The EU referendum - IN / OUT or Shake it all about.

[Guest MattP]

That's part of the answer, Buce, but if you look closely, it doesn't give a commitment that national parliaments will have a say (the "national governments" refers to Cameron & his 27 opposite numbers at the European Council).

 

Elsewhere (including in a UK Parliament document that I linked to - might need to copy and paste into browser), there are statements that it is "likely" that TTIP has "mixed competence" status, meaning that it WOULD require the approval of all 28 national parliaments......and my guess is that's highly unlikely to happen.

 

However, I can't see any definitive confirmation that it will have "mixed competence" status. So, there's still a possibility it might just be debated by national parliaments, then voted on at European Council (Cameron & opposite numbers) and then at the European Parliament. I think that its status may depend on precisely what areas are covered by the final draft treaty - they currently expect it to be "mixed competence" (the treaty with Canada is, I think), but that is not definitive yet.

 

From my reading of it trade deals aren't treaties so it wouldn't need to be ratified by each and every member, only a majority of MEP's and national governments.

 

Or have a missed something?

[Alf Bentley]

From my reading of it trade deals aren't treaties so it wouldn't need to be ratified by each and every member, only a majority of MEP's and national governments.

 

Or have a missed something?

 

 

My understanding is that some policy areas are EU-only, others are nation-state-only and others are "mixed competence": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union#Policy_areas

 

From the stuff I've read today, I think trade deals CAN be EU-only, depending on exactly what they cover. In that case only the European Council & European Parliament would vote, though national parliaments could debate.

 

However, several sites - including the UK Parliament document - said that it is "likely" that TTIP would be "mixed competence", in which case all 28 national parliaments would have to ratify it. I really cannot imagine that happening if there was anything remotely controversial in it. The danger, I suspect, is that if certain policy areas are removed, then the only ones voting would be the Council (Cameron & opposite numbers) & the European Parliament.

[Webbo]

So we've gone from not being able to get a trade deal with the US without being in the EU to not being able to get a trade deal while we're in the EU?

[DJ Barry Hammond]

From my reading of it trade deals aren't treaties so it wouldn't need to be ratified by each and every member, only a majority of MEP's and national governments.

 

Or have a missed something?

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7192

I think this suggests EU trade deals need to be ratified by our own Parliment. From other sources I researched, one pointed that the French constitution requires its own Parliment to approve any EU trade deal as well.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

So we've gone from not being able to get a trade deal with the US without being in the EU to not being able to get a trade deal while we're in the EU?

I think getting a deal is a bit of a red herring - I'm sure you can get a trade deal with anyone if you're willing to concede lots of things to the other side - it's more about getting a good deal for this country (easier if you have more to bargain with) and timely trade deals.

[Guest MattP]

My understanding is that some policy areas are EU-only, others are nation-state-only and others are "mixed competence": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union#Policy_areas

 

From the stuff I've read today, I think trade deals CAN be EU-only, depending on exactly what they cover. In that case only the European Council & European Parliament would vote, though national parliaments could debate.

 

However, several sites - including the UK Parliament document - said that it is "likely" that TTIP would be "mixed competence", in which case all 28 national parliaments would have to ratify it. I really cannot imagine that happening if there was anything remotely controversial in it. The danger, I suspect, is that if certain policy areas are removed, then the only ones voting would be the Council (Cameron & opposite numbers) & the European Parliament.

 

The link Buce has posted is from the European Commission's own website and that states quite clearly at the end

 

And then a final decision comes with a double democratic guarantee.

EU governments and MEPs will decide between them whether to back it - not the Commission

 

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/march/tradoc_152276.pdf- There is an explanation here of what that means and that is a majority vote of MEP's and national governments.

 

We don't seem to have much clarity on this, the EU seems to confirm that it will go to a majority vote, our own government seems to think we have a veto, so we actually go into this referendum not even knowing if TTIP is a majority vote or one that needs the go-ahead from each individual nation.

