Not a clue.
Sorry, again I have no idea.
It exists therefore it is evidence. One is enough.
The Leavers post a rosy picture of the UK turning its back on the EU and returning to a 1950s-like never-never land of imperial prosperity. In all of this, the EU is conflated with institutions such as the European Parliament and the Council of Europe. The happy assumption is that all power will rerurn to the Mother of All Parliaments.
It ain’t necessarily so. The UK would not have full sovereignty over its own affairs unless it repudiates the EU Parliament and all the pan-European legislation. Among other things, this would mean abrogating various human rights treaties. But that is just the political, legal and judicial level. And it is noteworthy that the EU has pushed through a great deal of legislation concerning the environment, human rights and social welfare generally, legislation that the member countries did not or would not pass. The UK’s record in such matters is in fact little short of deplorable, so a Brexit means that the Brits are at the mercy of the hard heart of Westminster. Will Britain pass equivalent legislation to maintain legal parity with the EU? I’m not holding my breath.
Now the trade side. This is where you can see that Farage and the Leavers are in urgent need of a class in remedial economics. Currently Britain can trade with any EU country on the same basis, this would apply if more countries join the EU. After a Brexit it will be necessary to conclude trade contracts with every single EU member country. Tiresome, but it gets worse. Industry and agriculture within Europe are very much interlinked nowadays, thanks to the EU, so a Brexit immediately causes problems for manufacturing industry and the food processing industry. The UK always has been a net importer of food, so it will have to pay more for that in the future. Other sources? Possibly North America, but US food regulations are very lax by EU standards, and there is the distance factor.
I suppose the Leavers think that British farmers will now be free of bureaucracy and can feed the great British populace both cheaply and profitably. While Britain does not export a huge amount of food, what is does is mainly specialty products rather than staples, which are more profitable. Net result; the Germans have to pay more for shortbread, the British have to pay more for wine. This is beneficial to all concerned?
Leaving the EU will be expensive as it is, but there are two more factors. London is a major financial center, but many companies are pulling out and basing themselves in the EU. The British market is nowhere as big as the EU as a whole, and this applies to everything. Hence it will not be attractive to investors. China in partocular is looking for somewhere to park its money in investments, and the UK would be the first choice if it is in the EU. If not, then the money will go elsewhere.
That just leaves two very interesting questions, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Both benefit hugely from Britain being in the UK. What will they then want to do after a Brexit? Indeed, it could lead to a breakup of the United Kingdom.
In short, a country cannot simply walk away from its commitments, and the arguments posted by the Leavers show a remarkable lack of awareness for anything other than their own very narrow and blinkered views, with no understanding of the issues involved and the likely consequences.
Countries outside the EU negotiate trade treaties with the EU, not with countries within it, so in fact the UK would have to have a trade treaty with the EU, as a whole.
I suspect both the EU and UK would want to do that very quickly as they have huge trade flows between them, but very quickly in terms of agreements means, oh shall we say, a couple of years. In fact very like the time it has already taken to get to an agreement that isn’t being accepted by the UK Parliament.
More to the point, Brexit would require us to make separate trade deals with all the other countries with which we currently have a deal as members of the EU.
And what sort of terms would those other countries expect from a partner that flounces out of a deal without any realistic plan to replace it? Chlorinated chicken would be the least of it.
(And in general, what damage is already being done to our credibility in any sort of international agreement?)
Individual EU members can have their own trade treaties too, but it simply makes more sense to negotiate in bulk when you can.
I am afraid you err on this, the European Commission has exclusive competence for the Common Commercial policy (as well as the Common Agricultural policy, Fisheries policy, Transport policy, Competition rules and Rules governing the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital). Individual EU members can NOT have their own trade treaties. The rules were designed to prevent a foreign power to try divide et impera.
For the Common Commercial policy yes. But it is possible to have trade policies which cover items not included in the Common Commercial policy. It also does not eliminate, nor prevent the renewal of, treaties of which the members were already a party at the time of joining.
That is not the way I understand it, can you provide a quote? Because as you state it, if a third State had a more favourable regime with one Member State than with the rest of the EU (on customs duties, say) nothing would prevent that third State to conduct all the trade with the EU through that Member State. The single market would then give that third State access to all other EU Member States with more favourable, thus unfair conditions. That seems to me to be the kind of discrimination the European Court of Justice has repeatedly ruled against. The Common Commercial policy covers trade agreemens in their entirety, where have you found a loophole?
I can tell you that Spain has several treaties with Morocco and with Latin American countries which involve specific items (very specific items), terms of stay, benefits… which do not obligate other EU member countries at all; some of those involve things for which EU member countries are obligated with each other. And that most of those predate Spain’s entry in the EU. But unless you want to prepare my data clean files that I really should be working on, no, I don’t plan on dredging up timelines for each of those. Note that we’d be the/a main port of entry for a lot of that stuff anyway, just for geographical reasons.
Really? What I have heard is that deals need to be negotiated with the individual countries. It could be that both of us are right and there are no arrangements that apply across the board.
Seconded. Britain will lose credibility in all respects. And where exactly do the Leavers see their salvation, or the benefits from the Brexit? Glorious isolation is not a viable policy, economically or politically. And exactly which trade blocs want to pick up the slack? Such as it is; Britain not the economic powerhouse that it used to be.
Who to trade with? EFTA is small beer by any standards. The former colonies have little desire to cozy up, even Oztralia and NZ, who resented being dumped when Britain joined the EU. India? The PRC? Russia? Brazil? They all have trade plans of their own, and Britain is too far away and not of sufficient importance to them. The USA would be more than happy to jump in, but on its own terms. As the Great Orange Manchild said, “America First”. That does not bode well for non-Americans.
The EU negotiates as a bloc. That’s sort of the whole point of the enterprise.
There’s a difference between negotiating and ratification.
The EU negotiates as a bloc. However, if the deal is considered a “mixed agreement” once the deal is negotiated, it needs the approval of all the member states, because it is an international treaty. The EU doesn’t have authority to bind member states to international treaties.
So the third country doesn’t negotiate with each EU member, and EU members can’t negotiate separate deals. The negotiation is between the third party and the EU.
But each EU member can block a “mixed” deal, since the EU won’t agree to it coming into force until all members are on side.
For instance, the recent Canada - EU deal was negotiated between Canada and the EU. It then had to be ratified by each EU member, under their own domestic law for treaty ratification.
Most EU countries have given provisional agreement.
But one canton in Belgium objected to some aspect of the deal and it got held up for several months until Belgium was satisfied.
Apparently the stand-off has been resolved on an interim basis by referring Belgium’s concerns to the European Court. The treaty is only provisionally in force, because of Belgium’s opposition.
See the “Signatures and ratification” section of the wiki article:
This came up early in Trump’s presidency. He repeatedly attempted to negotiate directly with at least Germany only to be told repeatedly that they were unable to do so.