3 months to agree on arbitrators (5 from UK and 5 from EU with an agreed chairman )  The arbitration panel is then guided by the ECJ rulings . If no agreement is made on arbitrators the General secretary of the permanent court of arbitration appoints arbitrators .

That person is Hugo Siblesz  from Holland .

[GerryT]

Not bothered at all.

We voted to leave precisely to terminate the EUs stranglehold over our sovereign right to do as we please.

Sod them.

The WA had a resolution process to settle disputes. The UK has remained a party to the WA and the outcome from the resolution process is binding. An arbitration panel, which has from memory 10UK and 10EU nominated people. I presume this is the first step in taking a case.

[Sheepy]

It never takes long Cromwell, tod you stick with me kid.

[Borg Refinery]

Looking after the corporate welfare?

Isn't that what SheepyHQ is for?

But no I don't 'love' all the neoliberal rubbish about the EU and agree with many critiicisms, unlike your billionaire heroes who really do live on 'corporate welfare' with you as their defender, they are like the worst parts of the EU on steroids or something.

[Cor Blimey!]

https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/IN.5.ECJ_.pdf

Well, you may find your answer here. 

Before i go any further, I would point out the existence of the Council Of Europe, which predates the 1957 Treaty of Rome and the Euratom treaty by at least a decade, and which is sod all to do with the deliberatelyconfusingly named European Council which is basically the five presidents of the EU having a chinwag with their pals.  I mention the Council of Europe because it is THEY who are the power behind the equally misleadingly named European Court of Human Rights which we will remain bound to by treaty which we signed decades before some stuffed shirt cheese eating surrender monkey said "Non!"

So the legal position come January is, if it isn't something that fell out of the court of Human Rights, which we can only ignore if we terminate our membership of the council of Europe (and there are good reasons to consider doing that, not least we get back the right to hang murderers and traitors by the neck until they are dead) then that boloody annoying woman can go play with herself because she is utterly powerless to have her courts rule anything that would affect any Briton in Britain.

I saw a movie about surrender monkeys recently. I think it was called Bridge Over the River Kwai.

[Baff]

As I understand it, ECJ will be able to make rulings here on certain stuff for the next 4 years.
However a magistrates court can overrule.

[johnofgwent]

As the UK has reneged on a freely entered into signed agreement, surely its only defence can be mitigating circumstances?
Another question must be: can the ECJ actually enforce any judgement on a non-EU country?
It's up to the UK to play a blinder if it wants to keep its reputation as an honest dealer in the wider world...

https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/IN.5.ECJ_.pdf

Well, you may find your answer here. 

Before i go any further, I would point out the existence of the Council Of Europe, which predates the 1957 Treaty of Rome and the Euratom treaty by at least a decade, and which is sod all to do with the deliberatelyconfusingly named European Council which is basically the five presidents of the EU having a chinwag with their pals.  I mention the Council of Europe because it is THEY who are the power behind the equally misleadingly named European Court of Human Rights which we will remain bound to by treaty which we signed decades before some stuffed shirt cheese eating surrender monkey said "Non!"

So the legal position come January is, if it isn't something that fell out of the court of Human Rights, which we can only ignore if we terminate our membership of the council of Europe (and there are good reasons to consider doing that, not least we get back the right to hang murderers and traitors by the neck until they are dead) then that boloody annoying woman can go play with herself because she is utterly powerless to have her courts rule anything that would affect any Briton in Britain.

[Baff]

The deadline passed on 30 Sept 2020 and they told us to draw our horns in and not go ahead with the Internal Markets bill which is currently going through Parliament.

The EU is now starting proceedings and have sent No 10 a letter of notice. Oh dear!

All good fun.
Where would we be without the drama of sore losers.


The EU should simply leave the agreement if they don't think we are honouring it.
And frankly Boris should completely take the piss until they do.
Realpolitik.

Since they have not even threatened to do so yet, there is clearly way more he can extract from them.

It's a shit agreement and needs to be negotiated this way because the previous way resulted in a load of pants.
Power politics in action.

[Sheepy]

By junk mail?  I guess we will be seeing a lot of fuss about it, as that is what it is designed for.

[Barry]

The deadline passed on 30 Sept 2020 and they told us to draw our horns in and not go ahead with the Internal Markets bill which is currently going through Parliament.

The EU is now starting proceedings and have sent No 10 a letter of notice. Oh dear!

[johnofgwent]

Not bothered at all.

We voted to leave precisely to terminate the EUs stranglehold over our sovereign right to do as we please.

Sod them.