Chat Forum
It is currently Sat Dec 15, 2018 11:15 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 87039 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1556, 1557, 1558, 1559, 1560, 1561, 1562 ... 2176  Next

Whether you can or can't actually vote IRL, In, or Out
In 60%  60%  [ 248 ]
Out 40%  40%  [ 167 ]
Total votes : 415
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:24 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11192
bimboman wrote:
nardol wrote:
I hate the 'fine' you pay to bring your car in to switzerland :evil: :thumbdown:



I hate French motor way Tarifs .


Surprising.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16497
bimboman wrote:
tc27 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
That suddenly means 50% of vehicles have to report to a continental inspection post at their own expense. The sudden increase in workload for inspection posts means they haven't the officials/inspectors to spare.


The second part of his rubbish story assumes this, which is plainly hilarious if you wanted to compare activity with the Swiss border for example (which isn't in the CU).


Bimbo - the common external tarrif (what the Customs union actually is) is irrelevant in this context - the issue here is that if the UK produced and allowed the import of agricultural goods banned within the EU than any UK agri imports into the EU (lamb and fish etc) would be deemed 'high risk' and require the 50% inspection rate.



Unaligned Chinese , Thai and Brazilian agri goods are arriving by the millions of tonnes into the EU every month, they check about 5% of those (for coffee we get checked about 1-2% of deliveries.

50% is a madey uppy stupid premise.


Unless you are planning for the UK to structurally smuggle goods into the UK (edit EU... obviuosly) the inspection rate can be 0%. How do you think any EU retailers will be treated if they are found to be selling illegally smuggled UK beef? Not to mentioned ignoring the EU requirements to display on their wares where all produce came from.
I wouldn't want to form a business around being reliant on illegality - not a great look.


Last edited by nardol on Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:27 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53726
Quote:
That is terrifying on ports policed by us and the French and borders with us and the Irish. The Germans and Swiss are pretty good at organising stuff and not making a mess of it. We will be like DHL and KFC.



Well there's little or no resistance on the German side (they're getting customers). I doubt that HMRC will be looking to make EU vat retail rebatable at the border (the Swiss don't insist you reclaim it and make it slightly difficult for a reason).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:30 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53726
Quote:
Unless you are planning for the UK to structurally smuggle goods into the UK the inspection rate can be 0%. How do you think any EU retailers will be treated if they are found to be selling illegally smuggled UK beef? Not to mentioned ignoring the EU requirements to display on their wares where all produce came from.
I wouldn't want to form a business around being reliant on illegality - not a great look.


There's a massive amount of business based upon processing non aligned meat imports from China, BRazil and Thailand in both Holland and Belgium (Antwerp and Rotterdam) , I wonder if they could do with your advice on the risk you think they've taken.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16497
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
Unless you are planning for the UK to structurally smuggle goods into the UK the inspection rate can be 0%. How do you think any EU retailers will be treated if they are found to be selling illegally smuggled UK beef? Not to mentioned ignoring the EU requirements to display on their wares where all produce came from.
I wouldn't want to form a business around being reliant on illegality - not a great look.


There's a massive amount of business based upon processing non aligned meat imports from China, BRazil and Thailand in both Holland and Belgium (Antwerp and Rotterdam) , I wonder if they could do with your advice on the risk you think they've taken.


There are significant quotas on non-eu produce coming in to the EU.

Not all produce -like coffee- is grown in the EU.

The EU is actually trying to slowly allow more and more non EU agri produce into the EU. This is being done slowly to not cause a situation like the miners in the north and wales there were thrown into deprivation.

The non-Eu nations that wish to export to the EU have to conform to EU standards and certain laws.... From what I know the UK isn't too keen on this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:37 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53726
nardol wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
Unless you are planning for the UK to structurally smuggle goods into the UK the inspection rate can be 0%. How do you think any EU retailers will be treated if they are found to be selling illegally smuggled UK beef? Not to mentioned ignoring the EU requirements to display on their wares where all produce came from.
I wouldn't want to form a business around being reliant on illegality - not a great look.


There's a massive amount of business based upon processing non aligned meat imports from China, BRazil and Thailand in both Holland and Belgium (Antwerp and Rotterdam) , I wonder if they could do with your advice on the risk you think they've taken.


There are significant quotas on non-eu produce coming in to the EU.

Not all produce -like coffee- is grown in the EU.

The EU is actually trying to slowly allow more and more non EU agri produce into the EU. This is being done slowly to not cause a situation like the miners in the north and wales there were thrown into deprivation.



Quotas have ltitle or nothing to do with extra "risk" from non Alligned trade deals creating a checking requirement.

Quote:
The non-Eu nations that wish to export to the EU have to conform to EU standards and certain laws.... From what I know the UK isn't


We of course will conform to EU standard on our export to the EU, that's also not the point being made.


Last edited by bimboman on Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16497
bimboman wrote:
nardol wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
Unless you are planning for the UK to structurally smuggle goods into the UK the inspection rate can be 0%. How do you think any EU retailers will be treated if they are found to be selling illegally smuggled UK beef? Not to mentioned ignoring the EU requirements to display on their wares where all produce came from.
I wouldn't want to form a business around being reliant on illegality - not a great look.


