Claretnick wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 8:45 pm
I don't know if this will help, the first link takes you to the free trade agreement between the US and Australia. Chapter 14 has 6 references to consultations and chapter 20 has 20 references to consultations. Maybe you can find some others. Be interesting to see why the UK is not happy with being asked to consult with the EU prior to making changes that may impact on any free trade agreement we reach with them.
https://tcc.export.gov/Trade_Agreements ... 002771.asp
https://www.trade.gov/free-trade-agreements
Thank you claretnick - at least someone is trying to provide answers to my questions rather than countering with other questions.
I am not trained in reading legal texts so forgive me if my interpretations are not right - I presume you are understanding and fully conversant in these texts though?
14 - 6 Appears to be about co-operation on cross border consumer protection - not about having the right to veto a law when consulted on it. Clearly if it breaches the T&Cs of the trade agreement that would fall under that agreement. Im not sure of the bit you think is considered similar to the point of vetos of our laws/legislation of our country.
Chapter 20 states
To the extent possible, each Party shall:
(a) publish in advance any such laws, regulations, procedures, and administrative rulings that it proposes to adopt; and
(b) provide interested persons and the other Party a reasonable opportunity to comment on such proposed measures.
That is fine. We can share in advance and probably makes sense so the EU can say if we are changing a standard which for example could impact on the contract we have agreed.
It then begs the question of what would be the outcome in that trade deal if there are any disagreements with any of this..
ARTICLE 20.5 : REVIEW AND APPEAL
1. Each Party shall maintain judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative tribunals or
procedures for the purpose of the prompt review20-2 and, where warranted, correction of final
administrative actions regarding matters covered by this Agreement. Such tribunals shall be
impartial and independent of the office or authority entrusted with administrative enforcement
and shall not have any substantial interest in the outcome of the matter.
There is an independent tribunal and I think this is what the EU/Canada deal needed to get through.
However what I understand from the brexit trade deal is that the EU want the ECJ to have final say on any disputes. Thats like me asking Nigel Farage to settle a dispute between a brexiteer and a remainer.
My limited ability to understand legal text and from the interpretations I can take from them - none of this deal seems to extend beyond the agreement in place. It doesn't reach out beyond so the US government can veto wider Australian laws if it thinks they didn't like them as it may distort their market somehow.
I have done a quick 'find' search in the full text and nothing about state aid in there either which is where I think this veto is likely to be exercised. Yet this is something that the EU are insisting on.
It just feels all very unusual that these things are being seen as unacceptable if they were normal legal protections included part of a trade deal.