What issue does the EU take with the UK's Chequers proposal?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
31
down vote

favorite
1












It's said that the UK's Chequers proposal is "dead in the water". Different questions here have dealt with UK politicians supporting or opposing the proposal, but I'm interested in the EU's perspective.



What issue does the EU take with the proposal, either explicitly (e.g. statements by EU officials naming a specific issue with the proposal) or implicitly (e.g. EU requirements on a final deal, 'EU red lines', which statements in the Chequers proposal do not meet)?



Most of the statements I could find are nonspecific. Some examples (emphasis is mine):



President Macron of France:




It was a good and brave step by the prime minister. But we all agreed on this today, the proposals in their current state are not acceptable, especially on the economic side of it. The Chequers plan cannot be take it or leave it




EU Council president Tusk:




It must be clear that there are some issues where we are not ready to compromise and first of all this is our fundamental freedoms and single market and this is why we remain sceptical and critical when it comes to this part of the Chequers proposals




Dutch PM Rutte:




I’m still optimistic we can come to a joint position later this year and the Chequers proposal in itself is helpful but its [sic] not the outcome.











share|improve this question























  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Sam I am♦
    2 days ago














up vote
31
down vote

favorite
1












It's said that the UK's Chequers proposal is "dead in the water". Different questions here have dealt with UK politicians supporting or opposing the proposal, but I'm interested in the EU's perspective.



What issue does the EU take with the proposal, either explicitly (e.g. statements by EU officials naming a specific issue with the proposal) or implicitly (e.g. EU requirements on a final deal, 'EU red lines', which statements in the Chequers proposal do not meet)?



Most of the statements I could find are nonspecific. Some examples (emphasis is mine):



President Macron of France:




It was a good and brave step by the prime minister. But we all agreed on this today, the proposals in their current state are not acceptable, especially on the economic side of it. The Chequers plan cannot be take it or leave it




EU Council president Tusk:




It must be clear that there are some issues where we are not ready to compromise and first of all this is our fundamental freedoms and single market and this is why we remain sceptical and critical when it comes to this part of the Chequers proposals




Dutch PM Rutte:




I’m still optimistic we can come to a joint position later this year and the Chequers proposal in itself is helpful but its [sic] not the outcome.











share|improve this question























  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Sam I am♦
    2 days ago












up vote
31
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
31
down vote

favorite
1






1





It's said that the UK's Chequers proposal is "dead in the water". Different questions here have dealt with UK politicians supporting or opposing the proposal, but I'm interested in the EU's perspective.



What issue does the EU take with the proposal, either explicitly (e.g. statements by EU officials naming a specific issue with the proposal) or implicitly (e.g. EU requirements on a final deal, 'EU red lines', which statements in the Chequers proposal do not meet)?



Most of the statements I could find are nonspecific. Some examples (emphasis is mine):



President Macron of France:




It was a good and brave step by the prime minister. But we all agreed on this today, the proposals in their current state are not acceptable, especially on the economic side of it. The Chequers plan cannot be take it or leave it




EU Council president Tusk:




It must be clear that there are some issues where we are not ready to compromise and first of all this is our fundamental freedoms and single market and this is why we remain sceptical and critical when it comes to this part of the Chequers proposals




Dutch PM Rutte:




I’m still optimistic we can come to a joint position later this year and the Chequers proposal in itself is helpful but its [sic] not the outcome.











share|improve this question















It's said that the UK's Chequers proposal is "dead in the water". Different questions here have dealt with UK politicians supporting or opposing the proposal, but I'm interested in the EU's perspective.



What issue does the EU take with the proposal, either explicitly (e.g. statements by EU officials naming a specific issue with the proposal) or implicitly (e.g. EU requirements on a final deal, 'EU red lines', which statements in the Chequers proposal do not meet)?