There's a massive amount of business based upon processing non aligned meat imports from China, BRazil and Thailand in both Holland and Belgium (Antwerp and Rotterdam) , I wonder if they could do with your advice on the risk you think they've taken.


There are significant quotas on non-eu produce coming in to the EU.

Not all produce -like coffee- is grown in the EU.

The EU is actually trying to slowly allow more and more non EU agri produce into the EU. This is being done slowly to not cause a situation like the miners in the north and wales there were thrown into deprivation.



Quotas have ltitle or nothing to do with extra "risk" from non Alligned trade deals creating a checking requirement.


That depends on how accommodating the EU wants to be in terms of standards it sets on nny imports from the UK to the EU as well as quota restrictions and the extent the UK want to conform to EU standards.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:42 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53726
Quote:
That depends on how accommodating the EU wants to be in terms of standards it sets on nny imports from the UK to the EU as well as quota restrictions and the extent the UK want to conform to EU standards.


Are you claiming that the EU will set differant standards for the UK than for the rest of the world ? :lol:

You know that's not how it works ?

Why would they put quotas on UK goods when in Agri they are a massive net exporter to the UK ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16497
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
That depends on how accommodating the EU wants to be in terms of standards it sets on nny imports from the UK to the EU as well as quota restrictions and the extent the UK want to conform to EU standards.


Are you claiming that the EU will set differant standards for the UK than for the rest of the world ? :lol:

You know that's not how it works ?


I doubt they would however every non-eu nation that imports to the EU has its own separate treaty. Agri produce is one area the EU in theory could say they want zero UK imports and not sign a treaty.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:49 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53726
nardol wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
That depends on how accommodating the EU wants to be in terms of standards it sets on nny imports from the UK to the EU as well as quota restrictions and the extent the UK want to conform to EU standards.


Are you claiming that the EU will set differant standards for the UK than for the rest of the world ? :lol:

You know that's not how it works ?


I doubt they would however every non-eu nation that imports to the EU has its own separate treaty. Agri produce is one area the EU in theory could say they want zero UK imports and not sign a treaty.



Sorry ? Your claiming that they have treaties with every country that exports agri into the EU and those treaties contain differant standards than the regulatory aligned standards within the Union ?

Can you find any examples of these "treaties " ?

Do you check this stuff before claiming it ?


Last edited by bimboman on Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16497
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
That depends on how accommodating the EU wants to be in terms of standards it sets on nny imports from the UK to the EU as well as quota restrictions and the extent the UK want to conform to EU standards.


Are you claiming that the EU will set differant standards for the UK than for the rest of the world ? :lol:

You know that's not how it works ?

Why would they put quotas on UK goods when in Agri they are a massive net exporter to the UK ?


Well if the UK wants to retaliate with quotas that's their own business. (think norwegian food prices OR lower standards like US food)
Not saying its a good idea but it is the defacto standard that the UK reverts to after they leave the EU without any new treaty being put in place.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:57 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53726
nardol wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
That depends on how accommodating the EU wants to be in terms of standards it sets on nny imports from the UK to the EU as well as quota restrictions and the extent the UK want to conform to EU standards.


Are you claiming that the EU will set differant standards for the UK than for the rest of the world ? :lol:

You know that's not how it works ?

Why would they put quotas on UK goods when in Agri they are a massive net exporter to the UK ?


Well if the UK wants to retaliate with quotas that's their own business. (think norwegian food prices OR lower standards like US food)
Not saying its a good idea but it is the defacto standard that the UK reverts to after they leave the EU without any new treaty being put in place.



Food from around the globe would be cheaper than many EU products. Norway place tarif on al global food imports same as Switzerland to protect their internal farm markets not because of EU relations (by the way your point on this is counter intuitive).

Please please please find one of these "food treaties" ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16497
bimboman wrote:
nardol wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
That depends on how accommodating the EU wants to be in terms of standards it sets on nny imports from the UK to the EU as well as quota restrictions and the extent the UK want to conform to EU standards.


Are you claiming that the EU will set differant standards for the UK than for the rest of the world ? :lol:

You know that's not how it works ?


I doubt they would however every non-eu nation that imports to the EU has its own separate treaty. Agri produce is one area the EU in theory could say they want zero UK imports and not sign a treaty.



Sorry ? Your claiming that they have treaties with every country that exports agri into the EU and those treaties contain differant standards than the regulatory aligned standards within the Union ?

Can you find any examples of these "treaties " ?


No not saying that. Im saying why does the EU accept bananas from country x and not from country y? It has reduced to zero the tariffs is puts on certain produce from certain countries but has left them in place for others. It differs in the terms of trade it offers.


Last edited by nardol on Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16497
bimboman wrote:
nardol wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
That depends on how accommodating the EU wants to be in terms of standards it sets on nny imports from the UK to the EU as well as quota restrictions and the extent the UK want to conform to EU standards.


Are you claiming that the EU will set differant standards for the UK than for the rest of the world ? :lol:

You know that's not how it works ?

Why would they put quotas on UK goods when in Agri they are a massive net exporter to the UK ?


