EU will demand Labour’s Brexit plan involves European Court (www.politico.eu)

submitted 4 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Keir Starmer wants to sign a new agreement with the EU — one which would smooth disruption to trade, solve the Northern Ireland border issue, and make life simpler for farmers, all in one go.

But there’s a catch.

EU officials have told POLITICO that Brussels would be interested in such a deal — known as a sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement — only if London was willing to accept European Court of Justice (ECJ) oversight.

“There is no doubt in our mind” that ECJ oversight would be a “prerequisite” for such an agreement, said a senior EU official, who was granted anonymity to discuss the matter.

top 5 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Risk@feddit.uk 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

If the move would be of interest to the EU, then unless they are completely politically inept, can these officials not see how saying it would require ECJ oversight before an election risks it being eliminated from Labour policy?

It gives a free attack point for the Tories and couldn't be a bigger face palm - for anyone actually interested in it, of course.

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 13 points 4 months ago

Doesn’t matter. The EU pointedly does not care about how idiotic UK politics have gotten. They’re saying “we can make it suck less for you, but it’s not free, and this is the price”.

The EU can and will hold out indefinitely on this.

The UK is hemorrhaging tens of billions of pounds, and it’s only set to accelerate. They’re not really a financial center anymore. No single market. No Schengen. None of the huge benefits of being in the EU.

But, you know, keep machine gunning your own foot, I guess. That’ll show those silly euros. Or something.

[-] Risk@feddit.uk 8 points 4 months ago

I feel like you took my comment to be a critique of the EU's position, which is not what I was trying to say at all.

I presume that such an agreement would be in the EUs interest - hence the expression of such. Public clarification at this stage of the 'cost'- as you put it - is a great way to take it off the official policy booklet. Which doesn't make sense to me.

I am aware that UK politics is stupid. I live here.

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I apologize - I know I sometimes come across a bit pugilistic when I don’t actually intend to. It’s more that I am deeply frustrated by the situation, even as an outside observer.

For what it’s worth, I empathize with you on how frustrating our political ”leaders” often are. Feels like they’re pretty much all aggressively competing for the Upper Class Twit of the Year award on both sides of the pond :(

[-] Risk@feddit.uk 1 points 4 months ago

Pugilistic - TIL a new word!

No worries. What I'd give to shoot the person that came up with the FPTP voting system...

this post was submitted on 20 May 2024

81 points (100.0% liked)

World News

38563 readers

2272 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.