Most of the statements I could find are nonspecific. Some examples (emphasis is mine):



President Macron of France:




It was a good and brave step by the prime minister. But we all agreed on this today, the proposals in their current state are not acceptable, especially on the economic side of it. The Chequers plan cannot be take it or leave it




EU Council president Tusk:




It must be clear that there are some issues where we are not ready to compromise and first of all this is our fundamental freedoms and single market and this is why we remain sceptical and critical when it comes to this part of the Chequers proposals




Dutch PM Rutte:




I’m still optimistic we can come to a joint position later this year and the Chequers proposal in itself is helpful but its [sic] not the outcome.








united-kingdom european-union brexit






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Oct 1 at 9:19

























asked Oct 1 at 8:22









JJJ

2,7811136




2,7811136











  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Sam I am♦
    2 days ago
















  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Sam I am♦
    2 days ago















Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Sam I am♦
2 days ago




Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Sam I am♦
2 days ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
61
down vote



accepted










The EU fundamentally cannot accept the trade portions of the Chequers proposal which in short propose Single Market access for goods from the UK, without requiring the UK to accept freedom of movement. Equally allowing the UK to negotiate separate trade deals outside the EU's tariff and quota system, but then ship goods from the UK to the EU without customs would undermine the EU's trade borders.



The Independent has the best summary of all the times the EU has said this is not acceptable, with similar "why" reasons each time.






share|improve this answer
















  • 7




    That seems rather extreme. I mean, is the Chequers proposal so "brazen", as to propose getting (almost) all of the benefit and take on almost none of the responsibilities? Or am I misreading your answer?
    – einpoklum
    Oct 1 at 11:46






  • 32




    You haven't missed anything. That really is the gist of most proposals and plans from the UK leadership, and largely what the exit was sold on - "we'll get all these benefits and positive changes but we won't have to face any costs and won't have any negative changes". @einpoklum
    – Nij
    Oct 1 at 12:24






  • 6




    @Nij: I can understand how that could have been propaganda for before the referendum, but what made them think of proposing that to the EU with a straight face?
    – einpoklum
    Oct 1 at 12:36






  • 18




    @Caleth at this late stage it's getting harder to believe it is a negotiating position rather than simply being a complete misjudgment of the situation. According to the original timetable for negotiation, a deal should have been signed last month. This makes it feel just a tad late for the UK position to still be asking for everything.
    – Jontia
    Oct 1 at 12:58






  • 5




    @Trilarion while that's true, accepting Chequers as is would mean there's essentially no border between any of the UK and the EU, which would include the Eire/NI border automatically. So Eire/NI is a problem after rejecting Chequers, not a reason to reject it.
    – Jontia
    Oct 1 at 15:11


















up vote
12
down vote













There are basically two issues.



Firstly the single market includes the Four Freedoms: freedom of movement of goods, services, money and labour (people). The UK wants access to the single market with only three of those freedoms (no freedom of movement of labour). That would damage the integrity of the single market and has always been unacceptable to the EU right from the very start.



The second issue is that the UK is trying for a power grab. Currently it is a nominal 1/28th say in EU affairs, although of course there is also a veto and it has a lot of soft power. The UK now proposes to have an arbitration system with the EU to resolve disputes over issues with the single market and customs union, and to have a "seat at the table". This would give it much greater influence than it has now, and force all EU decisions about the SM/CU to effectively be reviewed by the UK and subject to challenge. This is, of course, unacceptable too.






share|improve this answer





























    up vote
    7
    down vote













    The Centre for European Reform also published an article on the Chequers proposal. They wrote the following on governance:




    The Commission worries even more about the UK’s proposals on governance. The white paper says the UK will “pay due regard to ECJ case law” for areas covered by the common rulebook, and that Parliament will normally update the rules as they change. But the Commission wants a more overt role for the ECJ and some involvement for itself in enforcement. It wants more automatic procedures for the UK to adopt additions to the rulebook. It does not like the British proposal for independent arbitration panels that would bind EU decision-making in certain areas. The white paper suggests that the EU should be able to fine the UK or suspend part of the agreement if it refuses to update a rule, but the EU regards that as insufficient to deter the British from deviating.




    The BBC has an article about that 'common rulebook' in which they write the following about resolving disputes. Given the previous quote, this doesn't seem acceptable for the EU.




    The UK wants to set up a joint committee and independent arbitration in the event of a dispute over the rulebook.



    Cabinet minister Andrea Leadsom says the dispute mechanism would be "equally presided over by UK courts and the European Court of Justice".







    share|improve this answer




















      Your Answer







      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "475"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: false,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













       

      draft saved


      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f34111%2fwhat-issue-does-the-eu-take-with-the-uks-chequers-proposal%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest






























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      61
      down vote



      accepted










      The EU fundamentally cannot accept the trade portions of the Chequers proposal which in short propose Single Market access for goods from the UK, without requiring the UK to accept freedom of movement. Equally allowing the UK to negotiate separate trade deals outside the EU's tariff and quota system, but then ship goods from the UK to the EU without customs would undermine the EU's trade borders.