Well if the UK wants to retaliate with quotas that's their own business. (think norwegian food prices OR lower standards like US food)
Not saying its a good idea but it is the defacto standard that the UK reverts to after they leave the EU without any new treaty being put in place.



Food from around the globe would be cheaper than many EU products. Norway place tarif on al global food imports same as Switzerland to protect their internal farm markets not because of EU relations (by the way your point on this is counter intuitive).

Please please please find one of these "food treaties" ?


The CAP in the EU is geared towards keeping food costs higher in the EU. Its a purely protectionist racket - I would never argue otherwise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:03 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53726
That's quotas, not food "treaties" , there's no doubting the EU could (within WTO rules which are many and only on certain goods) ban British produce from the continent, that isn't changed by any sort of treaty though is it?

British Beef was banned for Eurooean export while we're actual members of the Union.

The U.K. Internal market would grow, and we would replace Spanish Peppers with Morrocan ones as a simple example of why any decision to "ban" UK / Eu agri trade would be hilarious in the extreme.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:05 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53726
So you're now side skipping towards quotas and the CAP rather than country by country treaties. Quite confusing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25436
Location: Gypsy Jack Nowell
SamShark wrote:
DragsterDriver wrote:
I’m sure the civil service know more than a few people on the internet and brief politicians accordingly- then it’s up to them if they want to terrify the eu by acting thick as fudge.


He doesn't seem to be saying nobody knows about it - he seems to be saying nobody is listening because of ideological views.

He seems to regard Rees-Mogg and Corbyn as cut from the same cloth.


It’s a more general point that people seem to think the politicians have no idea how it all works, of course they do- most are very bright in an academic sense and will be advised by even brighter folk.

As I said- whether they pretend otherwise is another game altogether, but they’re obviously not as clueless as some here (and Brussels) would have us believe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16497
I cant believe I have done it but here is an example of a treaty signed by the EU that gives certain countries more favourable trade access

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 005:EN:PDF


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16497
bimboman wrote:
So you're now side skipping towards quotas and the CAP rather than country by country treaties. Quite confusing.


If you don't understand how post Brexit Britain needs an individual treaty based around the needs of the EU regarding the CAP then quite frankly i dont have the desire to argue it with you. I don't have the energy to talk to a brick wall.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:19 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53726
nardol wrote:
I cant believe I have done it but here is an example of a treaty signed by the EU that gives certain countries more favourable trade access

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 005:EN:PDF



That isn't a treaty. It's a WTO agreement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16497
bimboman wrote:
nardol wrote:
I cant believe I have done it but here is an example of a treaty signed by the EU that gives certain countries more favourable trade access

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 005:EN:PDF



That isn't a treaty. It's a WTO agreement.


Read up on the definition of a treaty


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:22 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53726
nardol wrote:
bimboman wrote:
So you're now side skipping towards quotas and the CAP rather than country by country treaties. Quite confusing.


If you don't understand how post Brexit Britain needs an individual treaty based around the needs of the EU regarding the CAP then quite frankly i dont have the desire to argue it with you. I don't have the energy to talk to a brick wall.



Nah, you are trying to bluster now. Internal EU CAP agreements aren't individual treaties with 3rd parties at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16497
bimboman wrote:
nardol wrote:
bimboman wrote:
So you're now side skipping towards quotas and the CAP rather than country by country treaties. Quite confusing.


If you don't understand how post Brexit Britain needs an individual treaty based around the needs of the EU regarding the CAP then quite frankly i dont have the desire to argue it with you. I don't have the energy to talk to a brick wall.



Nah, you are trying to bluster now. Internal EU CAP agreements aren't individual treaties with 3rd parties at all.



Either you're winding me up, are thick, or cant read


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:26 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11192
DragsterDriver wrote:
SamShark wrote:
DragsterDriver wrote:
I’m sure the civil service know more than a few people on the internet and brief politicians accordingly- then it’s up to them if they want to terrify the eu by acting thick as fudge.


He doesn't seem to be saying nobody knows about it - he seems to be saying nobody is listening because of ideological views.

He seems to regard Rees-Mogg and Corbyn as cut from the same cloth.


It’s a more general point that people seem to think the politicians have no idea how it all works, of course they do- most are very bright in an academic sense and will be advised by even brighter folk.

As I said- whether they pretend otherwise is another game altogether, but they’re obviously not as clueless as some here (and Brussels) would have us believe.


I dont know DD. It does not come across like that at all. They appear clueless, more interested in their own career than the good of the people they are representing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:31 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53726
nardol wrote:
bimboman wrote:
nardol wrote:
I cant believe I have done it but here is an example of a treaty signed by the EU that gives certain countries more favourable trade access

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 005:EN:PDF



That isn't a treaty. It's a WTO agreement.


Read up on the definition of a treaty



Really bluffing hard now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16497
Winding me up it is. I refuse to believe anyone can be that stupid.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:34 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53726
nardol wrote:
bimboman wrote:
nardol wrote:
bimboman wrote:
So you're now side skipping towards quotas and the CAP rather than country by country treaties. Quite confusing.


If you don't understand how post Brexit Britain needs an individual treaty based around the needs of the EU regarding the CAP then quite frankly i dont have the desire to argue it with you. I don't have the energy to talk to a brick wall.



