在英国脱欧的十字路口:自主和增长是替代选择?

H. Schäfer, J. Kämmerer
{"title":"在英国脱欧的十字路口:自主和增长是替代选择?","authors":"H. Schäfer, J. Kämmerer","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3744705","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article we have reviewed the main economic and legal problems of Brexit. The economic literature agrees that Brexit entails an economic loss for both the UK and the EU, but more so for the former, whose GDP is likely to incur a one-time 5 to 7% drop (not counting the Corona effect). These economic losses would be part of the price the UK would have to pay for the restoration of its full sovereignty in matters of international trade in the event of a hard Brexit. When the UK entered the EU in 1973, it cannot have been unaware of the ECJ being an atypical court and a motor of European integration, but its increasing uneasiness with the ECJ accumulating “super-constitutional” powers is also understandable. That the UK government now declares any form of ECJ involvement in the future legal relations with the Union a “red line” (a line that is also extended to the ECHR in police and judicial matters) is out of proportion but may indeed hinder a substantial agreement on important issues.","PeriodicalId":231496,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Law & Economics: Public Law (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"At Brexit Crossroads: Autonomy and Growth as Alternatives?\",\"authors\":\"H. Schäfer, J. Kämmerer\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3744705\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this article we have reviewed the main economic and legal problems of Brexit. The economic literature agrees that Brexit entails an economic loss for both the UK and the EU, but more so for the former, whose GDP is likely to incur a one-time 5 to 7% drop (not counting the Corona effect). These economic losses would be part of the price the UK would have to pay for the restoration of its full sovereignty in matters of international trade in the event of a hard Brexit. When the UK entered the EU in 1973, it cannot have been unaware of the ECJ being an atypical court and a motor of European integration, but its increasing uneasiness with the ECJ accumulating “super-constitutional” powers is also understandable. That the UK government now declares any form of ECJ involvement in the future legal relations with the Union a “red line” (a line that is also extended to the ECHR in police and judicial matters) is out of proportion but may indeed hinder a substantial agreement on important issues.\",\"PeriodicalId\":231496,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Law & Economics: Public Law (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Law & Economics: Public Law (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3744705\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Law & Economics: Public Law (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3744705","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在本文中,我们回顾了英国脱欧的主要经济和法律问题。经济文献一致认为,英国脱欧会给英国和欧盟带来经济损失,但对欧盟来说损失更大,其GDP可能会一次性下降5%至7%(不包括冠状病毒效应)。在硬脱欧的情况下,这些经济损失将是英国为在国际贸易事务中恢复完全主权而必须付出的代价之一。当英国在1973年加入欧盟时,它不可能不知道欧洲法院是一个非典型的法院和欧洲一体化的发动机,但它对欧洲法院积累“超宪法”权力的日益不安也是可以理解的。英国政府现在宣称欧洲法院在未来与欧盟的法律关系中任何形式的介入都是一条“红线”(这条红线在警察和司法事务上也延伸到欧洲人权法院),这是不合比例的,但确实可能阻碍在重要问题上达成实质性协议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
At Brexit Crossroads: Autonomy and Growth as Alternatives?
In this article we have reviewed the main economic and legal problems of Brexit. The economic literature agrees that Brexit entails an economic loss for both the UK and the EU, but more so for the former, whose GDP is likely to incur a one-time 5 to 7% drop (not counting the Corona effect). These economic losses would be part of the price the UK would have to pay for the restoration of its full sovereignty in matters of international trade in the event of a hard Brexit. When the UK entered the EU in 1973, it cannot have been unaware of the ECJ being an atypical court and a motor of European integration, but its increasing uneasiness with the ECJ accumulating “super-constitutional” powers is also understandable. That the UK government now declares any form of ECJ involvement in the future legal relations with the Union a “red line” (a line that is also extended to the ECHR in police and judicial matters) is out of proportion but may indeed hinder a substantial agreement on important issues.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信