      The Independent has the best summary of all the times the EU has said this is not acceptable, with similar "why" reasons each time.






      share|improve this answer
















      • 7




        That seems rather extreme. I mean, is the Chequers proposal so "brazen", as to propose getting (almost) all of the benefit and take on almost none of the responsibilities? Or am I misreading your answer?
        – einpoklum
        Oct 1 at 11:46






      • 32




        You haven't missed anything. That really is the gist of most proposals and plans from the UK leadership, and largely what the exit was sold on - "we'll get all these benefits and positive changes but we won't have to face any costs and won't have any negative changes". @einpoklum
        – Nij
        Oct 1 at 12:24






      • 6




        @Nij: I can understand how that could have been propaganda for before the referendum, but what made them think of proposing that to the EU with a straight face?
        – einpoklum
        Oct 1 at 12:36






      • 18




        @Caleth at this late stage it's getting harder to believe it is a negotiating position rather than simply being a complete misjudgment of the situation. According to the original timetable for negotiation, a deal should have been signed last month. This makes it feel just a tad late for the UK position to still be asking for everything.
        – Jontia
        Oct 1 at 12:58






      • 5




        @Trilarion while that's true, accepting Chequers as is would mean there's essentially no border between any of the UK and the EU, which would include the Eire/NI border automatically. So Eire/NI is a problem after rejecting Chequers, not a reason to reject it.
        – Jontia
        Oct 1 at 15:11















      up vote
      61
      down vote



      accepted










      The EU fundamentally cannot accept the trade portions of the Chequers proposal which in short propose Single Market access for goods from the UK, without requiring the UK to accept freedom of movement. Equally allowing the UK to negotiate separate trade deals outside the EU's tariff and quota system, but then ship goods from the UK to the EU without customs would undermine the EU's trade borders.



      The Independent has the best summary of all the times the EU has said this is not acceptable, with similar "why" reasons each time.






      share|improve this answer
















      • 7




        That seems rather extreme. I mean, is the Chequers proposal so "brazen", as to propose getting (almost) all of the benefit and take on almost none of the responsibilities? Or am I misreading your answer?
        – einpoklum
        Oct 1 at 11:46






      • 32




        You haven't missed anything. That really is the gist of most proposals and plans from the UK leadership, and largely what the exit was sold on - "we'll get all these benefits and positive changes but we won't have to face any costs and won't have any negative changes". @einpoklum
        – Nij
        Oct 1 at 12:24






      • 6




        @Nij: I can understand how that could have been propaganda for before the referendum, but what made them think of proposing that to the EU with a straight face?
        – einpoklum
        Oct 1 at 12:36






      • 18




        @Caleth at this late stage it's getting harder to believe it is a negotiating position rather than simply being a complete misjudgment of the situation. According to the original timetable for negotiation, a deal should have been signed last month. This makes it feel just a tad late for the UK position to still be asking for everything.
        – Jontia
        Oct 1 at 12:58






      • 5




        @Trilarion while that's true, accepting Chequers as is would mean there's essentially no border between any of the UK and the EU, which would include the Eire/NI border automatically. So Eire/NI is a problem after rejecting Chequers, not a reason to reject it.
        – Jontia
        Oct 1 at 15:11













      up vote
      61
      down vote



      accepted







      up vote
      61
      down vote



      accepted






      The EU fundamentally cannot accept the trade portions of the Chequers proposal which in short propose Single Market access for goods from the UK, without requiring the UK to accept freedom of movement. Equally allowing the UK to negotiate separate trade deals outside the EU's tariff and quota system, but then ship goods from the UK to the EU without customs would undermine the EU's trade borders.



      The Independent has the best summary of all the times the EU has said this is not acceptable, with similar "why" reasons each time.






      share|improve this answer












      The EU fundamentally cannot accept the trade portions of the Chequers proposal which in short propose Single Market access for goods from the UK, without requiring the UK to accept freedom of movement. Equally allowing the UK to negotiate separate trade deals outside the EU's tariff and quota system, but then ship goods from the UK to the EU without customs would undermine the EU's trade borders.



