It's not just about Brexit

[GodIsADeeJay81]

As a key issue for a short time it rose to around 10%
As the most important issue it never reached above 5%
So on that data it's correct to say the vast majority of the people, 90%+ of the population did not see our EU membership as a key issue prior to 2016.

So what is the justification not for Brexit but for holding any potentially huge, nation changing referendums on issues of such minor public interest/concern?

We had decades of getting no say in the EU as people though.
We were signed up to varying treaties without it being run past us.

Suddenly we are given a chance to have a voice and you're taking issue with that.

The reasons for the referendum have been gone over numerous times on here, Cameron was weak, but he gave people a real chance to express their opinion about the EU so 2 thirds of those eligible to vote did just that.

[CombatClaret]

We had decades of getting no say in the EU as people though.
We were signed up to varying treaties without it being run past us.
Suddenly we are given a chance to have a voice and you're taking issue with that.
The reasons for the referendum have been gone over numerous times on here, Cameron was weak, but he gave people a real chance to express their opinion about the EU so 2 thirds of those eligible to vote did just that.

Those are all Brexit related answers, I'm asking what should be the requirement/threshold for a referendum in general?
Is it 5% of the population considering something the most import issue?

As of 2019 election 25% of people thought climate/pollution was the most important issue facing the UK. Where is the referendum with anything to do with that?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Those are all Brexit related answers, I'm asking what should be the requirement/threshold for a referendum in general?
Is it 5% of the population considering something the most import issue?

As of 2019 election 25% of people thought climate/pollution was the most important issue facing the UK. Where is the referendum with anything to do with that?

Ask your MP that one.
Maybe also ask why voting wasn't made compulsory for it.

Leaving a political union is different issue to climate change

[CombatClaret]

Ask your MP that one.
Maybe also ask why voting wasn't made compulsory for it.

Leaving a political union is different issue to climate change

We could vote on our membership of the Paris Climate Accord, that impacts what we as a nation can do. Don't see anyone else crying about the sovereignty it removes.

On one hands you say it was democracy but on the other you shrug when asked what should be taken to the people. At 90% or fewer of the population thinking it a key issue, how was it democratic to take that one issue to the people when the public as a whole were totally apathetic, while other bigger issues are ignored?
Either we operate like Switzerland or Ireland where referendums are commonplace on a wide range of issues or we don't hold at all them at all unless the issue is clearly at a very high level of public interest/concern.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

We could vote on our membership of the Paris Climate Accord, that impacts what we as a nation can do. Don't see anyone else crying about the sovereignty it removes.

On one hands you say it was democracy but on the other you shrug when asked what should be taken to the people. At 90% or fewer of the population thinking it a key issue, how was it democratic to take that one issue to the people when the public as a whole were totally apathetic, while other bigger issues are ignored?
Either we operate like Switzerland or Ireland where referendums are commonplace on a wide range of issues or we don't hold at all them at all unless the issue is clearly at a very high level of public interest/concern.

So you want referendums on things you think are important but not what others think are important?

Weird but OK.

[CombatClaret]

So you want referendums on things you think are important but not what others think are important?
Weird but OK.

You've either misunderstood me or are misrepresenting me.

I either want referendums on issues the majority think are important prior to a referendum being called - Or - none at all.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

You've either misunderstood me or are misrepresenting me.

I either want referendums on issues the majority think are important prior to a referendum being called - Or - none at all.

They've had 15 referendums in Ireland this century over a mixture of EU related items, religious issues (marruage/abortion) and some other stuff.

I couldn't begin to imagine how tiresome that amount of voting would be, plus the costs.

[CombatClaret]

They've had 15 referendums in Ireland this century over a mixture of EU related items, religious issues (marruage/abortion) and some other stuff.
I couldn't begin to imagine how tiresome that amount of voting would be, plus the costs.

So there's now such thing as too much democracy? Because it's too 'tiring and expensive' to ask people about a range of issues, many of which will have far more public concern or interest than Brexit ever did.
But it's fine to have a single one-off referendum on an issue less than 90% of the population cared about?

It seems you're only happy with the amount of democracy it takes to leave the EU but no more and no less.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

So there's now such thing as too much democracy? Because it's too 'tiring and expensive' to ask people about a range of issues, many of which will have far more public concern or interest than Brexit ever did.
But it's fine to have a single one-off referendum on an issue less than 90% of the population cared about?

