1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Which Brexiter saw this one coming?

Discussion in 'Personal' started by Duke of York, Feb 20, 2020.

  1. mattf12345

    mattf12345 Administrator Staff Member

    Please keep the conversations civil with one and other. Thanks :)
    ajrowing and chelsea2 like this.
  2. Stiltskin

    Stiltskin Star commenter

    Yes the report/recommendations were removed. It is a paper exercise. Removed is the right word. As I said we still have to submit a report and they still have to submit an EDP report if it is required, or close one if no longer required.

    The newspaper article seems to suffer from sloppy reporting though. It says, as you put,
    "The economics chief said the UK had "durably" reduced its deficit, meaning it would no longer be subject to the potential fines and economic sanctions for having a higher deficit." it is the second clause that is wrong.

    If you watch what he actually says, and is actually published in the article, he does not mention fines and economic sanctions at all. The reporter has inferred that incorrectly from somewhere else. As we have already seen the UK can not be fined or have sanctions against it for having an excessive deficit. It is written in the treaty.

    In the full speech Pierre talks about Spain and France exiting next year and how Spain was sanctioned. Perhaps the reporter thought that sanctions were in place for all countries?
    Burndenpark likes this.
  3. alex_teccy

    alex_teccy Lead commenter

    You may be correct about the Independent reportage. However the “paper excercise” hypothesis raises more questions than it answers. The U.K. government did comply with EU requirement of borrowing at 3% (although Junker waived the 60% of GDP requirement). In other words, according to “paper excercise”, there would be no reason to endure 9 years of austerity when other options such as govt. borrowing at low interest rates. The standard explanation is “neo-liberal” doctrine, yet this doesn’t hold up when you consider real public spending increased under the Tories and Labour did not plan to digress from fiscal rules for example with Ed Balls pledging to follow fiscal rules in 2014 conference

    Labour also abstained from the workfare bill in 2013.
    How would “paper exercise” have held up in the ECJ if tested?
  4. Stiltskin

    Stiltskin Star commenter

    You keep coming back to points that have already been answered. If the legal document says the sanctions can not be applied to the UK for failing to to avoid an excessive deficit then the ECJ could not make a ruling against the UK. If there were another legal document that contradicted it then the ECJ would find them incompatible anyway and would therefore not be able to issue any sanctions until the legal mess was untangled. However if the UK failed to submit their economic report, as required in the SaG pact, then the ECJ could sanction the UK for that in theory, as there is not exemption from that.
    Burndenpark likes this.
  5. alex_teccy

    alex_teccy Lead commenter

    On the contrary, you’ve only speculated on what the ECJ would rule if they had rule on applying a fine or sanctions. If the U.K. deliberately digressed from its deficit target, the ECJ would rule that the U.K. had not “endeavoured” to meet its target ergo CSRs have a legal basis.

    This is hypothetical. Yet we have the actual situation where the U.K. did meet its deficit target and was under EDPs for nine years which your“paper excercise” hypothesis cannot support.
  6. Stiltskin

    Stiltskin Star commenter

    I can speculate that if I let go of a ball I am holding it will fall to the ground.

    I explained and gave case law examples of what endeavoured means. Even so the clause that sanctions can not be applied for having excessive deficit could not be ignored. The ECJ could legally rule that the UK didn't meet its obligations but could not apply any sanctions without breaking that clause. In doing so the ECJ would in itself be behaving illegally.
  7. alex_teccy

    alex_teccy Lead commenter

    You’ve argued yourself into a weird little corner here. If you were to present this question to a senior member of the British Government pre 2019 they would be bemused. The idea of signing up to a treaty then deliberately not following it would simply not cross their minds. You’re arguing on the outcome of a long line of hypothetical events, none of which have precedent ( no member state has avoided CSRs when they have had the capacity to fulfil them). There’s no certainty in that outcome, no matter how many balls you think you can drop. The alternative is leaving the EU, which is what happened.
    Kandahar likes this.
  8. Kandahar

    Kandahar Lead commenter

    It's not a done-deal quite yet!
    alex_teccy likes this.
  9. ajrowing

    ajrowing Lead commenter

    But with Boris in charge it will soon be, and an excellent deal it will be too.
    Kandahar likes this.
  10. Kandahar

    Kandahar Lead commenter

    I am so glad that you think so my dear AJRowing.
  11. ajrowing

    ajrowing Lead commenter

    There can be no doubt about it. One just has to look at his stellar track record.
    Kandahar likes this.

Share This Page