Is the proposed Brexit Trade Deal Legal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter morganist
  • Start date Start date
morganist said:
It is their own laws they are breaking, the legal framework they set and required to become a member of the EU. This violation of the requirements they set led to the Euro Crisis and then put financial and political pressure on the UK to leave the EU. The whole point of having treaties is to meet the agreements set, when these agreements are broken the contract is in breach and compensation is made or the contract is dissolved.

A better question to ask is was there a Euro Crisis? Why? Because the ECB, the ESS and the EC failed to implement the targets they were legally bound to achieve. If the EC does not seek the best possible trade deal with the UK it will be a failure in stewardship of the best interests of economic governance, which they are supposed to be providing. It would put the EC's actions outside of its own legal requirements.
More...
It's even more absurd to talk about a country itself "breaking" it's own laws! Again, this is international law, it's a whole different animal than internal civil law.
 
Sig said:
It's even more absurd to talk about a country itself "breaking" it's own laws! Again, this is international law, it's a whole different animal than internal civil law.
More...

I am assuming by this you mean that because the EC set the laws it can break them? If this is the case then it is incorrect in its concept. The laws which the EC has broken are legally binding requirements for nations to enter and be part of the EU and for the successful economic governance of its economy. The laws which were set enable the union to exist in the first place.

By breaking the laws it would mean the nations within the union are none compliant to the regulations that are necessary to maintain a successful economy and economic union. By not adhering to these laws the nation is not simply breaking the law but not falling within the economic achievement requirements needed to make the Euro and EU economy in general operate effectively.

Breaking these laws and targets .i.e. the Stability and Growth Pact or ECB targets could impact the value of the Euro or put financial strain on other EU member states. The same is true for the EC itself if it does not maintain its objectives for economic governance the outcome is the same, the Euro value is effected or there is greater financial strain on the wider EU member states.

This is why the infringements on EU law are so important and consequential when it comes to a nation maintaining its membership within the EU, there are financial and economic effects of not attaining the expected targets set by the EC. Prior to the Euro Crisis the legally binding targets set by the EC were not met with financial consequences, the trade deal could be a similar example.
 
morganist said:
I am assuming by this you mean that because the EC set the laws it can break them? If this is the case then it is incorrect in its concept. The laws which the EC has broken are legally binding requirements for nations to enter and be part of the EU and for the successful economic governance of its economy. The laws which were set enable the union to exist in the first place.

By breaking the laws it would mean the nations within the union are none compliant to the regulations that are necessary to maintain a successful economy and economic union. By not adhering to these laws the nation is not simply breaking the law but not falling within the economic achievement requirements needed to make the Euro and EU economy in general operate effectively.

Breaking these laws and targets .i.e. the Stability and Growth Pact or ECB targets could impact the value of the Euro or put financial strain on other EU member states. The same is true for the EC itself if it does not maintain its objectives for economic governance the outcome is the same, the Euro value is effected or there is greater financial strain on the wider EU member states.

This is why the infringements on EU law are so important and consequential when it comes to a nation maintaining its membership within the EU, there are financial and economic effects of not attaining the expected targets set by the EC. Prior to the Euro Crisis the legally binding targets set by the EC were not met with financial consequences, the trade deal could be a similar example.
More...

The EC has failed to attain the required level of economic governance to hold the EU together and member states are legally entitled to leave, under their own treaties, when this happens. This is the case and why there is a strong legal case for the UK to withdraw from the EU, further infringements of the requirements needed to hold the EU together are imminent with the proposed agreement's trade deal, which will likely put a strain on the economy of the region.
 
Visaria said:
Did you write that article in the Telegraph today?
More...

(I have no idea what is going on in this thread or with Brexit, I just love Star Wars stuff. Carry on. Teehee. (And by the way, that was not the original JEJ voice or scene.))
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top