Nah, you are trying to bluster now. Internal EU CAP agreements aren't individual treaties with 3rd parties at all.



Either you're winding me up, are thick, or cant read



F uck off and find a f ucking treaty between the EU and a thirds party that's for agriculture. Even more importantly to your assertion that "every country has a treaty" find the Vietnamese /eu agricultural treaty?

A WTO ruling on Banana disputes IS NOT a treaty.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16497
bimboman wrote:
nardol wrote:
bimboman wrote:
nardol wrote:
bimboman wrote:
So you're now side skipping towards quotas and the CAP rather than country by country treaties. Quite confusing.


If you don't understand how post Brexit Britain needs an individual treaty based around the needs of the EU regarding the CAP then quite frankly i dont have the desire to argue it with you. I don't have the energy to talk to a brick wall.



Nah, you are trying to bluster now. Internal EU CAP agreements aren't individual treaties with 3rd parties at all.



Either you're winding me up, are thick, or cant read



F uck off and find a f ucking treaty between the EU and a thirds party that's for agriculture. Even more importantly to your assertion that "every country has a treaty" find the Vietnamese /eu agricultural treaty?

A WTO ruling on Banana disputes IS NOT a treaty.


It was a f**king agreement not a ruling.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:36 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53726
nardol wrote:
Winding me up it is. I refuse to believe anyone can be that stupid.



Now shall we do back tou your claim that the EU has a "treaty" with every country that exports agri goods into the union ? Who signed the EU / Indian treaty for example. That should be an easy find.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6427
bimboman wrote:
nardol wrote:
I cant believe I have done it but here is an example of a treaty signed by the EU that gives certain countries more favourable trade access

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 005:EN:PDF



That isn't a treaty. It's a WTO agreement.


I don't think so.
https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/bananas/fact-sheet_en.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:42 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53726
Quote:

It was a f**king agreement not a ruling.


So trade dispute agreements at the WTO create "treaties" , and the Quota system within the EU also creates "treaties" .

Are you now expanding "treaties" to mean anything and everything for convieniance?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16497
bimboman wrote:
Quote:

It was a f**king agreement not a ruling.


So trade dispute agreements at the WTO create "treaties" , and the Quota system within the EU also creates "treaties" .

Are you now expanding "treaties" to mean anything and everything for convieniance?


I'm talking about a contract between two states signed and ratified.
I'm not explaining year one of law school to you. Pay me for it or do a law degree.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16497
Here is the base legislation dictating trade between non eu states and the EU and the barriers of trade the EU throws up:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ ... 001.01.ENG


Enjoy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:48 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53726
Leinster in London wrote:
bimboman wrote:
nardol wrote:
I cant believe I have done it but here is an example of a treaty signed by the EU that gives certain countries more favourable trade access

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 005:EN:PDF



That isn't a treaty. It's a WTO agreement.


I don't think so.
https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/bananas/fact-sheet_en.pdf



You think that's an example of a "treaty" ?

Ok I'll,run with that can you find the Indian cashew nut treaty ? Or the Argentiian Beef "treaty" ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6427
bimboman wrote:
nardol wrote:
Winding me up it is. I refuse to believe anyone can be that stupid.



Now shall we do back tou your claim that the EU has a "treaty" with every country that exports agri goods into the union ? Who signed the EU / Indian treaty for example. That should be an easy find.


The Scottish won't be too happy when the tories come back from India with an agreement that excludes whisky, but includes the right of 000's to come and work in restaurants

http://agritrade.cta.int/Agriculture/Topics/EU-FTAs/Agricultural-aspects-of-the-India-EU-FTA-negotiations

Quote:
Apart from high tariffs, India maintains restrictions, quotas and quantitative limits on imports of agricultural products. There are fears that any India–EU FTA that included food and agricultural products would bring into question the use of these trade policy tools. The absence of safeguards or similar mechanisms to ensure fair trading practice was also highlighted, making India “hesitate to liberalise these areas”.

The Indian authorities remain concerned over the production and trade effects of EU agricultural support programmes. At present, Indian food and agricultural exports to the EU are five times the value of imports from the EU, and India fears that any FTA which included food and agricultural products would see this situation reversed. The workshop report noted the “slow process of reforms” in India, compared to those in the EU’s agricultural sector.

The chair of the workshop noted that “India is not ready to move on some of the key issues, especially on tariffs.” In export sectors such as wines and spirits, the EU is looking for India to reduce its tariffs to levels equivalent to those in advanced developed countries. India, however, already has one of the biggest wines and spirits industries in the world and any tariff reductions would increase competition for Indian producers. This is seen not as the primary concern, but rather in terms of the revenue implications of tariff elimination


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16497
Of some use also:

What are Rules of Origin?
Origin is the 'economic nationality' of goods traded in commerce.

The EU preferential rules of origin distinguish between goods wholly obtained in a non-EU country and goods sufficiently transformed in a non-EU country.

Even if your product is originating, you need still to verify the product was sent from the “originating” country and arrive to the EU without being manipulated in another country, apart from the mere operations needed for keeping the product in good conditions.

You need to verify the specific conditions on this issue and documents needed to demonstrate the fulfilment of this rule contained in the relevant set of rules of origin.