It seems you're only happy with the amount of democracy it takes to leave the EU but no more and no less.

You'll be wanting one about the best way to wipe your arse next

They had a referendum last year about accepting foreign divorces and if they should change the length of time people should be married before getting divorced.

It was yes to both or no to both, no other options, yes won BTW, but note how it was a simple yes or no vote.

Ireland has a written constitution, so they have to do things differently to us I'd assume because we don't have one of those.

You're trying to claim I think there is such a thing as too much democracy, when the reality is there are certain things I'd expect the state to just deal with, without the need for the public to hold their hands every step of the way.

[CombatClaret]

You'll be wanting one about the best way to wipe your arse next

They had a referendum last year about accepting foreign divorces and if they should change the length of time people should be married before getting divorced.

It was yes to both or no to both, no other options, yes won BTW, but note how it was a simple yes or no vote.

Ireland has a written constitution, so they have to do things differently to us I'd assume because we don't have one of those.

You're trying to claim I think there is such a thing as too much democracy, when the reality is there are certain things I'd expect the state to just deal with, without the need for the public to hold their hands every step of the way.

I don't know what % of the public thought those were key issues.
What you're avoiding is the acknowledgement that as the data shows there was never any reason to hold a referendum based on majority public (or democratic) support or interest.

You'll go around it circles all night trying to justify It because you yourself happened to be in the 5% who cared and tell us why your issue and yours alone was worthy of a referendum.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I don't know what % of the public thought those were key issues.
What you're avoiding is the acknowledgement that as the data shows there was never any reason to hold a referendum based on majority public (or democratic) support or interest.

You'll go around it circles all night trying to justify It because you yourself happened to be in the 5% who cared and tell us why your issue and yours alone was worthy of a referendum.

I'm not avoiding anything.

Cameron felt the need to hold it, not me or anyone else that you know on this planet.
I don't recall him ever explaining why he held it either.

I don't have to go round in circles justifying naff all, because I'm not the one in a strop that a referendum was held over what some considered to be a minor issue and result went against me, that would be you.

In the UK we've only had 2 referendums on Europe, joining it as it was then and leaving what it became.

Ireland, that you've mentioned, had referendums about implementing things like Lisbon and if we'd had something similar than maybe we wouldn't have had an in out one.

So feel free to chase your tail about this as much as you'd like, you won't get anywhere because it's done with.

We've left, accept it, build a bridge and get the **** over it.
M

[clarethomer]

In what world does a trade deal ask for the powers to vito changes in another country?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brit ... SKBN25W04Q

[CombatClaret]

Cameron felt the need to hold it, not me or anyone else that you know on this planet.
I don't recall him ever explaining why he held it either.

Exactly, before we were told we had to pick sides no one cared. There was no will of the people to hold a referendum just party politics. You can't join sides in war that's never fought and Cameron created and ideological war in this country which was needless and had no democratic justification.

'You lost the war' is not a justification for why it was started.

[clarethomer]

Exactly, before we were told we had to pick sides no one cared. There was no will of the people to hold a referendum just party politics. You can't join sides in war that's never fought and Cameron created and ideological war in this country which was needless and had no democratic justification.

'You lost the war' is not a justification for why it was started.

The reason why he called the referendum had nothing to do with direct concern with the EU as such.

A number of elections from all parties I believe have had pressure for a review of our relationship with the EU. The rise of Nigel Farage and UKIP, it just got to a point where I think Cameron had to do something having had their vote share. You could therefore argue there was a growing concern with our relationship with the EU indirectly

Whether we agree with whether it was the right way to deal with those concerns, of course will be down to individuals to decide.

A quick search even shows back in 2008 Jo Swinson wanted an in/out referendum and this formed part of the lib dems manifesto in 2010. In fact, this article from the BBC explains all of the other parties that have had some commitment to a referendum.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49753420

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Exactly, before we were told we had to pick sides no one cared. There was no will of the people to hold a referendum just party politics. You can't join sides in war that's never fought and Cameron created and ideological war in this country which was needless and had no democratic justification.

'You lost the war' is not a justification for why it was started.

Now you're calling it a war....

Cameron has done more than rented the space in your head, he's mortgaged it and moved in long term

[CombatClaret]

Now you're calling it a war....

Cameron has done more than rented the space in your head, he's mortgaged it and moved in long term

Either you can't understand a metaphore or you don't want to justify the reasons for the referendum being called in the first place beyond 'because Cameron said so'. And if that's the reason well it shouldn't have happened.

