Well I Was Correct About What The French Would Do If We Exit The E.U.

a reply to: ignorant_ape
The thread is a hypothetical about what France will do if we leave. Treaty's can be ended or re-negotiated. If we are leaving the EU for what we believe to be our own best interest the why would France not act in its own best interest? Some members of the French government have indicated one way, others the other. We simply don't know. My original reply was to go with a post suggesting the issue would become entirety Frances to deal with if we leave. Try reading the posts and dial back the unnecessary "FFS" comments.

originally posted by: Flavian
Some EU treaties would be out of the window instantly, others are tied in to other treaties (particularly regarding trade) so would take renegotiation rather than simply ripping them up.

I think that you are wrong. If the referendum result is "leave" then the UK Parliament will need to ratify this through law. This will set the disentanglement agenda.

The UK will only leave once due process has taken place. There would be a day set when the Union Jack is torn down at Brussels.

We won't wake up on the day after the referendum being free from Europe, but we would wake up knowing this would happen.

Therefore, trade deals would probably be renegotiated as part of the withdrawal from the EU, alongside all other UK-EU treaties and arrangements.

To the OP, the Calais agreement is UK-France so is not a slave to the referendum. One side of the agreement can cancel at anytime. France have stated that should the UK vote to leave then they would cancel the treaty. Therefore, cancellation is a dependency on the referendum, but the treaty in question is not a dependency on the EU.

The French do love their "foreign troops".

Legio Patria Nostra

Good Luck

a reply to: paraphi

Have a read of some of the articles available in the Finacial Times and also in the Economist. They are (so far) the least biased that i have found towards any side, merely setting out the obstacles either decision would result in.

The long and short of it is that we are inter connected to too many treaties and institutions for it to be a simple matter of renegotiation. For example, trade deals are long drawn out processes at the best of times - when we are negotiating on our own (as opposed to being part of major trade bloc) we lose all the advantages and those negotiations become longer and more difficult (unless we simply capitulate). Many of our trade deals with SE Asia are as part of the EU trade bloc. The minute we leave, our part in those deals becomes null and void (we have effectively broken the contract). Yes, we can renegotiate, but without bloc protection, our hand becomes much weaker. The flip side is that (eventually) we MAY have the possibility of negotioting deals that suit us more as a nation (although this is far from guaranteed as our hand would be weaker).

I have said before and i will say again that there are pros and cons to both sides. We just need an honest debate though, rather than wild claims by either side.

ETA:

Starred anyway for your final paragraph for the OP, whcih is totally correct.

originally posted by: Flavian
The long and short of it is that we are inter connected to too many treaties and institutions for it to be a simple matter of renegotiation.

Then that's fine. The treaties would be abolished, but this would only happen as part of a planned "turn-off" and not immediately after the referendum. Treaties are two-way and renegotiating / cancelling will require due legal process and (in the case of the UK) Parliamentary approval and oversight.

a reply to: Flavian

Many of our trade deals with SE Asia are as part of the EU trade bloc

It makes one wonder how The U.K. ever managed to function as a trading nation before we joined The E.U.

We did. And also very well.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Flavian

Many of our trade deals with SE Asia are as part of the EU trade bloc

It makes one wonder how The U.K. ever managed to function as a trading nation before we joined The E.U.

We did. And also very well.

You are correct - we certainly did. However, you have to take into account that was a very different world in which individual nations concluded treaties with each other. These days, many trade treaties are made between trade blocs - it is a very different beast. If you aren't part of a bloc, you get a worse deal - that is the case with all of the countries the Leave campaign likes to hold up as models. If the blocs all break up and we go back to collective individual arrangements (rather than us against blocs), we definitely could be Great again. That is just wishful thinking though.

As i have said repeatedly in these threads, if they can show up examples of what they could achieve (with some tangible evidence that is actually the case, rather than speculation), the Leave campaign will make great strides. I honestly think though that they will struggle to come up with any evidence.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Flavian
The long and short of it is that we are inter connected to too many treaties and institutions for it to be a simple matter of renegotiation.

Then that's fine. The treaties would be abolished, but this would only happen as part of a planned "turn-off" and not immediately after the referendum. Treaties are two-way and renegotiating / cancelling will require due legal process and (in the case of the UK) Parliamentary approval and oversight.

That would be covered under Article 50, which under the directives we signed up to could take up to 2 years to conclude - and they don't have to include us in those negotiations. As daft as that sounds, we have already signed up to this (along with all other EU nations). Article 50 itself is pretty vague and there seem to be some pretty draconian consequences invovled - the reason being when all signed up to it, no one really imagined that any nation would walk away (which smacks of arrogance but that is a different issue). Despite all this, Article 50 is the framewor in place and therefore what would be followed. And there would be a huge amount of uncertainty from all parties involved. Some nations though could realistically use the Article to give us a kicking if they so wished.......and we would be bound by International Law to go along with it until we could then renegotiate new deals.

