How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 6)
Discussion
Mrr T said:
WTO rules require that unless you have a FTA you must treat all members the same. So no FTA with the EU and no border in Ireland the UK must drop all border controls with the rest of the world or be in breach of the WTO rules.
Not an issue. If Ruritania complains that Irish imports are coming across from Ireland to NI without being searched, we just point out that Ruritanian imports taking the same route won't be searched either. Mrr T said:
As for the UK and Irish government saying they are ready to have border controls in place, you should cut down on the pills.
They've said they won't put in any hard border controls, they have a mechanism that doesn't require them. Mrr T said:
s2art said:
Mrr T said:
s2art said:
Mrr T said:
The UK has a choice. It can either a) put in place the same border processes which handle goods currently entering the UK from outside the EU or b )it can be in breach of WTO rules.
Being in breach of WTO rules might make negotiation of all these new FTA a touch difficult.
The WTO disagrees with you.Being in breach of WTO rules might make negotiation of all these new FTA a touch difficult.
p1stonhead said:
The Dangerous Elk said:
That is up to the EU, it is their red line not ours. We are happy with free trade/movement and it is not us talking about closed borders, terrorist uprisings and building border posts topped with machine guns to protect their protectionist super state in the making.
No it’s not their problem because if a border goes up for any reason it isn’t acceptable to us. Therefore we need to ensure it doesn’t.
But the EU need ‘something’ to be in place after we decided to leave. So us leaving means between us we need to sort it out.
Hence the backstop.
That is, absolutely, up to the RoI and EU.
How WE administer our border is entirely up to us - and we can absolutely achieve a WTO compliant border without any issues relating to the "Irish issue". We can even gain an extended period to implement such measures, in agreement with WTO.
A question for some with knowledge of International Law.
The proposed Withdrawal Agreement is critiqued because it doesn't have a formal mechanism, short of a negotiated trade agreement, to stop a backstop if that comes into play. Both parties have said there is no intention to trigger the backstop, and the EU has stated it will negotiate in good faith to achieve a final agreement within a short period. But in practice, EU negotiators may be particularly hard nosed about some issues that they consider are not up for discussion.
Parliamentary Supremacy is defined as
Parliament can make laws concerning anything.
No Parliament can bind a future parliament (that is, it cannot pass a law that cannot be changed or reversed by a future Parliament).
A valid Act of Parliament cannot be questioned by the court. Parliament is the supreme lawmaker.
If, by some unlikely miracle, a fixed term would apply to the Backstop, then in practice, this suggests a cliff edge threat; both parties caught in a contentious round of negotiation (hence the backstop), with the sword of Damocles threat of a looming deadline. That might focus minds,but in reality, might just harden positions, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy
What would stop a future Parliament just unilaterally tearing up the agreement? The WA is a Treaty, a Treaty designed to lapse upon conclusion of future trade talks. I imagine the likely scenario would be an intransigent EU, refusing to budge on some issue. If international arbitration is sought, then we could point to statements made in 2018. Is there any sanction that could be taken against the UK if that happened. I know people would say "no one would trust the UK ever again", but that won't be true, as nations quite often act unilaterally to end treaties. We could claim the right to end the agreement, through "a material breach by another party, impossibility of performance, or a fundamental change of circumstances", under the Vienna Convention of Treaties. a breach could be a claim that the EU is not conducting any meaningful negotiation, or "impossibility of performance" being because, as opponents would claim, the backstop imposing stresses of the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom. I would imagine, if the country was in this position, of a clearly intransigent EU blocking trade negotiations, Parliament would be fairly united.
The Good Friday Agreement wouldn't, I think, put a legal block on that, but there is obvious fears that the gains would be lost (but there is by no means certainty in that; Northern Ireland has changed a lot in 20 years). Though that is essentially a problem between the UK and the Republic of Ireland to manage. I used to live in Northern Ireland, before and after the watchtowers being taken down. I recall that it as notable that the Republic maintained a mothballed customs post on the road to Newry. Also, when the FMV outbreak occurred, the Irish Government very quickly deployed uniformed troops to man impromptu check points, without any obvious rancour.
Just curious given that one Parliament cannot be beholden to another.
I found this artcle to be interesting:
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.c...