      The Independent has the best summary of all the times the EU has said this is not acceptable, with similar "why" reasons each time.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered Oct 1 at 9:54









      Jontia

      1,553815




      1,553815







      • 7




        That seems rather extreme. I mean, is the Chequers proposal so "brazen", as to propose getting (almost) all of the benefit and take on almost none of the responsibilities? Or am I misreading your answer?
        – einpoklum
        Oct 1 at 11:46






      • 32




        You haven't missed anything. That really is the gist of most proposals and plans from the UK leadership, and largely what the exit was sold on - "we'll get all these benefits and positive changes but we won't have to face any costs and won't have any negative changes". @einpoklum
        – Nij
        Oct 1 at 12:24






      • 6




        @Nij: I can understand how that could have been propaganda for before the referendum, but what made them think of proposing that to the EU with a straight face?
        – einpoklum
        Oct 1 at 12:36






      • 18




        @Caleth at this late stage it's getting harder to believe it is a negotiating position rather than simply being a complete misjudgment of the situation. According to the original timetable for negotiation, a deal should have been signed last month. This makes it feel just a tad late for the UK position to still be asking for everything.
        – Jontia
        Oct 1 at 12:58






      • 5




        @Trilarion while that's true, accepting Chequers as is would mean there's essentially no border between any of the UK and the EU, which would include the Eire/NI border automatically. So Eire/NI is a problem after rejecting Chequers, not a reason to reject it.
        – Jontia
        Oct 1 at 15:11













      • 7




        That seems rather extreme. I mean, is the Chequers proposal so "brazen", as to propose getting (almost) all of the benefit and take on almost none of the responsibilities? Or am I misreading your answer?
        – einpoklum
        Oct 1 at 11:46






      • 32




        You haven't missed anything. That really is the gist of most proposals and plans from the UK leadership, and largely what the exit was sold on - "we'll get all these benefits and positive changes but we won't have to face any costs and won't have any negative changes". @einpoklum
        – Nij
        Oct 1 at 12:24






      • 6




        @Nij: I can understand how that could have been propaganda for before the referendum, but what made them think of proposing that to the EU with a straight face?
        – einpoklum
        Oct 1 at 12:36






      • 18




        @Caleth at this late stage it's getting harder to believe it is a negotiating position rather than simply being a complete misjudgment of the situation. According to the original timetable for negotiation, a deal should have been signed last month. This makes it feel just a tad late for the UK position to still be asking for everything.
        – Jontia
        Oct 1 at 12:58






      • 5




        @Trilarion while that's true, accepting Chequers as is would mean there's essentially no border between any of the UK and the EU, which would include the Eire/NI border automatically. So Eire/NI is a problem after rejecting Chequers, not a reason to reject it.
        – Jontia
        Oct 1 at 15:11








      7




      7




      That seems rather extreme. I mean, is the Chequers proposal so "brazen", as to propose getting (almost) all of the benefit and take on almost none of the responsibilities? Or am I misreading your answer?
      – einpoklum
      Oct 1 at 11:46




      That seems rather extreme. I mean, is the Chequers proposal so "brazen", as to propose getting (almost) all of the benefit and take on almost none of the responsibilities? Or am I misreading your answer?
      – einpoklum
      Oct 1 at 11:46




      32




      32




      You haven't missed anything. That really is the gist of most proposals and plans from the UK leadership, and largely what the exit was sold on - "we'll get all these benefits and positive changes but we won't have to face any costs and won't have any negative changes". @einpoklum
      – Nij
      Oct 1 at 12:24




      You haven't missed anything. That really is the gist of most proposals and plans from the UK leadership, and largely what the exit was sold on - "we'll get all these benefits and positive changes but we won't have to face any costs and won't have any negative changes". @einpoklum
      – Nij
      Oct 1 at 12:24




      6




      6




      @Nij: I can understand how that could have been propaganda for before the referendum, but what made them think of proposing that to the EU with a straight face?
      – einpoklum
      Oct 1 at 12:36




      @Nij: I can understand how that could have been propaganda for before the referendum, but what made them think of proposing that to the EU with a straight face?
      – einpoklum
      Oct 1 at 12:36




      18




      18




      @Caleth at this late stage it's getting harder to believe it is a negotiating position rather than simply being a complete misjudgment of the situation. According to the original timetable for negotiation, a deal should have been signed last month. This makes it feel just a tad late for the UK position to still be asking for everything.
      – Jontia
      Oct 1 at 12:58




