tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post2400178864514589673..comments2024-03-29T04:53:16.437-07:00Comments on EU Law Analysis: What next after the UK vote to leave the EU?Steve Peershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-17369473327081087742022-02-09T01:51:39.474-08:002022-02-09T01:51:39.474-08:00Now that the UK has left the EU, it's not poss...Now that the UK has left the EU, it's not possible to withdraw the notification to leave (according to the CJEU Wightman judgment, which referred to withdrawal being possible until the point when the withdrawal agreement entered into force, or the UK otherwise left). It is, however, possible to rejoin the EU.Steve Peershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-18347337521677619032022-02-09T01:46:36.632-08:002022-02-09T01:46:36.632-08:00Regardless, considering the expanding reaction aga...Regardless, considering the expanding reaction against the Leave vote, with numerous electors currently understanding that they were beguiled by misleading proclamations from the Leave campaigners, there is starting to be question whether Parliament will at any point approve initiation of Article 50 withdrawal. It unquestionably doesn't assist the Leave with packaging that the Leave campaigners have no arrangement at all for how to deal with leaving the EU.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.universityliving.com/blog/guide/why-indian-students-wont-feel-home-sick-in-nottingham" rel="nofollow">No feeling of homesick for Indian students in Nottingham </a><br />Elena Gilberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10775501462124471984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-85806027673619293922021-10-09T19:17:58.494-07:002021-10-09T19:17:58.494-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Karl Stefanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06607378392103769731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-49676179177087615582021-10-08T14:36:45.861-07:002021-10-08T14:36:45.861-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Global Financehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07758293340525519442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-91122396685802458172020-02-22T05:46:25.645-08:002020-02-22T05:46:25.645-08:00EU citizenship is based on nationality of a Member...EU citizenship is based on nationality of a Member State, and the UK has ceased to be a Member State. Steve Peershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-20227411093000495132020-02-22T05:42:57.431-08:002020-02-22T05:42:57.431-08:00EU citizenship is intrinsically linked to holding ...EU citizenship is intrinsically linked to holding the nationality of a Member State. UK citizens remain UK citizens, so have not been deprived of their citizenship; EU citizenship is different from the nationality of a State in that it depends upon holding the nationality of a (Member) State in the first place. Comparisons with a loan are irrelevant: the Treaties set a condition of holding EU citizenship, and the UK has now decided not to meet that particular condition. Steve Peershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-36781841110924470692017-11-16T23:45:16.642-08:002017-11-16T23:45:16.642-08:00It's possible (although it would arguably brea...It's possible (although it would arguably breach the Good Friday Agreement) but it's not UK government policy.Steve Peershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-40992170313909710802017-11-16T23:25:17.698-08:002017-11-16T23:25:17.698-08:00One question also looms ahead. Theresa May says sh...One question also looms ahead. Theresa May says she intends to pull out of the ECHR. I am told this is not possible. Is this true?<br />-----<br />căn hộ quận 7 giá dưới 1 tỷ<a href="https://homedy.com/ban-can-ho-quan-7-tp-ho-chi-minh-gia-duoi-1-ty" rel="nofollow">https://homedy.com/ban-can-ho-quan-7-tp-ho-chi-minh-gia-duoi-1-ty</a><br />mua nhà dưới 1 tỷ tại tphcm<a href="https://homedy.com/ban-nha-tp-ho-chi-minh-gia-duoi-1-ty" rel="nofollow">https://homedy.com/ban-nha-tp-ho-chi-minh-gia-duoi-1-ty</a><br />nhà bán dưới 1 tỷ quận 6<a href="https://homedy.com/ban-nha-quan-6-tp-ho-chi-minh-gia-duoi-1-ty" rel="nofollow">https://homedy.com/ban-nha-quan-6-tp-ho-chi-minh-gia-duoi-1-ty</a><br />mua bán căn hộ dưới 2 tỷ tp hcm<a href="https://homedy.com/ban-can-ho-tp-ho-chi-minh-gia-duoi-2-ty" rel="nofollow">https://homedy.com/ban-can-ho-tp-ho-chi-minh-gia-duoi-2-ty</a><br />manhquanautovnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04295149096077004968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-12432337290124119552016-09-16T19:52:03.041-07:002016-09-16T19:52:03.041-07:00The issue of Article 126(1) wasn't raised here...The issue of Article 126(1) wasn't raised here, but it had been referenced by the EFTA website as their reasoning behind the answer they give in a FAQ section on the possibility of being an EEA member without being a member of the EU or EFTA: http://www.efta.int/faq<br /><br />In the opinion of EFTA at least you have to be a member of the EU or EFTA to be in the EEA.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-20732330566262500402016-08-17T08:21:42.276-07:002016-08-17T08:21:42.276-07:00"Some argue that people cannot be ‘deprived’ ..."Some argue that people cannot be ‘deprived’ of their EU citizenship by a Member State leaving the EU. In my view, that’s untenable. The Treaties define citizens of the Union as being nationals of Member States. If a country ceases to be a Member State of the European Union, then obviously its nationals therefore cease to be citizens of the Union."<br />This is by no means as clear as you appear to think. The acquisition of citizenship is via an EU member state; but citizenship is an individual not a collective right. A UK citizen (let's forget for the moment that he/she is in reality merely a subject), cannot be deprived of his/her citizenship by government diktat.