At the end of the day, i am not particularly a fan of the EU but i do subscribe to the better together mantra. I certainly never thought i would ever be in a position of fghting their corner in online discussions!

France could very well cancel the treaty even if there is a vote to stay, the right wing voice has said as much and they do have a certain amount ofclout in France's political system even if they aren't in power. Considering whether to stay in or out hinging on this particular treaty doesn't guarantee anything whatsoever.

a reply to: alldaylong


Let them, we can have our own border control, send them back through the tunnel and if France plays up too much we can refuse to trade with them, it will hurt them more then it will hurt us!

originally posted by: grainofsand
Why are we still bleating about this?
Ferry and train companies have ultimate responsibility for who they carry so if the French let them through border control they can easily be stopped from boarding, same as you can't get on a plane without a passport.

£8 Billion a year EU membership fees saved will more than cover the cost of increased security.
Sheesh people get over the lame scaremongering lol
This is a non story and a toothless threat by France.

Ferry and Train companies have X-ray and baggage security just like the airlines. No passport - no entry. No ticket - no entry. Suspicious items - no entry.

a reply to: stormcell

Exactly, just lame scaremongering, the French can drop all border control but the ferry and train companies will retain authority over who they carry.

Do it France, those migrants won'the be getting on the ferries and trains. Tough luck with your toothless threat lol

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: MagnaCarta2015
Exactly. The criticism of humans rights seems based on individual cases (often inaccurately reported in the media) rather than what the convention actually says.
It seems akin to reading about a miscarriage of justice and then deciding that we shouldn't have any laws.
The ECHR provides some fundamental protections that we would be extremely unwise to take for granted.

Nope, my criticism is based on years of studying it, teaching it, writing articles about it, and using it in actual legal practice.

Down with the HRA! Down with that sort of thing!

a reply to: EvillerBob

Only if you're proposing an act to replace it.

It's a moot point anyway. The UK won't leave the EU.

Interesting thread. As an American I'm a little confused though lol. So if the UK leaves the EU (sounds like a good idea to me) the EU cuts off services of course. Where is the problem? The UK isn't actually expecting the EU to do jack for a country that's leaving it do they?

a reply to: Malynn

Lol no, this is just lame scaremongering to encourage us Brits not to vote leave.
France can do what the # they like but their migrant problem will remain theirs as the UK will still be able to stop them getting on the trains and ferries.

Non story the remain crowd are milking as if it is a real problem lol

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: EvillerBob

Only if you're proposing an act to replace it.

Nope.

The thing is... the HRA (and the ECHR that it implements) did have some very positive impacts. PACE was significantly influenced by the ECHR, while mental health legislation had some key reforms pushed through on the back of the HRA.

Taking the HRA away does not undo those changes. They are part of the existing legal landscape.

A valid question would be: without the ECHR and related obligations, what will stop Parliament from undoing those changes?

Nothing. And that's exactly how it should be. Parliamentary supremacy, a cornerstone of our legal system, prevents a previous Parliament binding a future Parliament. There should be no such thing as "entrenched" legislation, which is what you are looking for.

There are further interesting debates over what might be considered "entrenched" legislation, with some documents being identified by courts as tantamount to constitutional in status. Even in those cases, all it does is raise the bar to repeal, not prevent repeal.

I see no issue with allowing Parliament/the courts to protect some legislation from implied repeal, but I have a major philosophical issue with seeking to restrict the express intentions of Parliament. Hence, a very strong dislike for the EU. Not the only reason, but a major one.

Edited because: speeling get wurs when typing to fist.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Malynn

Lol no, this is just lame scaremongering to encourage us Brits not to vote leave.
France can do what the # they like but their migrant problem will remain theirs as the UK will still be able to stop them getting on the trains and ferries.

Non story the remain crowd are milking as if it is a real problem lol

Also, the owners of the ferries/tunnel should be restricting access anyway, for business/safety reasons etc. If they need help in removing trespassers, that still falls to the country with jurisdiction over that port/point of transit.

So, if the refugees try to storm the tunnel or overtake a ferry, it's still the job of the French police to handle it, just the same as if the refugees were storming a supermarket or shopping centre. It's only our problem once they get across the Channel.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Bluesma

Maybe just maybe if The French put much tighter controls on their southern and eastern borders, there would be no build of illegal migrants at the Channel Ports. Just stop them getting into France in the first place.

Otherwise just round them all up and INSIST they claim asylum in France or send them back to wench they came from.

Common sense is a free commodity.

The people at Calais are a minority of the migrants who come into France. They deal with it.

We, on the other hand, are dominated by a culture of fear that makes us perpetual victims under perpetual threat which we are too scared and too complacent to act against.

An example. We went to France for a couple of days last July when the Channel Tunnel was being "invaded". The journey to Dover was a nightmare as the south east ground to a halt. On the other side, no problems, light traffic on the way in and the way out.

Same problem, different reaction, very different outcome

Still, it's easier to blame migrants than TPTB.