 

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7192

I think this suggests EU trade deals need to be ratified by our own Parliment. From other sources I researched, one pointed that the French constitution requires its own Parliment to approve any EU trade deal as well.

 

Where? It mentions Trade Deals once here...

 

The EU negotiates a range of agreements with third states or organisations, most commonly Association Agreements, Free Trade Agreements, Partnership and Cooperation Agreements and Economic Partnership Agreements. In this activity the EU must respect the limits of its competence.

 

Can you point it out to me where it suggests EU Trade Deals need to be ratified by our own parliament?

 

For a "mixed agreement" it says it must be designated as a treaty that will need to have effect in UK law.

[Webbo]

I think getting a deal is a bit of a red herring - I'm sure you can get a trade deal with anyone if you're willing to concede lots of things to the other side - it's more about getting a good deal for this country (easier if you have more to bargain with) and timely trade deals.

It's not easier if it has to be approved by another 27 countries, or even a majority of those countries, first.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

So what I've picked up on is the commons library's own details of how the EU acts on our behalf and the scope of its powers - and how it interacts with our own Parliment.

So for example below, it shows how the EU's discussions over new rrade deals will be conducted with consultation with our relevant Parliment departments.

It then goes on to mention how 'mixed agreements' are ratified, in that they would go through Parliment on a reject or accept basis - and given the classifications given for mixed agreements i can't see how this trade deal wouldn't be classed as one.

4.5 Consultations and impact assessments

During negotiations on free trade agreements, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) is usually actively engaged, consults with business and represents agreed UK policy to the European Commission. Other Government Departments that might be consulted on EU agreements include the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Treasury, and, depending on the content, the Transport, Environment and Rural Affairs Departments and the Home Office. UK representatives based in the third country or countries are also consulted.

The Government may carry out and publish an Impact Assessment which it attaches to the EM on the agreement and makes available on- line (see for example the EU-Ukraine AA Impact Assessment). Or it may decide that an Impact Assessment is not necessary. For example, with regard to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with Serbia, the Government EM stated: ‘The Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument as it will have no impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies’.50

4.6 UK Parliament’s role in ratifying mixed agreements

For a ‘mixed’ agreement, both the EU and each individual Member State need to sign and ‘conclude’ it (for the EU) or ratify it (for Member States). Each Member State follows its own domestic procedures for ratification.

In the UK, treaty-making is a Royal Prerogative, which means that officially the Queen ratifies treaties. In practice, the Government or plenipotentiary ratifies on behalf of the Queen. Ratification is completed when the instrument of ratification has been deposited in Rome and the EU Council notified.

But for many treaties, the UK Parliament has a formal role before the Government can ratify.

Laying and publishing treaties

Under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRAGA), mixed agreements requiring ratification in the UK must be laid before Parliament once they are signed, along with an Explanatory Memorandum (EM) which describes the key features of the treaty and their meaning. Although some EU treaties are excluded from the treaty provisions of CRAGA,51 this exception does not apply to mixed treaties.52

Both the treaty and the EM are laid before Parliament for 21 ‘sitting days’ (days on which both Houses of Parliament are sitting).53

At this point the treaty is published as a Command Paper in the European Union Treaty series. After ratification it is re-published in the UK Treaty Series.

Power to object to ratification

During the 21-sitting-day period, Parliament has the right to scrutinise the treaty, table questions, and ask for a debate or extra time to report on it.

And, crucially, either House can pass a resolution objecting to ratification of a treaty. The Government must then give reasons why it nevertheless wants to ratify. If the House of Commons objects, it has another 21 days to consider the Government’s reasons for ratifying, and can object again. This can continue indefinitely, effectively giving the Commons the power to block ratification. The House of Lords has only one opportunity to object, and so can only delay ratification briefly.

Parliament cannot amend the agreement itself in any way: it can only object to (or tacitly approve) ratification of the entire agreement.