      @Caleth at this late stage it's getting harder to believe it is a negotiating position rather than simply being a complete misjudgment of the situation. According to the original timetable for negotiation, a deal should have been signed last month. This makes it feel just a tad late for the UK position to still be asking for everything.
      – Jontia
      Oct 1 at 12:58




      5




      5




      @Trilarion while that's true, accepting Chequers as is would mean there's essentially no border between any of the UK and the EU, which would include the Eire/NI border automatically. So Eire/NI is a problem after rejecting Chequers, not a reason to reject it.
      – Jontia
      Oct 1 at 15:11





      @Trilarion while that's true, accepting Chequers as is would mean there's essentially no border between any of the UK and the EU, which would include the Eire/NI border automatically. So Eire/NI is a problem after rejecting Chequers, not a reason to reject it.
      – Jontia
      Oct 1 at 15:11











      up vote
      12
      down vote













      There are basically two issues.



      Firstly the single market includes the Four Freedoms: freedom of movement of goods, services, money and labour (people). The UK wants access to the single market with only three of those freedoms (no freedom of movement of labour). That would damage the integrity of the single market and has always been unacceptable to the EU right from the very start.



      The second issue is that the UK is trying for a power grab. Currently it is a nominal 1/28th say in EU affairs, although of course there is also a veto and it has a lot of soft power. The UK now proposes to have an arbitration system with the EU to resolve disputes over issues with the single market and customs union, and to have a "seat at the table". This would give it much greater influence than it has now, and force all EU decisions about the SM/CU to effectively be reviewed by the UK and subject to challenge. This is, of course, unacceptable too.






      share|improve this answer


























        up vote
        12
        down vote













        There are basically two issues.



        Firstly the single market includes the Four Freedoms: freedom of movement of goods, services, money and labour (people). The UK wants access to the single market with only three of those freedoms (no freedom of movement of labour). That would damage the integrity of the single market and has always been unacceptable to the EU right from the very start.



        The second issue is that the UK is trying for a power grab. Currently it is a nominal 1/28th say in EU affairs, although of course there is also a veto and it has a lot of soft power. The UK now proposes to have an arbitration system with the EU to resolve disputes over issues with the single market and customs union, and to have a "seat at the table". This would give it much greater influence than it has now, and force all EU decisions about the SM/CU to effectively be reviewed by the UK and subject to challenge. This is, of course, unacceptable too.






        share|improve this answer
























          up vote
          12
          down vote










          up vote
          12
          down vote









          There are basically two issues.



          Firstly the single market includes the Four Freedoms: freedom of movement of goods, services, money and labour (people). The UK wants access to the single market with only three of those freedoms (no freedom of movement of labour). That would damage the integrity of the single market and has always been unacceptable to the EU right from the very start.



          The second issue is that the UK is trying for a power grab. Currently it is a nominal 1/28th say in EU affairs, although of course there is also a veto and it has a lot of soft power. The UK now proposes to have an arbitration system with the EU to resolve disputes over issues with the single market and customs union, and to have a "seat at the table". This would give it much greater influence than it has now, and force all EU decisions about the SM/CU to effectively be reviewed by the UK and subject to challenge. This is, of course, unacceptable too.






          share|improve this answer














          There are basically two issues.



          Firstly the single market includes the Four Freedoms: freedom of movement of goods, services, money and labour (people). The UK wants access to the single market with only three of those freedoms (no freedom of movement of labour). That would damage the integrity of the single market and has always been unacceptable to the EU right from the very start.



          The second issue is that the UK is trying for a power grab. Currently it is a nominal 1/28th say in EU affairs, although of course there is also a veto and it has a lot of soft power. The UK now proposes to have an arbitration system with the EU to resolve disputes over issues with the single market and customs union, and to have a "seat at the table". This would give it much greater influence than it has now, and force all EU decisions about the SM/CU to effectively be reviewed by the UK and subject to challenge. This is, of course, unacceptable too.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Oct 3 at 14:33









          Jens

          567513




          567513










          answered Oct 2 at 8:19









          user

          4,71621125




          4,71621125




















              up vote
              7
              down vote













              The Centre for European Reform also published an article on the Chequers proposal. They wrote the following on governance:




              The Commission worries even more about the UK’s proposals on governance. The white paper says the UK will “pay due regard to ECJ case law” for areas covered by the common rulebook, and that Parliament will normally update the rules as they change. But the Commission wants a more overt role for the ECJ and some involvement for itself in enforcement. It wants more automatic procedures for the UK to adopt additions to the rulebook. It does not like the British proposal for independent arbitration panels that would bind EU decision-making in certain areas. The white paper suggests that the EU should be able to fine the UK or suspend part of the agreement if it refuses to update a rule, but the EU regards that as insufficient to deter the British from deviating.