<br />The same, it can argued, applies to EU citizenship - the question being whether a state has a right to deprive individuals of an acquired right to something as fundamental as citizenship. Because if it does have that right, then whatever it is that is now called "EU citizenship" cannot be citizenship in the conventional meaning of that term. My point being that citizenship is not a loan provided by states to their nationals and repayable on demand. Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582827878189956621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-10100402805454869702016-07-25T11:51:34.294-07:002016-07-25T11:51:34.294-07:00That is what I mean - it happens with readmission ...That is what I mean - it happens with readmission treaties for instance. I think whether it happens depends on the relevant voting rule in the Council. <br /><br />That's what I thought SPS meant! But I don't know why you asked about them - the CJEU has already said that SPS are within the scope of the CCP even as it stood years ago, in Opinion 1/94 (para 31). <br /><br />GMP sounds like just another form of regulatory cooperation or mutual recognition - surely at the core of the CCP competence regarding services. Steve Peershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-62616499789260715332016-07-25T10:46:26.849-07:002016-07-25T10:46:26.849-07:00Thanks very much. When you say Member State involv...Thanks very much. When you say Member State involvement isn't mandatory, even if non-exclusive competences are included, do you mean that the Member States can forego their right to be signatories if they so choose? If so, would the objection of a single Member State be enough to prevent this?<br /><br />Thanks for the reference to Opinion 2/15, the Commission's questions are pleasingly clear.<br /><br />By SPS I mean sanitary and phytosanitary measures, and GMP is good manufacturing practice, which features in some MRAs, eg the EU-Israel ACCA.<br /><br />More on Mayer's opinion here: http://bit.ly/2a4Sa3e<br /><br />AndrewAndrew Chapmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11682602818338988947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-52283206460496478072016-07-25T06:09:50.124-07:002016-07-25T06:09:50.124-07:00Thanks for your comment, Andrew.
In fact, unanimit...Thanks for your comment, Andrew.<br />In fact, unanimity only applies under Article 207.4 TFEU 'where such agreements include provisions for which unanimity is required for the adoption of internal rules'. It's not clear what that means, but there aren't many cases where unanimity applies under internal rules. (Tax? Art 352?)<br />There's also unanimous voting re 'cultural and audiovisual services' and 'social, education and health services', both in both cases subject to conditions. <br />Member State involvement via a mixed agreement isn't mandatory if a treaty includes non-exclusive EU competences - but it is very much the practice, especially re trade agreements. Yet they are often put in force provisionally pending national ratification. <br />The exact scope of QMV re trade in services/CCP isn't clear. We will know a lot more when we have a CJEU judgment on the EU/Singapore deal in Opinion 2/15, which I expect will shape these negotiations. Of the list you mention: transport services is an express exclusion from the CCP (quite widely interpreted in Opinion 1/08); I don't know what GMP and SPS are; there's no good argument in my view that recognition of qualifications, transparency rules and (especially) regulatory cooperation fall outside the scope of CCP for services; the entry and stay point is marginal (but EU has competences over immigration law); health and safety is a social policy competence; and the case law already says that brief references to criminal law and IP are within CCP competence. Steve Peershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-75035005650977277102016-07-25T04:38:17.293-07:002016-07-25T04:38:17.293-07:00'it is more likely that a separate deal would ...'it is more likely that a separate deal would be subject to unanimous voting and national ratification'<br /><br />Am I right in thinking that for an EU-UK FTA there are three possibilities: a simple agreement with QMV; a simple agreement with unanimity in the Council, (if it covers trade in services, commercial aspects of IP, or FDI: TFEU 207(4)) ; and member state unanimity with national ratification, if it extends beyond the EU's exclusive competence. <br /><br />What would have to be left out for the agreement to be kept simple? So far I have found: transport services (Review of Balance of Competences: Trade and Investment, 2.5), and then from an opinion by Franz Mayer on CETA: protection of portfolio investment; mutual recognition of professional qualifications (particularly the inclusion of third party nationals); health and safety at work; GMP for pharmaceuticals; and criminal provisions regarding IP, SPS, entry and temporary entry, transparency rules and regulatory cooperation. But some of these may be disputed.<br /><br />AndrewAndrew Chapmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11682602818338988947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-28416072764220427502016-07-20T07:44:52.644-07:002016-07-20T07:44:52.644-07:00I would imagine any secondary legislation would in...I would imagine any secondary legislation would indeed cease to apply. If the treaty doesn't apply to UK territory, it should be the same for any rules made under that treaty. It is not just services, incidentally. On my reading, it is everything by goods. If one then adds my point about territorial application (above/below), then goods imports into the UK are also excluded, which leaves, at most, goods exports from the UK to other EEA members. But such an asymmetrical treaty makes no sense. It would, I think, be likely to be subject to the exceptio inadimplenti, or rebus sic stantibus. In short, I suspect that without amending the territoriality clause and the EFTA parties clause, the EEA option will not fly.