Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Valmy]

It is rather impressive what they manage to squeeze out of Heathrow with its two runways.

Isn't it the motto of Merrie Olde England(TM)?

[Gups]

Even if Gups has inadvertently multiplied the freight by a thousand.

I have indeed.

[Josquius]

They should just do the sensible thing and put it at Birmingham and be done with it.

Could only work with some real high-speed train links with London airports and London itself. Combined high-speed rail and train fares exist in France and Germany, Roissy CDG TGV station helps alot, like Frankfurt Flughafen bahnhof, smaller scale though for Frankfurt.
Did they start works on London-Birmingham HSL eventually? Or is it still in NIMBY stage?

It is with this in mind that Birmingham would be the best option for the country.
Already HS2 as designed will have a station at Birmingham Airport, putting Birmingham Airport pretty much as the central hub of the UK rail network (just north of Birmingham it will split into a Y).
Considering re-balancing the economy away from London is after avoiding Brexit the most pressing issue for the country today,  planning for all future UK air traffic to go through the inconveniently located Heathrow is poor thinking.

[The Minsky Moment]

It was not a free trade agreement

But I am afraid it is a very good indicator of the times to come.

For starters, if the Brexit deal will not have free movement of labor, the east european countries will have to be bribed in a big way or they will just veto it.
Let alone what the Walloon parliament will be offended of.

Put simply: the EU will fail if that is allowed to continue.  It would be like giving Maricopa County a veto on all US international trade legislation.
While the  immediate ramification is that it implies a "hard" Brexit, truth be told, it also confirms some of the Brexit attacks on the effectiveness and viability of the EU.  Without reform of these "veto points" the UK may be better off out.

[Tamas]

True. I mean, just look at the history of Poland FFS.

[derspiess]

Not looking good I'm afraid. My wife seems to have filled up my social calendar without consultation (or alternatively, I wasn't listening as usual)

I've been there

It's looking iffy for us to get on a connecting flight tomorrow night and Thursday looks about as bad.  We're actually going to try to fly out tonight.  If we can just get that damned connecting flight to Detroit we stand a good chance of getting first class to London.

Ahh, the joys of flying non-rev stand-by.

[celedhring]

It was not a free trade agreement

But I am afraid it is a very good indicator of the times to come.

For starters, if the Brexit deal will not have free movement of labor, the east european countries will have to be bribed in a big way or they will just veto it.
Let alone what the Walloon parliament will be offended of.

Put simply: the EU will fail if that is allowed to continue.  It would be like giving Maricopa County a veto on all US international trade legislation.
While the  immediate ramification is that it implies a "hard" Brexit, truth be told, it also confirms some of the Brexit attacks on the effectiveness and viability of the EU.  Without reform of these "veto points" the UK may be better off out.

Yet Brexit is about giving sovereignity back to the national states (Brussels bureaucrats can't decide for us! Rule Britannia!), which is contrary to solving that problem. 

[Zanza]

It was not a free trade agreement

But I am afraid it is a very good indicator of the times to come.

For starters, if the Brexit deal will not have free movement of labor, the east european countries will have to be bribed in a big way or they will just veto it.
Let alone what the Walloon parliament will be offended of.

Put simply: the EU will fail if that is allowed to continue.  It would be like giving Maricopa County a veto on all US international trade legislation.
While the  immediate ramification is that it implies a "hard" Brexit, truth be told, it also confirms some of the Brexit attacks on the effectiveness and viability of the EU.  Without reform of these "veto points" the UK may be better off out.

There is nothing in the treaties that would suggest that national or even worse sub-national legislative have any say on free trade agreements.
We are only in this situation because a politician had to make a stand to pacify his backbenchers and grassroots members. Similar to why we had a Brexit vote. This time that politician was the German vice chancellor, not the British PM, but the effect is silliness again.
The EU commission was too weak to refute this attack on its powers by the most powerful member. The EU obviously does not work if countries like Germany break the rules.

[Gups]

It was not a free trade agreement

But I am afraid it is a very good indicator of the times to come.

For starters, if the Brexit deal will not have free movement of labor, the east european countries will have to be bribed in a big way or they will just veto it.
Let alone what the Walloon parliament will be offended of.