[nil_desperandum]

In what world does a trade deal ask for the powers to vito changes in another country?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brit ... SKBN25W04Q

This is what it actually says, which isn't how you've spun it.
The British daily reported that EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, is said to be insisting that London must agree not to implement any change to UK legislation that could distort trade with the bloc without first consulting Brussels
I would imagine that most - if not all - trade agreements require either side to consult with the other before changing the rules. If either side could just simply change the Ts & CS whenever they wanted just to suit themselves, (and to disadvantage the other side), then the agreement / trade deal is pretty pointless.
Isn't this what negotiating a deal is about?
Once a deal has been reached, you both agree to keep the rules, so if one side wants to change them then you need to consult / agree, or simply pull out of the agreement.

[CombatClaret]

The reason why he called the referendum had nothing to do with direct concern with the EU as such.
A number of elections from all parties I believe have had pressure for a review of our relationship with the EU. The rise of Nigel Farage and UKIP, it just got to a point where I think Cameron had to do something having had their vote share. You could therefore argue there was a growing concern with our relationship with the EU indirectly
Whether we agree with whether it was the right way to deal with those concerns, of course will be down to individuals to decide.
A quick search even shows back in 2008 Jo Swinson wanted an in/out referendum and this formed part of the lib dems manifesto in 2010. In fact, this article from the BBC explains all of the other parties that have had some commitment to a referendum.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49753420

Joe Swinson wanted, Cameron wanted, Farage Wanted... Show me the graph which shows a significant proportion of the population though it was a key issue prior to 2016?
I've shown you ones which says it wasn't.

[clarethomer]

This is what it actually says, which isn't how you've spun it.
The British daily reported that EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, is said to be insisting that London must agree not to implement any change to UK legislation that could distort trade with the bloc without first consulting Brussels
I would imagine that most - if not all - trade agreements require either side to consult with the other before changing the rules. If either side could just simply change the Ts & CS whenever they wanted just to suit themselves, (and to disadvantage the other side), then the agreement / trade deal is pretty pointless.
Isn't this what negotiating a deal is about?
Once a deal has been reached, you both agree to keep the rules, so if one side wants to change them then you need to consult / agree, or simply pull out of the agreement.

Would be keen to see evidence of where this happens....

[NewClaret]

In what world does a trade deal ask for the powers to vito changes in another country?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brit ... SKBN25W04Q

Laughable.

[clarethomer]

Joe Swinson wanted, Cameron wanted, Farage Wanted... Show me the graph which shows a significant proportion of the population though it was a key issue prior to 2016?
I've shown you ones which says it wasn't.

I cant show you a graph that doesn't exist. Nor do I intend to discuss any wider about the subject. What has happened, has happened.

I was merely explaining why Cameron delivered it but other parties were asking for it too as they saw something which made it significant enough to put it in their manifesto.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Either you can't understand a metaphore or you don't want to justify the reasons for the referendum being called in the first place beyond 'because Cameron said so'. And if that's the reason well it shouldn't have happened.

It won't matter what's shown, you're going to disregard it as already shown.

Carry on chasing your tail over it.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I cant show you a graph that doesn't exist. Nor do I intend to discuss any wider about the subject. What has happened, has happened.

I was merely explaining why Cameron delivered it but other parties were asking for it too as they saw something which made it significant enough to put it in their manifesto.

Owen Jones spent ages demanded the left get Brexit done, Lexit he called it, yet when the Tories held the referendum he was dead against it

[nil_desperandum]

Would be keen to see evidence of where this happens....

On a very simplistic level.
I want to buy a car from you but I can't afford to pay the full amount up front, so we make a deal:
I can have the car but I have to pay you £200 / month for the next 3 years, (along with various other Ts & Cs). If after 6 months I no longer wish to pay the £200, or to change some of the conditions, I can't just unilaterally (e.g.) decide to pay £100 / month. In order to change the terms I'd need to consult with you and re-negotiate the deal. That's exactly how it works. If I don't consult with you and come to a new agreement, then I'm in breach of the agreement, and you would understandably take action.

[clarethomer]

So you don't have any evidence of such a clause being inserted into a trade deal?

I believe your example is misunderstanding what they are asking for also.

