• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "EU court ensure 32 vetoes on Brexit trade deal"

Collapse

  • jds 1981
    replied
    Originally posted by darmstadt View Post
    Both articles are reporting on the same court case it's just the right wing media report has put their own spin on it, their alternative if you like.
    Like the right wing guardian?

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017...t-ratification

    The European court of justice has raised a ray of hope for British trade negotiators with a surprise ruling that will make it harder for national parliaments to block key components of any future post-Brexit deal between the EU and the UK.

    In a long-awaited test case that had been expected to complicate the Brexit process, the court instead ruled that EU officials had exclusive powers to negotiate international trade deals without ratification by national and regional parliaments

    Leave a comment:


  • darmstadt
    replied
    Originally posted by OwlHoot View Post
    No, I don't think so.

    sas's post that started this thread, and the article he cited, was obviously intended to imply that EU countries' votes had to be unanimous, no doubt hoping to convince and thus worry casual readers this was such a stringent condition it would be impossible to meet.

    But, as the article I cited made clear, in fact nearly all the relevant decisions will require only majority voting.
    Originally posted by shaunbhoy View Post
    Careful OH, you will have them rocking backwards and forwards in their safe spaces if you keep presenting facts to them.
    Both articles are reporting on the same court case it's just the right wing media report has put their own spin on it, their alternative if you like.

    Leave a comment:


  • SueEllen
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    Nope, it won't be - May put everything at stake on anti-immigration stance, she will just blame EU for "punishing UK", that's all - big painful spending cuts are yet to kick in.
    It will be freedom of movement under another name.

    May has been reading Thatcher biographies.

    Leave a comment:


  • shaunbhoy
    replied
    Originally posted by OwlHoot View Post
    as the article I cited made clear, in fact nearly all the relevant decisions will require only majority voting.
    Careful OH, you will have them rocking backwards and forwards in their safe spaces if you keep presenting facts to them.

    Leave a comment:


  • OwlHoot
    replied
    Originally posted by darmstadt View Post
    Er, I think so
    No, I don't think so.

    sas's post that started this thread, and the article he cited, was obviously intended to imply that EU countries' votes had to be unanimous, no doubt hoping to convince and thus worry casual readers this was such a stringent condition it would be impossible to meet.

    But, as the article I cited made clear, in fact nearly all the relevant decisions will require only majority voting.
    Last edited by OwlHoot; 17 May 2017, 17:27.

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post
    Angela Merkel in the German parliament has just stated that if there is no "Freedom of Movement" Britain will pay a price.
    Lets face it FOM will be part of the deal, even if watered down a bit.
    Nope, it won't be - May put everything at stake on anti-immigration stance, she will just blame EU for "punishing UK", that's all - big painful spending cuts are yet to kick in.

    Leave a comment:


  • darmstadt
    replied
    Originally posted by sasguru View Post
    Have we done this one yet?

    https://uk.yahoo.com/finance/news/eu...--finance.html

    "Nicole Kar, head of international trade at law firm Linklaters, described the ECJ case as the most significant on EU trade policy for 20 years and said it would have "huge ramifications" for a future UK-EU deal.

    Britain, she said, would need to decide if it wanted a more modest agreement likely to be backed or the most comprehensive deal possible that risked falling hostage to member states."
    Er, I think so

    Leave a comment:


  • BlasterBates
    replied
    Angela Merkel in the German parliament has just stated that if there is no "Freedom of Movement" Britain will pay a price.

    Lets face it FOM will be part of the deal, even if watered down a bit.

    Last edited by BlasterBates; 17 May 2017, 16:24.

    Leave a comment:


  • OwlHoot
    replied
    Have we done this one yet?

    2017-05-17 European judges clear path for a speedy post-Brexit trade deal by giving EU leaders the power to pass a free trade agreement by majority vote

    The European Court of Justice said Brussels can ratify complex trade deals

    It was feared Brexit talks could be stalled by various national parliaments

    The ECJ said unanimity is only required in two fairly niche trade deal areas

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post
    It looks like the UK will be offered a unilaterally dictated transition arrangement designed to protect the EU's interests.
    Erm, and whose interests should EU be protecting - own members or third country? All entirely predictable, that's why May went for election to get extra 2 years in power.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlasterBates
    replied
    Looks like a "quagmire" in the making.

    Basically the EU is simplifying everything to only aiming for an exit deal i.e. the "bar bill" and the fate of EU/UK nationals; the trade deal negotiations will begin after the UK has left the EU and it is a "third country"

    It looks like the UK will be offered a unilaterally dictated transition arrangement designed to protect the EU's interests.

    Certainly getting interesting.

    Leave a comment:


  • sasguru
    started a topic EU court ensure 32 vetoes on Brexit trade deal

    EU court ensure 32 vetoes on Brexit trade deal

    Have we done this one yet?

    https://uk.yahoo.com/finance/news/eu...--finance.html

    "Nicole Kar, head of international trade at law firm Linklaters, described the ECJ case as the most significant on EU trade policy for 20 years and said it would have "huge ramifications" for a future UK-EU deal.

    Britain, she said, would need to decide if it wanted a more modest agreement likely to be backed or the most comprehensive deal possible that risked falling hostage to member states."

Working...
X