Put simply: the EU will fail if that is allowed to continue.  It would be like giving Maricopa County a veto on all US international trade legislation.
While the  immediate ramification is that it implies a "hard" Brexit, truth be told, it also confirms some of the Brexit attacks on the effectiveness and viability of the EU.  Without reform of these "veto points" the UK may be better off out.

Yet Brexit is about giving sovereignity back to the national states (Brussels bureaucrats can't decide for us! Rule Britannia!), which is contrary to solving that problem. 

Brexit was not about reforming the EU it was about the UK leaving the EU

[The Minsky Moment]

There is nothing in the treaties that would suggest that national or even worse sub-national legislative have any say on free trade agreements.
We are only in this situation because a politician had to make a stand to pacify his backbenchers and grassroots members. Similar to why we had a Brexit vote. This time that politician was the German vice chancellor, not the British PM, but the effect is silliness again.
The EU commission was too weak to refute this attack on its powers by the most powerful member. The EU obviously does not work if countries like Germany break the rules.

But if the structure isn't working as designed that in a way is even worse - flawed institutional design can be changed, flawed behavior is tougher.

[garbon]

It was not a free trade agreement

But I am afraid it is a very good indicator of the times to come.

For starters, if the Brexit deal will not have free movement of labor, the east european countries will have to be bribed in a big way or they will just veto it.
Let alone what the Walloon parliament will be offended of.

Put simply: the EU will fail if that is allowed to continue.  It would be like giving Maricopa County a veto on all US international trade legislation.
While the  immediate ramification is that it implies a "hard" Brexit, truth be told, it also confirms some of the Brexit attacks on the effectiveness and viability of the EU.  Without reform of these "veto points" the UK may be better off out.

Yeah, I'm all for the EU but it does seem like it does the best to make itself unpalatable/non-viable.

[The Minsky Moment]

Yet Brexit is about giving sovereignity back to the national states (Brussels bureaucrats can't decide for us! Rule Britannia!), which is contrary to solving that problem. 

Brexit for the most part was about the blind leading the blind.
But even the broken clock gets the time right every now and then . . .

[Zanza]

There is nothing in the treaties that would suggest that national or even worse sub-national legislative have any say on free trade agreements.
We are only in this situation because a politician had to make a stand to pacify his backbenchers and grassroots members. Similar to why we had a Brexit vote. This time that politician was the German vice chancellor, not the British PM, but the effect is silliness again.
The EU commission was too weak to refute this attack on its powers by the most powerful member. The EU obviously does not work if countries like Germany break the rules.

But if the structure isn't working as designed that in a way is even worse - flawed institutional design can be changed, flawed behavior is tougher.

I actually read a bit more and apparently the FTA is not just between the EU and Canada, but between the 28 members, the EU and Canada. So that's why it does necessitate ratification after all. It contains provisions where the EU does not have sole legislative competency meaning it shares competency with the member states or it even has provisions that are in the sole legislative competency of the member states. That's why it can only be ratified by both the EU and the member states and also why every member state basically has a veto. The difference to normal multilateral treaties is that it cannot go into force for everybody except Belgium now, but instead does not go into force for all parties involved.
I guess we could only conclude those FTAs where the sole legislative competency lies with the EU, but then it would probably not have the C for comprehensive of CETA...

It just shows that the EU members are sovereign states after all and have their own foreign policy and the union cannot just make any treaty with a foreign entity but has to consider the share competencies with the members. How does the American constitution regulate a case where the federal government would like to do a treaty on something that is not covered by the powers invested into US congress, but rather lies with the several states?

[Grey Fox]

& that's why it, like TPP, will fail.

[The Minsky Moment]

How does the American constitution regulate a case where the federal government would like to do a treaty on something that is not covered by the powers invested into US congress, but rather lies with the several states?

It doesn't happen.  The treaty power is conferred on the federal government, and the federal government can enact enabling legislation even if it would normally be outside the competence of the federal government (because it is "necessary and proper" to the treaty).  In addition, Congress has the power to regulate international commerce, which is interpreted broadly as basically anything that impinges or relates to such commerce.