2.2 Mixed competence agreements

Many EU external agreements contain elements of both EU exclusive and shared competence, and are called ‘mixed competence’ agreements or just ‘mixed agreements’. Mixed agreements can be bilateral (eg the EU-Turkey Association Agreement and TTIP) or multilateral (eg the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities). They must be signed and concluded/ratified both by the EU and by all Member States in accordance with their constitutional traditions.

[Guest MattP]

4.5 Consultations and impact assessments

During negotiations on free trade agreements, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) is usually actively engaged, consults with business and represents agreed UK policy to the European Commission. Other Government Departments that might be consulted on EU agreements include the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Treasury, and, depending on the content, the Transport, Environment and Rural Affairs Departments and the Home Office. UK representatives based in the third country or countries are also consulted.

The Government may carry out and publish an Impact Assessment which it attaches to the EM on the agreement and makes available on- line (see for example the EU-Ukraine AA Impact Assessment). Or it may decide that an Impact Assessment is not necessary. For example, with regard to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with Serbia, the Government EM stated: ‘The Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument as it will have no impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies’.50

 

So again, where is the indication that this would have to be ratified by the British government?

 

I don't really know why I'm still asking to be honest, it says on the European Commission's website the verdict will be decided by a majority of MEP's and national governments, given there is nothing in our potential re-negotiation about changing this it's there for all to see what happens.

 

(Just seen your edit, TTIP isn't a treaty)

As an aside, just look at this.

 

[Buce]

As an aside, just look at this.

What's the surprise, Matt?

I thought all you Tories had second homes..

[Guest MattP]

What's the surprise, Matt?

I thought all you Tories had second homes..

 

 

I think these days it's far more likely those from the red side will have a second home with the amount of support have from the Primrose Hill set

[Guest MattP]

Wow, I'm not sure what to say about this.

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36379934

[bovril]

wtf

[Alf Bentley]

The link Buce has posted is from the European Commission's own website and that states quite clearly at the end

 

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/march/tradoc_152276.pdf- There is an explanation here of what that means and that is a majority vote of MEP's and national governments.

 

We don't seem to have much clarity on this, the EU seems to confirm that it will go to a majority vote, our own government seems to think we have a veto, so we actually go into this referendum not even knowing if TTIP is a majority vote or one that needs the go-ahead from each individual nation.

 

 

Where? It mentions Trade Deals once here...

 

 

Can you point it out to me where it suggests EU Trade Deals need to be ratified by our own parliament?

 

For a "mixed agreement" it says it must be designated as a treaty that will need to have effect in UK law.

 

 

From the link that I posted earlier (but needs pasting into browser): file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/SN06688.pdf

 

Source: "The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership", House of Commons Library Briefing Paper No. 06688, 4th Dec 2015 (page 21):

 

"If a trade agreement is mixed competence (EU and Member State competence), the Council, the European Parliament and all 28 Member States must adopt or ratify it. There is no fixed timetable for the ratification process and it could take two or more years. Although it is not yet clear, the TTIP is likely to be a ‘mixed competence’ agreement, meaning it will contain elements that fall outside EU competence. In this case it will have to be ratified both by the EU (the Council) and each EU Member State according to its constitutional tradition. Member States have to ratify the treaty before the Council Decision on conclusion is adopted. [....] The Commission already appears to take the view that TTIP is a mixed competence agreement, stating in its press release that 'The request for a Court of Justice opinion concerns the specific agreement with Singapore. Every trade agreement has its specific characteristics. In case of the EU-US trade talks, for instance there will most likely be a number of elements that will require ratification by national parliaments'.Under ‘provisional application’ procedures, if Member States in the Council agree to the treaties, parts of them can enter into force before they are ratified by all Member States".

 

 

Still inconclusive, as we've all said - but my impression is that no definite decision has been taken over the status of TTIP. It is "likely" to be "mixed competence" and so to require ratification by all 28 parliaments, but that's not definite. 