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03021917140786330408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-44079490886638913442016-07-20T04:37:15.240-07:002016-07-20T04:37:15.240-07:00So from a strictly literal perspective there would...So from a strictly literal perspective there would be parts of the treaty that still apply to the UK as one of the 'Contracting Parties' and parts that do not. Without the services clause the value of the EEA to the UK is reduced. But would the secondary legislation cease to apply to the UK on this analysis?Steve Peershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-79422120473275221212016-07-20T04:00:59.863-07:002016-07-20T04:00:59.863-07:00Well, e.g., Art 28(1): 'Freedom of movement fo...Well, e.g., Art 28(1): 'Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured among EC Member States and EFTA States.' Art 36(1): 'Within the framework of the provisions of this Agreement, there shall be no restrictions on freedom to provide services within the territory of the Contracting Parties in respect of nationals of EC Member States and EFTA States who are established in an EC Member State or an EFTA State other than that of the person for whom the services are intended.' etc etc. The UK is not an EFTA state under Art 2(b).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03021917140786330408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-46409833930278097182016-07-20T03:52:08.149-07:002016-07-20T03:52:08.149-07:00Not sure what you mean by that. Not sure what you mean by that. Steve Peershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-86786889444458280222016-07-20T03:45:09.330-07:002016-07-20T03:45:09.330-07:00OK. But other than goods the rules only apply to E...OK. But other than goods the rules only apply to EFTA States. No?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03021917140786330408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-58467196707738560452016-07-20T03:41:47.184-07:002016-07-20T03:41:47.184-07:00See my reply to your reply dated 28 June.See my reply to your reply dated 28 June.Steve Peershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-36734406459926893282016-07-20T03:40:50.073-07:002016-07-20T03:40:50.073-07:00I would point to the definition of 'Contractin...I would point to the definition of 'Contracting Parties' at the outset of the agreement, which does not make an explicit distinction between EU Member States and EFTA States.Steve Peershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-3271309796490617412016-07-20T03:38:03.001-07:002016-07-20T03:38:03.001-07:00At the time when the EEA was agreed, the EEC/EC on...At the time when the EEA was agreed, the EEC/EC only had exclusive competence relating to trade in goods, and limited aspects of trade in services, according to Opinion 1/94. So I don't think the argument is persuasive on its own terms. Anyway, I don't necessarily accept that what the UK was able to contract to in 1992 should necessarily determine its status if and when it leaves the EU.<br />Talking of 'transferring' membership begs the question. So does discussion of EFTA membership. <br />I agree that Article 111 refers to the EC or an EFTA State only, but then Article 112 refers more generally to 'Contracting Parties'. <br />Finally there is the general point that Article 127 provides for an exit mechanism - and arguably is lex specialis on this issue. Steve Peershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-31676554206705089132016-07-20T03:32:30.908-07:002016-07-20T03:32:30.908-07:00I agree with Steve on this. But there is another p...I agree with Steve on this. But there is another point (not sure that this has been raised here) yet. Art 126(1) states that 'The Agreement shall apply to the territories to which the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (20) is applied and under the conditions laid down in that Treaty (21), and to the territories of Iceland (22), the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway (23).' This would then seem to leave any references to the UK redundant in practice, at least as far as imports or regulatory activity is concerned. Interesting question whether the UK might still have rights vis-a-vis others though. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03021917140786330408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-33986071792923230452016-07-20T03:24:41.089-07:002016-07-20T03:24:41.089-07:00'Contracting Parties' are defined at the v...'Contracting Parties' are defined at the very outset by means of a list of EU Member States and the EU, plus then the relevant EFTA States. Article 2(c) only addresses the division of power between the EU and its Member States; if the UK ceases to be an EU Member State that is irrelevant. It does not even mention some of the other Contracting Parties, so cannot be regarded as a definition of the term. So it doesn't support your assertion that 'The Agreement clearly states that the Contracting Parties shall mean the EFTA States, the Community and the EC member states.'Steve Peershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-77016381331202379082016-07-06T07:20:37.700-07:002016-07-06T07:20:37.700-07:00Your argument about strategy depends on the assump...Your argument about strategy depends on the assumption that an Article 50 notification is revocable. It's not for 'an international court' to determine this, it's for the EU Court of Justice. I think it would be best to clarify a number of issues in that Court in advance of any notification. This includes the question of whether the UK is legally entitled to remain a member of the EEA without EU approval and of whether the date of withdrawal could be postponed indefinitely. I can't see any basis for the argument that *if* the UK can withdraw a notification, it would need the EU's approval to do so (unless you are referring to an indefinite suspension of the withdrawal date) - but it would be best to ask the CJEU to clarify that issue too. <br />I also can't see on what basis a UK court could claim that a notification was 'invalid' once made, and it would be foolish to proceed on the basis that this could or would happen. The issue of irrevocability would *not* be moot if it turned out that indeed a notification was irrevocable. Steve Peershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.com