Goods wholly obtained in a non-EU country
These are goods that are exclusively produced/processed only in the beneficiary/partner country and without incorporating materials of any other country.

This includes plants, minerals or live animals, among other products.

In these cases, it is understood that:

vegetables originate in a country if they were harvested there
animals originate in a country if they were born and raised there
minerals originate in a country if they were extracted there
In the case of fish products the EU rules of origin make a distinction between:

fish captured within the territorial seas of the beneficiary/partner country - these are considered as originating without additional conditions
fish captured beyond the territorial seas of the beneficiary/partner country - these are considered as originating only if it was captured by a vessel:
flying the flag of the beneficiary/partner country
registered in that beneficiary/partner country
owned by a national of that beneficiary/partner country or a company having its main place of business and owned 50% as a minimum by nationals of that beneficiary/partner country
in some cases it is also required that the 50% as a minimum of the crew are also nationals of that beneficiary/partner country
For a complete list, see the rules of origin attached to each preferential agreement or preferential regime.

Goods sufficiently transformed in a non-EU country
This refers to any product which was produced with materials of other countries, or was partially processed abroad.

In these cases, the EU preferential rules of origin contain a per-product list that defines:

Column 1: its EU product classification system
Column 2: its description
Column 3: the needed processing to be carried out in the beneficiary/partner country to consider the product as originating
Column 4: in some cases, you may find another processing described in column 4. If it is the case, you may choose at your convenience which rule to succeed (column 3 or of column 4)
There are three basic criteria used in these lists (column 3 and 4) to determine if a product was sufficiently transformed in the beneficiary/partner country:

A) The 'value added' rule
You may find a rule in which the value of all the materials used cannot exceed a certain percentage of the (ex-work) price of the product.

It will be stated as: Manufacture in which the value of all the materials used do not exceed [X]% of the ex work price of the product

In this case, you must compare:

the customs value of all the non-originating materials used in the production of your good (i.e. based on the value that is declared in the customs of the beneficiary/partner country for those materials when imported there)
with

the ex-work price of your good (i.e. the value of the good when leaving the facility where it was produced)
The rule is satisfied if the value of the materials does not exceed the percentage stated by the rule.

B) Change of tariff classification
You may find a rule that states that you cannot have a good that has the same tariff classification as any of the non-originating materials used in the product.

It will be stated as: Manufacture from materials of any heading except that of the product

In this case, you must compare:

the tariff classification of the non-originating materials used (4 digits)
with

the tariff classification of your good
The rule is satisfied if the tariff classification of both is not the same.

C) Manufacture from certain products
You may find a rule that states that permit you to use specific non-origninating material in the manufacture of your product.

It will be stated as: Manufacture from [yarn] [meat], etc.

You may also import the material in a previous state of production (e.g. for yarn, you may import fibres).

However, you may not import a material in a later state of production (e.g. for yarn, you may not import fabric).

For the complete list see the Rules of Origin annex on each preferential arrangement.

Be aware that in some cases the rule may be a combination of criteria a), b) and/or c).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:51 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53726
nardol wrote:
Here is the base legislation dictating trade between non eu states and the EU and the barriers of trade the EU throws up:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ ... 001.01.ENG


Enjoy.



Struggling to find the treaties ..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6427
bimboman wrote:
nardol wrote:
Here is the base legislation dictating trade between non eu states and the EU and the barriers of trade the EU throws up:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ ... 001.01.ENG


Enjoy.



Struggling to find the treaties ..


With reference to the banana agreement
Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty

Quote:
A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as an (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, pact, or exchange of letters, among other terms. Regardless of terminology, all of these forms of agreements are, under international law, equally considered treaties and the rules are the same.[1]

Treaties can be loosely compared to contracts: both are means of willing parties assuming obligations among themselves, and a party to either that fails to live up to their obligations can be held liable under international law.[2]

Contents
1 Modern usage
2 Modern form
3 Bilateral and multilateral treaties
4 Adding and amending treaty obligations
4.1 Reservations
4.2 Amendments
4.3 Protocols
5 Execution and implementation
5.1 Interpretation
5.2 Consequences of terminology
6 Ending treaty obligations
6.1 Withdrawal
6.2 Suspension and termination
7 Invalid treaties
7.1 Ultra vires treaties
7.2 Misunderstanding, fraud, corruption, coercion
7.3 Contrary to peremptory norms
8 Role of the United Nations
9 Relation between national law and treaties by country
9.1 Australian law
9.2 Brazilian law
9.3 India
9.4 United States
10 Treaties and indigenous peoples
11 See also
12 Notes
13 References
14 External links
Modern usage
A treaty is an official, express written agreement that states use to legally bind themselves.[3] A treaty is the official document which expresses that agreement in words; and it is also the objective outcome of a ceremonial occasion which acknowledges the parties and their defined relationships.

Modern form
Since the late 19th century, most treaties have followed a fairly consistent format. A treaty typically begins with a preamble describing the High Contracting Parties and their shared objectives in executing the treaty, as well as summarizing any underlying events (such as the aftermath of a war in the case of a peace treaty). Modern preambles are sometimes structured as a single very long sentence formatted into multiple paragraphs for readability, in which each of the paragraphs begins with a gerund (desiring, recognizing, having, and so on).

