Brexit: Now What? Part III

[Newtons Bit]

That would be piracy; acts of war. Even so-called rogue states don't do that.

What do you think illegally seizing assets is called? Countries will respond tit-for-tat when foreign nations seize their stuff.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

What do you think illegally seizing assets is called? Countries will respond tit-for-tat when foreign nations seize their stuff.

What? I think you have lost the plot somewhere.

 

[Aber]

Short version : that's the HoL analysis which can be right on money or just plain wrong. I will go for partially wrong otherwise it would make no sense to continue calculation by EU, and it would not be the first time somebody in UK has quite a false estimate on the situation with respect of brexit.

You don't like the analysis, so you think you can ignore it?

An interesting detail from the dinner party is that when the UK side repeated this claim, the EU side did not rebut it with their own legal opinion, but responded with 'no cash, no trade deal'.

 

[Aber]

The EU has two choices:

1) Negotiate a mutually beneficial deal

2) Impose a punitive deal

They cannot impose a punitive deal; the option is 'no deal' in which case WTO trade rules apply (and can be enforced).

 

[GnaGnaMan]

Of what?

I quoted your post in full. Here it is again:

Not the same framework, sure, but many of the same governments are involved. It's hypocritical for them to demand we pay every penny of some back-of-a-postit-note demand when they routinely fail to pay their own bills.

Weaseling out is fine, I'm talking more about when commitments are agreed then flagrantly breached with barely a mention.

You can click the little arrow next to your name to browse to your original post.
I've bolded the assertions I would like to know more about.

 

[Aber]

What if the ECJ decides otherwise?

It simply has no juridstiction over the UK after Brexit.

 

[Craig B]

(But then historically, Europe doesn't have anywhere near the statesmanlike wisdom of the Brits.)

Aha, I see you've made the acquaintance of Johnnie Foreigner! A complete rascal, isn't he?

 

[Giz]

Aha, I see you've made the acquaintance of Johnnie Foreigner! A complete rascal, isn't he?

'Tis the verdict of history.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

It simply has no juridstiction over the UK after Brexit.

Well, that's up to the ECJ to decide. I don't see the argument, myself. The ECJ interprets the relevant treaties which is what the UK agreed to.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Well, that's up to the ECJ to decide. I don't see the argument, myself. The ECJ interprets the relevant treaties which is what the UK agreed to.

Sure, the ECJ can decide that, and the UK can decide otherwise. Given that the UK will no longer bound by a treaty to the EU, all the various international bodies will agree with the UK.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

My taxi driver analysis was neatly bookended today by a German guy who was of the opinion that the English would have been better off if they'd lost the war and been under German rule.

He took great pleasure in reminding me that they are crap at football as well.

Brexit in a two taxi ride nutshell.

 

[abaddon]

Sure, the ECJ can decide that, and the UK can decide otherwise. Given that the UK will no longer bound by a treaty to the EU, all the various international bodies will agree with the UK.

The UK remains bound to all treaties until Brexit is settled. Unless and until that happens, all existing agreements apply.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Sure, the ECJ can decide that, and the UK can decide otherwise. Given that the UK will no longer bound by a treaty to the EU, all the various international bodies will agree with the UK.

All the international bodies? Which ones are you referring to?

Still it's good to know that leaving a union is life a buffet. Pick and choose what you want to keep or discard. Hope Nicola is watching

 

[GnaGnaMan]

Sure, the ECJ can decide that, and the UK can decide otherwise. Given that the UK will no longer bound by a treaty to the EU, all the various international bodies will agree with the UK.

Which international bodies are you referring to here? Also why do you think that international law would be so completely different from private law?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Which international bodies are you referring to here? Also why do you think that international law would be so completely different from private law?

The signatories to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the UN, the WTO...

The EU would need the WTO to side with it to enforce a 'divorce bill', as it were, on the UK, and there's nothing in Article 50 that allows it to do so. The UK is out in two years, the treaty absolved and there's no requirements for the UK to continue paying commitments made under the Lisbon Treaty.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

The signatories to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the UN, the WTO...

The signatories are countries and not international bodies.
Can you explain what form agreeing with the UK would take? And how would this even work given that 27 other countries in the UN are bound by the ECJ?

The EU would need the WTO to side with it to enforce a 'divorce bill', as it were, on the UK, and there's nothing in Article 50 that allows it to do so.

What would be the role of the WTO?

The UK is out in two years, the treaty absolved and there's no requirements for the UK to continue paying commitments made under the Lisbon Treaty.

Why do you think civil courts do not follow such a legal theory?
What makes international courts different?

 

[baron]

I quoted your post in full. Here it is again:


You can click the little arrow next to your name to browse to your original post.
I've bolded the assertions I would like to know more about.

But I gave an example in the preceding post: Routine underpayments of NATO contributions from countries such as Germany, Italy and Spain.

 

[abaddon]

But I gave an example in the preceding post: Routine underpayments of NATO contributions from countries such as Germany, Italy and Spain.

NATO is not the EU.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

But I gave an example in the preceding post: Routine underpayments of NATO contributions from countries such as Germany, Italy and Spain.

I do not know that any of these countries failed to pay contributions to NATO.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The signatories are countries and not international bodies.

The signatories to treaties form an international body with their membership. That's how all international bodies are created. The UN is international body because it was created by the countries that signed a treaty. As is the EU. And the WTO. And NATO, etc etc etc.

Can you explain what form agreeing with the UK would take? And how would this even work given that 27 other countries in the UN are bound by the ECJ?

There are courts of international law outside the EU. They aren't going to give one fig about an EU court. They care solely about the treaties that the EU and UK agreed to.

What would be the role of the WTO?

Expropriation in an involuntary divorce bill is a violation of GATT. The WTO was created to provide remediation for such actions. Should the EU unlawfully seize UK assets, the UK can petition the WTO and the WTO, if it finds for the UK, can then ask other countries that have liquid funds of the EU to turn those over to the UK in compensation. Of course, the UK would probably take more immediate steps...

Barring the WTO, the ICJ could also intervene and find against the EU (hey look, another international body)

Why do you think civil courts do not follow such a legal theory?
What makes international courts different?

International laws are vastly different than civil courts, but if you need a civil court analogy, think of the Lisbon Treaty as a contract. The contract states the UK can leave. Absent any negotiated deal, it just quits and the contract is then void. To make an even more personal analogy, consider your contract with your ISP. Should something happens that results in either you or the ISP triggering a valid exit clause, the parties are separated under the terms of the exit clause. If you exit prematurely, you may be on the hook for an additional payment or the full value. If you exit under a clause that doesn't require you to keep making payments, your ISP can't come seize your car (legally) because you made a commitment to pay your bills earlier.


I should add that for the WTO and the ICJ, they can really only authorize action. They're not the cops. They can't force the EU to do anything. But if the EU starts unlawfully seizing other countries assets in contravention to the treaties they've formed with other countries, they'll find themselves out of favor with all of those other countries.