They want to ensure we cannot become more competitive than them and distort their trade through designing our laws and legislations which diverge from their own. This means that if we wanted to change these and we went through all the relevant stages of legal and political process, the EU could say - sorry but that could hurt us, so you can't do it...

So please show me a trade deal which allows the EU to do this with another country where the EU have the ultimate say on the laws and legislation of a country which they have a trade deal with. I would be really keen to see this..

[Spijed]

If we don't get a deal it seems WTO terms will be a disaster:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/busi ... 61161.html

[clarethomer]

If we don't get a deal it seems WTO terms will be a disaster:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/busi ... 61161.html

It certainly will create a bit of turbulence for sure but I think the medium to longer term benefits will be worthwhile. I also like to think that we will create opportunity which cannot be factored in as we don't know what we don't know.

[martin_p]

It certainly will create a bit of turbulence for sure but I think the medium to longer term benefits will be worthwhile. I also like to think that we will create opportunity which cannot be factored in as we don't know what we don't know.

What are the medium to longer term benefits?

[clarethomer]

Read the next sentence Martin of what you have quoted me for.

[martin_p]

Read the next sentence Martin of what you have quoted me for.

Well the next sentence said ‘also’ so I assumed the nebulous ‘taking advantage of things we don’t know about’ was on top of some defined benefits.

[clarethomer]

Well there are some benefits that I believe will happen but it's accepting that we don't know what we don't know so if you are then going to interrogate me on my views, I can only give you that I am a person that naturally sees benefit in change, and I know that the more nimble you can be, the better it can be to navigate change. Therefore

- I believe that the future without the EU will allow us to create our own trading partnerships which are not compromised because of a 3rd party countries view on something.

- I believe that we will get trade deals that work better for us and we will create trading opportunities that do not currently exist.

- I believe our agility in the world and be able to shape and evolve to react to a world that just seems to be getting more crazy.

Now given that I sense there will be people on here that see strength in size and strength in numbers, this probably won't resonate with you in the same way as it does with me.

The only way we can change though is to be truly free of the EU in terms of their influence/oversight on our laws etc.

[nil_desperandum]

So you don't have any evidence of such a clause being inserted into a trade deal?

I believe your example is misunderstanding what they are asking for also.

They want to ensure we cannot become more competitive than them and distort their trade through designing our laws and legislations which diverge from their own. This means that if we wanted to change these and we went through all the relevant stages of legal and political process, the EU could say - sorry but that could hurt us, so you can't do it...

So please show me a trade deal which allows the EU to do this with another country where the EU have the ultimate say on the laws and legislation of a country which they have a trade deal with. I would be really keen to see this..

I will assume that that's a response to me, even though you've not quoted.
I've given you an example of a very simple trade agreement. (Me making a deal to buy your car). You can extend this to any deal you want. Let's take fishing rights for example.
Let's say that we (UK / EU)agree a deal over fishing rights and agree quotas. To change this agreement should need consultation and renegotiation. Just imagine the reaction on here if we agreed a quota system and then (e.g.) the French found a loophole, and changed their laws and it allowed French fishermen an advantage. Quite rightly we'd cry "foul" and say you can't do this without consultation.
And, as I pointed out before, it's nothing to do with having "the ultimate say", (unless -as you've just said to me) you can find evidence to the contrary. From all I've read Barnier has said that they would expect to be consulted, no reference to "final say"
Do you seriously think that we could make a deal with Trump that allowed us to subsequently change our laws to give us an advantage? It's not going to happen.

[clarethomer]

I will assume that that's a response to me, even though you've not quoted.
I've given you an example of a very simple trade agreement. (Me making a deal to buy your car). You can extend this to any deal you want. Let's take fishing rights for example.
Let's say that we (UK / EU)agree a deal over fishing rights and agree quotas. To change this agreement should need consultation and renegotiation. Just imagine the reaction on here if we agreed a quota system and then (e.g.) the French found a loophole, and changed their laws and it allowed French fishermen an advantage. Quite rightly we'd cry "foul" and say you can't do this without consultation.
And, as I pointed out before, it's nothing to do with having "the ultimate say", (unless -as you've just said to me) you can find evidence to the contrary. From all I've read Barnier has said that they would expect to be consulted, no reference to "final say"
Do you seriously think that we could make a deal with Trump that allowed us to subsequently change our laws to give us an advantage? It's not going to happen.

You are still missing the point.

I'm not stating that we will change the terms of a trade agreement.