The High Contracting Parties; referred to as either the official title of the head of state (but not including the personal name), e.g. His Majesty The King of X or His Excellency The President of Y, or alternatively in the form of "Government of Z"; are enumerated, and along with the full names and titles of their plenipotentiary representatives, and a boilerplate clause about how their representatives have communicated (or exchanged) their full powers (i.e., the official documents appointing them to act on behalf of their respective high contracting party) and found them in good or proper form. However, under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties if the representative is the head of state, head of government or minister of foreign affairs, no special document is needed, as holding such high office is sufficient.

The end of the preamble and the start of the actual agreement is often signaled by the words "have agreed as follows."

After the preamble comes numbered articles, which contain the substance of the parties' actual agreement. Each article heading usually encompasses a paragraph. A long treaty may further group articles under chapter headings.

Modern treaties, regardless of subject matter, usually contain articles governing where the final authentic copies of the treaty will be deposited and how any subsequent disputes as to their interpretation will be peacefully resolved.

The end of a treaty, the eschatocol (or closing protocol), is often signaled by a clause like "in witness whereof" or "in faith whereof," the parties have affixed their signatures, followed by the words "DONE at," then the site(s) of the treaty's execution and the date(s) of its execution. The date is typically written in its most formal, longest possible form. For example, the Charter of the United Nations was "DONE at the city of San Francisco the twenty-sixth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and forty-five." If the treaty is executed in multiple copies in different languages, that fact is always noted, and is followed by a stipulation that the versions in different languages are equally authentic.

The signatures of the parties' representatives follow at the very end. When the text of a treaty is later reprinted, such as in a collection of treaties currently in effect, an editor will often append the dates on which the respective parties ratified the treaty and on which it came into effect for each party.

Bilateral and multilateral treaties
Bilateral treaties are concluded between two states[4] or entities. It is possible, however, for a bilateral treaty to have more than two parties; consider for instance the bilateral treaties between Switzerland and the European Union (EU) following the Swiss rejection of the European Economic Area agreement. Each of these treaties has seventeen parties. These however are still bilateral, not multilateral, treaties. The parties are divided into two groups, the Swiss ("on the one part") and the EU and its member states ("on the other part"). The treaty establishes rights and obligations between the Swiss and the EU and the member states severally—it does not establish any rights and obligations amongst the EU and its member states.[citation needed]

A multilateral treaty is concluded among several countries.[4] The agreement establishes rights and obligations between each party and every other party. Multilateral treaties are often regional.[citation needed] Treaties of "mutual guarantee" are international compacts, e.g., the Treaty of Locarno which guarantees each signatory against attack from another.[4]

Adding and amending treaty obligations
Reservations
Main article: Reservation (law)
Reservations are essentially caveats to a state's acceptance of a treaty. Reservations are unilateral statements purporting to exclude or to modify the legal obligation and its effects on the reserving state.[5] These must be included at the time of signing or ratification, i.e. "a party cannot add a reservation after it has already joined a treaty".

Originally, international law was unaccepting of treaty reservations, rejecting them unless all parties to the treaty accepted the same reservations. However, in the interest of encouraging the largest number of states to join treaties, a more permissive rule regarding reservations has emerged. While some treaties still expressly forbid any reservations, they are now generally permitted to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the goals and purposes of the treaty.

When a state limits its treaty obligations through reservations, other states party to that treaty have the option to accept those reservations, object to them, or object and oppose them. If the state accepts them (or fails to act at all), both the reserving state and the accepting state are relieved of the reserved legal obligation as concerns their legal obligations to each other (accepting the reservation does not change the accepting state's legal obligations as concerns other parties to the treaty). If the state opposes, the parts of the treaty affected by the reservation drop out completely and no longer create any legal obligations on the reserving and accepting state, again only as concerns each other. Finally, if the state objects and opposes, there are no legal obligations under that treaty between those two state parties whatsoever. The objecting and opposing state essentially refuses to acknowledge the reserving state is a party to the treaty at all.[6]

Amendments
There are three ways an existing treaty can be amended. First, formal amendment requires State parties to the treaty to go through the ratification process all over again. The re-negotiation of treaty provisions can be long and protracted, and often some parties to the original treaty will not become parties to the amended treaty. When determining the legal obligations of states, one party to the original treaty and one a party to the amended treaty, the states will only be bound by the terms they both agreed upon. Treaties can also be amended informally by the treaty executive council when the changes are only procedural, technical change in customary international law can also amend a treaty, where state behavior evinces a new interpretation of the legal obligations under the treaty. Minor corrections to a treaty may be adopted by a procès-verbal; but a procès-verbal is generally reserved for changes to rectify obvious errors in the text adopted, i.e. where the text adopted does not correctly reflect the intention of the parties adopting it.

Protocols
See also: Environmental protocol
In international law and international relations, a protocol is generally a treaty or international agreement that supplements a previous treaty or international agreement. A protocol can amend the previous treaty, or add additional provisions. Parties to the earlier agreement are not required to adopt the protocol. Sometimes this is made clearer by calling it an "optional protocol", especially where many parties to the first agreement do not support the protocol.

