Barry Gardiner expostulated there had to be a body to enforce rights and settle disputes during the Brexit course of action but gave a mixed response as to whether Labour would accept the clutches of the ECJ.
Speaking to Edward Stourton on BBC Radio 4’s World at One programme, the politician was grilled after making the circumstance for a “supranational court” to oversee disputes.
He said: “The rights that are when all is said agreed for British citizens living in Europe and European citizens fare in the UK will have to be arbitrated upon if there is any dispute as to whether those goods are being granted somewhere.
“And therefore there will be somebody – the European Court of Fair play or some other body, which is a supranational court – that is skilful to enforce those rights.”
Barry Gardiner said there demanded to be a “supranational” body to oversee disputes
The rights that are done agreed for British citizens living in Europe and European citizens electrifying in the UK will have to be arbitrated upon if there is any dispute
The proprietress then put it to his guest that his party would “accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ”.
But Mr Gardiner hit sponsor and said: “No, sorry you’re precisely forestalling my answer – it’s not that we would stand the jurisdiction of the ECJ, what we’re saying is simply this, there has to be a body that is accomplished of enforcing those rights.
“Now whether that is a court that has UK appraises and European judges on it in equal measures, that can be seen to be impartial and above-board on both sides, which actually the European Court of Justice – we already reconcile oneself to has been an impartial and fair adjudicator on the terms of trade for the EU – but that’s prospering to have to take place.”
The Jeremy Corbyn-ally then said it thinks fitting be appropriate for the ECJ to determine citizenship arrangements.
1 of 7
He said: “What I would question is why the Prime Minister is making this such a impose on point.
“Because of course, one understands the ECJ should no longer be determining the business relations but why it should not be determining the citizenship arrangements by some sort of compromise administer I really can’t see.
“If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a dip. If it looks like a court and quacks like a court, it’s a court.”
Brexit moderator Guy Verhofstadt has since offered the UK an olive branch. In a conciliatory intervention, the freethinker MEP told peers Brussels was open to an “international agreement” on any exit large which should not be “unilaterally” governed by either side.
He said that whilst Eurocrats on insist the ECJ “plays a role” in policing the rights of EU citizens after Brexit, they be enduring made no demands over “the extent of it”.