It is asking that we give the EU the ability to veto things we want to do as a country which could be seen as detrimental to them - it's not about trying to change the price or tariff of something. There is a clear difference there.

Once you have given me an example of this in any other trade deal rather than some unrelated analogy, then I will reconsider the veto as being something reasonable.

[AndrewJB]

So you don't have any evidence of such a clause being inserted into a trade deal?

I believe your example is misunderstanding what they are asking for also.

They want to ensure we cannot become more competitive than them and distort their trade through designing our laws and legislations which diverge from their own. This means that if we wanted to change these and we went through all the relevant stages of legal and political process, the EU could say - sorry but that could hurt us, so you can't do it...

So please show me a trade deal which allows the EU to do this with another country where the EU have the ultimate say on the laws and legislation of a country which they have a trade deal with. I would be really keen to see this..

Most trade deals between countries geographically close have a “level playing field” element to a deal. The term itself was probably coined during the Canada US trade negotiations in the ‘80s.

What it means is that in creating goods of equal quality, the background to creating those goods - labour, tax, and environmental standards (for example) should have an equal minimum.

As the U.K. government has repeatedly said they have no intention to undercut the EU in this way, there is no reason for us to have a problem with this.

Unless the government does actually plan to cut labour, tax, and environmental laws. Then the rights of British people are under threat at the same time without a deal.

For a few years I’ve called Brexit a massive con. Well before the “oven ready deal” - which doesn’t exist. If it did it would be signed already.

[AndrewJB]

Well there are some benefits that I believe will happen but it's accepting that we don't know what we don't know so if you are then going to interrogate me on my views, I can only give you that I am a person that naturally sees benefit in change, and I know that the more nimble you can be, the better it can be to navigate change. Therefore

- I believe that the future without the EU will allow us to create our own trading partnerships which are not compromised because of a 3rd party countries view on something.

- I believe that we will get trade deals that work better for us and we will create trading opportunities that do not currently exist.

- I believe our agility in the world and be able to shape and evolve to react to a world that just seems to be getting more crazy.

Now given that I sense there will be people on here that see strength in size and strength in numbers, this probably won't resonate with you in the same way as it does with me.

The only way we can change though is to be truly free of the EU in terms of their influence/oversight on our laws etc.

In terms of time, I think we should put a one year alarm clock o this, and see how it turns out.

[clarethomer]

Most trade deals between countries geographically close have a “level playing field” element to a deal. The term itself was probably coined during the Canada US trade negotiations in the ‘80s.

Yes, I accept that if we want to sell things to the EU, we need to ensure what we sell has the relevant quality controls in place and be of 'standard' which we have agreed.

I haven't quoted any of the other irrelevant information to the point i am seeking clarity.

So can you provide evidence where any of these deals allows one country to veto laws/legislation of the other?

[clarethomer]

In terms of time, I think we should put a one year alarm clock o this, and see how it turns out.

Sounds about right - fits in with your short term thinking.

How about you look at this over the next 10 years.

[Spijed]

Sounds about right - fits in with your short term thinking.

How about you look at this over the next 10 years.

So come the next election you don't think Brexit should come into the thoughts of voters?

[Devils_Advocate]

Yes, I accept that if we want to sell things to the EU, we need to ensure what we sell has the relevant quality controls in place and be of 'standard' which we have agreed.

I haven't quoted any of the other irrelevant information to the point i am seeking clarity.

So can you provide evidence where any of these deals allows one country to veto laws/legislation of the other?

Can you provide evidence of the laws/legislation the EU are requesting a Veto on. From the article you quoted it seems a bit they reported what they said what might be the case and nothing very substantive.

It seems to come from a Sunday Times story which is behind a paywall so if you are able to share that info Im genuinely interested on what the full story is and how strong and robust the source is

[Claretnick]

Would be keen to see evidence of where this happens....

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

[aggi]

Care to provide evidence for your assumption?

Also I'm pretty sure you weren't going to converse with me anymore yet here you are.

Well if the majority cared it would have been an important issue for them rather than a tiny minority who viewed it is an important issue.

I had forgot about you fabricating statistics "in the interest of balance" when someone has the temerity to criticise the Tory party. Maybe you can find some stats showing that people prefer stilton to brie and present that as evidence that the Tories shouldn't be criticised.

[nil_desperandum]

Yes, I accept that if we want to sell things to the EU, we need to ensure what we sell has the relevant quality controls in place and be of 'standard' which we have agreed.