              The BBC has an article about that 'common rulebook' in which they write the following about resolving disputes. Given the previous quote, this doesn't seem acceptable for the EU.




              The UK wants to set up a joint committee and independent arbitration in the event of a dispute over the rulebook.



              Cabinet minister Andrea Leadsom says the dispute mechanism would be "equally presided over by UK courts and the European Court of Justice".







              share|improve this answer
























                up vote
                7
                down vote













                The Centre for European Reform also published an article on the Chequers proposal. They wrote the following on governance:




                The Commission worries even more about the UK’s proposals on governance. The white paper says the UK will “pay due regard to ECJ case law” for areas covered by the common rulebook, and that Parliament will normally update the rules as they change. But the Commission wants a more overt role for the ECJ and some involvement for itself in enforcement. It wants more automatic procedures for the UK to adopt additions to the rulebook. It does not like the British proposal for independent arbitration panels that would bind EU decision-making in certain areas. The white paper suggests that the EU should be able to fine the UK or suspend part of the agreement if it refuses to update a rule, but the EU regards that as insufficient to deter the British from deviating.




                The BBC has an article about that 'common rulebook' in which they write the following about resolving disputes. Given the previous quote, this doesn't seem acceptable for the EU.




                The UK wants to set up a joint committee and independent arbitration in the event of a dispute over the rulebook.



                Cabinet minister Andrea Leadsom says the dispute mechanism would be "equally presided over by UK courts and the European Court of Justice".







                share|improve this answer






















                  up vote
                  7
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  7
                  down vote









                  The Centre for European Reform also published an article on the Chequers proposal. They wrote the following on governance:




                  The Commission worries even more about the UK’s proposals on governance. The white paper says the UK will “pay due regard to ECJ case law” for areas covered by the common rulebook, and that Parliament will normally update the rules as they change. But the Commission wants a more overt role for the ECJ and some involvement for itself in enforcement. It wants more automatic procedures for the UK to adopt additions to the rulebook. It does not like the British proposal for independent arbitration panels that would bind EU decision-making in certain areas. The white paper suggests that the EU should be able to fine the UK or suspend part of the agreement if it refuses to update a rule, but the EU regards that as insufficient to deter the British from deviating.




                  The BBC has an article about that 'common rulebook' in which they write the following about resolving disputes. Given the previous quote, this doesn't seem acceptable for the EU.




                  The UK wants to set up a joint committee and independent arbitration in the event of a dispute over the rulebook.



                  Cabinet minister Andrea Leadsom says the dispute mechanism would be "equally presided over by UK courts and the European Court of Justice".







                  share|improve this answer












                  The Centre for European Reform also published an article on the Chequers proposal. They wrote the following on governance:




                  The Commission worries even more about the UK’s proposals on governance. The white paper says the UK will “pay due regard to ECJ case law” for areas covered by the common rulebook, and that Parliament will normally update the rules as they change. But the Commission wants a more overt role for the ECJ and some involvement for itself in enforcement. It wants more automatic procedures for the UK to adopt additions to the rulebook. It does not like the British proposal for independent arbitration panels that would bind EU decision-making in certain areas. The white paper suggests that the EU should be able to fine the UK or suspend part of the agreement if it refuses to update a rule, but the EU regards that as insufficient to deter the British from deviating.




                  The BBC has an article about that 'common rulebook' in which they write the following about resolving disputes. Given the previous quote, this doesn't seem acceptable for the EU.




                  The UK wants to set up a joint committee and independent arbitration in the event of a dispute over the rulebook.



                  Cabinet minister Andrea Leadsom says the dispute mechanism would be "equally presided over by UK courts and the European Court of Justice".








                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Oct 1 at 10:27









                  JJJ

                  2,7811136




                  2,7811136



























                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded















































                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f34111%2fwhat-issue-does-the-eu-take-with-the-uks-chequers-proposal%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest













































































                      Popular posts from this blog

                      How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                      Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

                      How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?