Generation Brexit

In or out, the ECJ stays

Valeria Vigilante
Valeria Vigilante | Jul 1, 2017 | in Foul Play!

The ECJ needs to be the arbiter of disputes between the EU and UK after Brexit. An alternative to the ECJ would be only expensive and impractical as it would still require representatives of EU states and the UK, thus merely replicating what is already in place under the ECJ.  


Elena Turci Jul 2, 2017

Interesting and fair. However, the brexiteer do not think that ECJ is a legitimized institution to set disputes. For this reason, they want to be out from customs union and single market. The situation may change should May's government falls down, but I do not think that Brexiteers want the ECJ to be the appointed court to settle the matter.

Valeria Vigilante Jul 3, 2017

Once out of the EU, the ECJ is likely to have much less jurisdiction on the UK as it will be involved only when a dispute between the two parties arises. I see your point on the Brexiteers unwilling to accept the ECJ, but to set a new court just for this purpose is eventually a waste of money. Do you have any suggestion on how to avoid this situation?

Tollak Bowitz Jul 7, 2017

Since the degree of influence of the ECJ will depend on the final agreement between the UK and the EU27, it's difficult to speculate on any details.

However, what is certain is that even in the hardest possible Brexit, ECJ will still have jurisdiction on trade between the EU and UK, for services and products, based on regulations and standards. So unless the UK suddenly wants to leave that behind as well, the ECJ cannot be escaped.
But it might definitely be difficult so sell this to UK voters, related to questions of sovereignty etc. as mentioned by Elena and Lev.

View all replies (2)

Lev Bronstein Jul 3, 2017

I dont see how British people could ever see a ruling made by the ECJ as being a totally unbiased statement.