Some examples: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) established a framework for the development of binding greenhouse gas emission limits, while the Kyoto Protocol contained the specific provisions and regulations later agreed upon.

Execution and implementation

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Treaties may be seen as 'self-executing', in that merely becoming a party puts the treaty and all of its obligations in action. Other treaties may be non-self-executing and require 'implementing legislation'—a change in the domestic law of a state party that will direct or enable it to fulfill treaty obligations. An example of a treaty requiring such legislation would be one mandating local prosecution by a party for particular crimes.

The division between the two is often not clear and is often politicized in disagreements within a government over a treaty, since a non-self-executing treaty cannot be acted on without the proper change in domestic law. If a treaty requires implementing legislation, a state may be in default of its obligations by the failure of its legislature to pass the necessary domestic laws.

Interpretation
The language of treaties, like that of any law or contract, must be interpreted when the wording does not seem clear or it is not immediately apparent how it should be applied in a perhaps unforeseen circumstance. The Vienna Convention states that treaties are to be interpreted "in good faith" according to the "ordinary meaning given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose." International legal experts also often invoke the 'principle of maximum effectiveness,' which interprets treaty language as having the fullest force and effect possible to establish obligations between the parties.

No one party to a treaty can impose its particular interpretation of the treaty upon the other parties. Consent may be implied, however, if the other parties fail to explicitly disavow that initially unilateral interpretation, particularly if that state has acted upon its view of the treaty without complaint. Consent by all parties to the treaty to a particular interpretation has the legal effect of adding another clause to the treaty – this is commonly called an 'authentic interpretation'.

International tribunals and arbiters are often called upon to resolve substantial disputes over treaty interpretations. To establish the meaning in context, these judicial bodies may review the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of the treaty as well as the final, signed treaty itself.

Consequences of terminology
One significant part of treaty making is that signing a treaty implies recognition that the other side is a sovereign state and that the agreement being considered is enforceable under international law. Hence, nations can be very careful about terming an agreement to be a treaty. For example, within the United States, agreements between states are compacts and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are memoranda of understanding.

Another situation can occur when one party wishes to create an obligation under international law, but the other party does not. This factor has been at work with respect to discussions between North Korea and the United States over security guarantees and nuclear proliferation.

The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement. Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law.

Ending treaty obligations
Withdrawal
Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. For example, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless:

it can be shown that the parties intended to admit the possibility, or
a right of withdrawal can be inferred from the terms of the treaty.
The possibility of withdrawal depends on the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatoire. It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When North Korea declared its intention to do this the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. Consequently, withdrawal was not possible.[7]

In practice, because of sovereignty, any state can purport to withdraw from any treaty at any time, and cease to abide by its terms. The question of whether this is lawful can be regarded as the success or failure to anticipate community acquiescence or enforcement, that is, how other states will react; for instance, another state might impose sanctions or go to war over a treaty violation.

If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty terminates the treaty. When a state withdraws from a multilateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, it otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.[citation needed]

Suspension and termination
If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself.[8]

A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. It depends on how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it. Sometimes treaties will provide for the seriousness of a breach to be determined by a tribunal or other independent arbiter.[9] An advantage of such an arbiter is that it prevents a party from prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspending or terminating its own obligations due to another's alleged material breach.

Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.[10][citation needed]

A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.[10][citation needed]

Invalid treaties
There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and 1910 were protested;[11] and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea.[12]

Ultra vires treaties
A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic laws. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation needed]

Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing.[citation needed]

According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of international law. If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not assume international legality even if approved by internal law.[13] This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail.[14]

Misunderstanding, fraud, corruption, coercion
Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can be invalidated—considered unenforceable and void under international law. A treaty will be invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to the content of the treaty itself. Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place.

A state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident.

Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect "corruption" of its representative by another party to the treaty. Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent.

Contrary to peremptory norms
A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations. These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against the aggressive use of force, genocide and other crimes against humanity, piracy, hostilities directed at civilian population, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery and torture,[15] meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts.[16]

Role of the United Nations
The United Nations Charter states that treaties must be registered with the UN to be invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice. This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and 20th century. Section 103 of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties.

After their adoption, treaties as well as their amendments have to follow the official legal procedures of the United Nations, as applied by the Office of Legal Affairs, including signature, ratification and entry into force.

In function and effectiveness, the UN has been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government by some[citation needed], giving a comparison between modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation.

Relation between national law and treaties by country
Australian law
See also: List of Australian treaties and Law of Australia § International law
The constitution of Australia allows the executive government to enter into treaties, but the practice is for treaties to be tabled in both houses of parliament at least 15 days before signing. Treaties are considered a source of Australian law but sometimes require an act of parliament to be passed depending on their nature. Treaties are administered and maintained by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which advised that the "general position under Australian law is that treaties which Australia has joined, apart from those terminating a state of war, are not directly and automatically incorporated into Australian law. Signature and ratification do not, of themselves, make treaties operate domestically. In the absence of legislation, treaties cannot impose obligations on individuals nor create rights in domestic law. Nevertheless, international law, including treaty law, is a legitimate and important influence on the development of the common law and may be used in the interpretation of statutes."[17] Treaties can be implemented by executive action, and often, existing laws are sufficient to ensure a treaty is honoured.