[Guest MattP]

Cheers, the European Commission appears to take obsfuscation to a new level.

 

Sadly, we go into this referendum not knowing for sure, which isn't great for the voting public.

[Strokes]

Wow, I'm not sure what to say about this.

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36379934

Yeah he is definitely heavier than her, disgusting.

[Alf Bentley]

Yeah he is definitely heavier than her, disgusting.

 

 

At first glimpse, I thought it was Indira Gandhi and a skinhead Barack Obama....surreal!

[Buce]

At first glimpse, I thought it was Indira Gandhi and a skinhead Barack Obama....surreal!

That would be the morphine, Alf.

[Guest LCFC_World]

What gets me is the amount of propaganda on these terrestrial channels. Injecting fear in to society to get them to do something they want - is in my opinion dirty tactics. It's all speculation. "If we leave in 2030 then this will happen ....." ... Get real.

That's all I'm going to say on the matter

[Harry - LCFC]

Wow, I'm not sure what to say about this.

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36379934

 

There's something distasteful about the notion of "Operation Black Vote". As if black people are some semi-alien group that doesn't instinctively understand of the merits of casting a ballot like the rest of us do.

 

Identity politics thinks of itself as having the most virtuous view of race but so often it produces condescending messages and solutions like this one that don't feel unifying at all.

[Strokes]

There's something distasteful about the notion of "Operation Black Vote". As if black people are some semi-alien group that doesn't instinctively understand of the merits of casting a ballot like the rest of us do.

 

Identity politics thinks of itself as having the most virtuous view of race but so often it produces condescending messages and solutions like this one that don't feel unifying at all.

I can't believe they are encouraging skin heads to vote.

[purpleronnie]

So now immigrants are taking jobs?  What do they want? all of them to claim benefits?...of course they're taking jobs.

[Jimothy]

So now immigrants are taking jobs? What do they want? all of them to claim benefits?...of course they're taking jobs.

Doing both apparently

It's like the arguement that the national football team is rubbish because we have too many foreigners but also we play too many games in this country. Surely if the foreigners are taking English players club places, the amount of games will effect both home and foreign players.

People wouldn't come and be able to get jobs if there weren't jobs. Also if someone has managed to travel halfway across Europe and get a job, when English isn't their first language, before you've got off your arse to hand in a cv, then I think that says more about you than Tomasz and co. If all the foreigners are taking jobs they're not claiming benefits in large numbers, and if they are claiming benefits in large numbers then they've not took your job.

Absolute ludicrous arguements, that they've got themselves tied up in knots. A large number of immigrants set up these hand car washes, I thought this was the kind of entrepreneurism we wanted to promote in this country? And why weren't some of our own doing similar? There was clearly a massive gap in the market, there's thousands of these things now.

[Buce]

Doing both apparently

It's like the arguement that the national football team is rubbish because we have too many foreigners but also we play too many games in this country. Surely if the foreigners are taking English players club places, the amount of games will effect both home and foreign players.

People wouldn't come and be able to get jobs if there weren't jobs. Also if someone has managed to travel halfway across Europe and get a job, when English isn't their first language, before you've got off your arse to hand in a cv, then I think that says more about you than Tomasz and co. If all the foreigners are taking jobs they're not claiming benefits in large numbers, and if they are claiming benefits in large numbers then they've not took your job.

Absolute ludicrous arguements, that they've got themselves tied up in knots. A large number of immigrants set up these hand car washes, I thought this was the kind of entrepreneurism we wanted to promote in this country? And why weren't some of our own doing similar? There was clearly a massive gap in the market, there's thousands of these things now.

Just to play Devil's Advocate, the two claims are not mutually exclusive; you could have some immigrants 'stealing our jobs', and others claiming benefits.

[Guest MattP]

Have I missed something?

Just watch the news and no one said anything immigrants claiming benefits.