I haven't quoted any of the other irrelevant information to the point i am seeking clarity.

So can you provide evidence where any of these deals allows one country to veto laws/legislation of the other?

But so far as I can see - and in any case it's obvious, this isn't what the EU is saying. They haven't asked for a veto, (they have no power of veto over UK laws), but they've asked for consultation if we want to change our Ts & Cs. If it's not written into an agreement then it would be understood to be the case.
What this means is that if we want to change something we should consult with them to ensure it doesn't break the agreement, but - irrespective of what they say, we can choose to ignore them. They have no power at all, except of course, if we consult with them and they believe that what we are doing places them at a disadvantage then it would be their prerogative to cancel our agreement. That's how agreements work.
If we have a deal with the EU and they change their laws to our disadvantage then we can either consult with them to seek a resolution or we can cancel the agreement - "walk away". So it works the other way too.
You can't make an agreement and then unilaterally change all the rules. That's not how agreements work.

[clarethomer]

Can you provide evidence of the laws/legislation the EU are requesting a Veto on. From the article you quoted it seems a bit they reported what they said what might be the case and nothing very substantive.

It seems to come from a Sunday Times story which is behind a paywall so if you are able to share that info Im genuinely interested on what the full story is and how strong and robust the source is

I only have the article I have shared unfortunately.

It would be interesting to know the detail ofwhich laws/legislation but I am genuinely interested to know if such agreements/arrangements are in place elsewhere?

So come the next election you don't think Brexit should come into the thoughts of voters?

Of course not, I expect the next election will be fought on the progress and results of what we have seen so far but to give 1 year to call it and not understand that these things will take time is ridiculous.

[aggi]

Yes, I accept that if we want to sell things to the EU, we need to ensure what we sell has the relevant quality controls in place and be of 'standard' which we have agreed.

I haven't quoted any of the other irrelevant information to the point i am seeking clarity.

So can you provide evidence where any of these deals allows one country to veto laws/legislation of the other?

NAFTA has plenty about the copyright periods of pharmaceutical products that prevents Canada or Mexico from decreasing them from what is set (realistically by the US) in the agreement.

[nil_desperandum]

It would be interesting to know the detail ofwhich laws/legislation but I am genuinely interested to know if such agreements/arrangements are in place elsewhere?

Personally I was too lazy to do the research, but I believe that Claret Nick above has provided the information that you've been so keen for us to supply.
Why not engage with the links that Nick's provided?
edit: I note that Aggi's now done it too.

[Devils_Advocate]

I only have the article I have shared unfortunately.

It would be interesting to know the detail ofwhich laws/legislation but I am genuinely interested to know if such agreements/arrangements are in place elsewhere?



Of course not, I expect the next election will be fought on the progress and results of what we have seen so far but to give 1 year to call it and not understand that these things will take time is ridiculous.

Thanks and maybe before we make a 'in what kind of world' statement we should know the detail of what we are ridiculing else you might just end up looking a bit silly

[clarethomer]

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.

[clarethomer]

NAFTA has plenty about the copyright periods of pharmaceutical products that prevents Canada or Mexico from decreasing them from what is set (realistically by the US) in the agreement.

Again - this isn't a veto into the Mexican or Canadian laws and legislation is it. They are not talking about copyrights here of a product from what I can tell

[Claretnick]

'I presume you are understanding and fully conversant in these texts though?'

No I am no expert I was only trying to help out with the debate. The second link shows all 20 of the US free trade agreements, I was shocked there was so few to be honest. I don't know whether there is any other examples in those other agreements. Thought it was interesting to actually see a free trade agreement in black and white. To be honest whichever way anyone voted we are going to face some choppy waters and a disunited nation does not bode well too pull through to the other side. There is a hell of a lot of work to be done to make this thing work after 30 years of a single market and customs union. We all need to pull together somehow...

I don't know how my text is showing in the quote box, there you go I am not an expert

[aggi]

Again - this isn't a veto into the Mexican or Canadian laws and legislation is it. They are not talking about copyrights here of a product from what I can tell

It's not an absolute veto, there's a dispute resolution process but the new copyright rule is very clear, longer then what was previously in place and very much relates to specific products. To go back to what they had would involve breaching the agreement.

I don't think anyone, except the most paranoid brexiteer, believes that the UK is going to sign up to, or is expected to sign up to, a deal with an absolute veto and no dispute resolution process.