Australian treaties generally fall under the following categories: extradition, postal agreements and money orders, trade and international conventions.

Brazilian law
The federal constitution of Brazil states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president of Brazil and that such treaties must be approved by the Congress of Brazil (Articles 84, Clause VIII, and 49, Clause I). In practice, that has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty but that its ratification by the president requires the prior approval of Congress. Additionally, the Supreme Federal Court has ruled that after ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register for it to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities.

The court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and enjoy the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation (leis ordinárias, or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Brazil in 2008 has altered that somewhat by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above that of ordinary legislation, subject to only the constitution itself. Additionally, the 45th Amendment to the constitution makes human rights treaties approved by Congress by a special procedure enjoy the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether and how the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa.

The constitution does not have a supremacy clause with the same effects as the one in the US constitution, which is of interest to the discussion on the relation between treaties and legislation of the states of Brazil.

India
In India, subjects are divided into three lists: union, state and concurrent. In the normal legislation process, the subjects on the u ion list must be legislated by the Parliament of India. For subjects on the state list, only the respective state legislature can legislate. For subjects on the concurrent list, both governments can make laws. However, to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on any subject and even override the general division of subject lists.

United States
Main article: Treaty Clause
In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than in international law. US law distinguishes what it calls "treaties" from "executive agreements," which are either "congressional-executive agreements" or "sole executive agreements." The classes are all equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only in internal US law.

The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval. Treaties require advice and consent by two thirds of the Senators present, but sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. Finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate before or after the treaty is signed by the President.

Currently, international agreements are ten times more likely to be executed by executive agreement. Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds as well as for agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the US. For example, the deal by the United States, Iran, and other countries is not a treaty.

See the article on the Bricker Amendment for history of the relationship between treaty powers and Constitutional provisions.

The US Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified, for the purposes of US law, by any subsequent Act of Congress, just like any other regular law. The court also ruled in Reid v. Covert that treaty provisions that conflict with the US Constitution are null and void under US law.

Treaties and indigenous peoples
Treaties formed an important part of European colonization and, in many parts of the world, Europeans attempted to legitimize their sovereignty by signing treaties with indigenous peoples. In most cases these treaties were in extremely disadvantageous terms to the native people, who often did not appreciate the implications of what they were signing.

In some rare cases, such as with Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China, the local governments were able to use the treaties to at least mitigate the impact of European colonization. This involved learning the intricacies of European diplomatic customs and then using the treaties to prevent a power from overstepping their agreement or by playing different powers against each other.

In other cases, such as New Zealand and Canada, treaties allowed native peoples to maintain a minimum amount of autonomy. In the case of indigenous Australians, unlike with the Māori of New Zealand, no treaty was ever entered into with the indigenous peoples entitling the Europeans to land ownership, under the doctrine of terra nullius (later overturned by Mabo v Queensland, establishing the concept of native title well after colonization was already a fait accompli). Such treaties between colonizers and indigenous peoples are an important part of political discourse in the late 20th and early 21st century, the treaties being discussed have international standing as has been stated in a treaty study by the UN.

Prior to 1871, the government of the United States regularly entered into treaties with Native Americans but the Indian Appropriations Act of March 3, 1871 (ch. 120, 16 Stat. 563) had a rider (25 U.S.C. § 71) attached that effectively ended the President’s treaty making by providing that no Indian nation or tribe shall be acknowledged as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty. The federal government continued to provide similar contractual relations with the Indian tribes after 1871 by agreements, statutes, and executive orders.[18]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 6:06 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53726
Leinster in London wrote:
bimboman wrote:
nardol wrote:
I cant believe I have done it but here is an example of a treaty signed by the EU that gives certain countries more favourable trade access

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 005:EN:PDF



That isn't a treaty. It's a WTO agreement.


I don't think so.
https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/bananas/fact-sheet_en.pdf



https://europa.eu/european-union/law/treaties_en

These are treaties.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 6:10 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53726
Quote:
A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as an (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, pact, or exchange of letters, among other terms. Regardless of terminology, all of these forms of agreements are, under international law, equally considered treaties and the rules are the same.[1]

Treaties can be loosely compared to contracts: both are means of willing parties assuming obligations among themselves, and a party to either that fails to live up to their obligations can be held liable under international law.[2]



Super, where's the Ghanan Cocoa treaty, or even the Ukrainian sugar treaty.

If you're claiming that all Agri trade is covered in the same way as the "banana treaty " , go find me all the other examples.

Let's be honest Nardol you didn't mean treaties did you?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 87039 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1556, 1557, 1558, 1559, 1560, 1561, 1562 ... 2176  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BBB, BBC 2, bimboman, Brumby_in_Vic, CarrotGawks, DOB, EverReady, Google Adsense [Bot], Google [Bot], JB1981, jdogscoop, koroke hangareka, La soule, matta25, penguin, RodneyRegis, SaintK, sockwithaticket, TEDS, The Native, Turbogoat, UncleFB, Wilson's Toffee and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group