The proposed Withdrawal Agreement is critiqued because it doesn't have a formal mechanism, short of a negotiated trade agreement, to stop a backstop if that comes into play. Both parties have said there is no intention to trigger the backstop, and the EU has stated it will negotiate in good faith to achieve a final agreement within a short period. But in practice, EU negotiators may be particularly hard nosed about some issues that they consider are not up for discussion.
Parliamentary Supremacy is defined as
Parliament can make laws concerning anything.
No Parliament can bind a future parliament (that is, it cannot pass a law that cannot be changed or reversed by a future Parliament).
A valid Act of Parliament cannot be questioned by the court. Parliament is the supreme lawmaker.
If, by some unlikely miracle, a fixed term would apply to the Backstop, then in practice, this suggests a cliff edge threat; both parties caught in a contentious round of negotiation (hence the backstop), with the sword of Damocles threat of a looming deadline. That might focus minds,but in reality, might just harden positions, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy
What would stop a future Parliament just unilaterally tearing up the agreement? The WA is a Treaty, a Treaty designed to lapse upon conclusion of future trade talks. I imagine the likely scenario would be an intransigent EU, refusing to budge on some issue. If international arbitration is sought, then we could point to statements made in 2018. Is there any sanction that could be taken against the UK if that happened. I know people would say "no one would trust the UK ever again", but that won't be true, as nations quite often act unilaterally to end treaties. We could claim the right to end the agreement, through "a material breach by another party, impossibility of performance, or a fundamental change of circumstances", under the Vienna Convention of Treaties. a breach could be a claim that the EU is not conducting any meaningful negotiation, or "impossibility of performance" being because, as opponents would claim, the backstop imposing stresses of the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom. I would imagine, if the country was in this position, of a clearly intransigent EU blocking trade negotiations, Parliament would be fairly united.
The Good Friday Agreement wouldn't, I think, put a legal block on that, but there is obvious fears that the gains would be lost (but there is by no means certainty in that; Northern Ireland has changed a lot in 20 years). Though that is essentially a problem between the UK and the Republic of Ireland to manage. I used to live in Northern Ireland, before and after the watchtowers being taken down. I recall that it as notable that the Republic maintained a mothballed customs post on the road to Newry. Also, when the FMV outbreak occurred, the Irish Government very quickly deployed uniformed troops to man impromptu check points, without any obvious rancour.
Just curious given that one Parliament cannot be beholden to another.
I found this artcle to be interesting:
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.c...
p1stonhead said:
TTwiggy said:
Puggit said:
C5 has wheeled the lip readers in: https://twitter.com/5_News/status/1073552684026945...
He's not wrong either.Poor Junker though, he'll have no idea whether he said it or not!
Mrr T said:
WTO rules require that unless you have a FTA you must treat all members the same.
And we will treat them all the same. Every country in the world will be treated to exactly the same regime as their goods cross a land border with the UK.FYI, it doesn't need to be a free trade agreement either.
MX5Biologist said:
A question for some with knowledge of International Law.
The proposed Withdrawal Agreement is critiqued because it doesn't have a formal mechanism, short of a negotiated trade agreement, to stop a backstop if that comes into play. Both parties have said there is no intention to trigger the backstop, and the EU has stated it will negotiate in good faith to achieve a final agreement within a short period. But in practice, EU negotiators may be particularly hard nosed about some issues that they consider are not up for discussion.
Parliamentary Supremacy is defined as
Parliament can make laws concerning anything.
No Parliament can bind a future parliament (that is, it cannot pass a law that cannot be changed or reversed by a future Parliament).
A valid Act of Parliament cannot be questioned by the court. Parliament is the supreme lawmaker.
If, by some unlikely miracle, a fixed term would apply to the Backstop, then in practice, this suggests a cliff edge threat; both parties caught in a contentious round of negotiation (hence the backstop), with the sword of Damocles threat of a looming deadline. That might focus minds,but in reality, might just harden positions, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy
What would stop a future Parliament just unilaterally tearing up the agreement? The WA is a Treaty, a Treaty designed to lapse upon conclusion of future trade talks. I imagine the likely scenario would be an intransigent EU, refusing to budge on some issue. If international arbitration is sought, then we could point to statements made in 2018. Is there any sanction that could be taken against the UK if that happened. I know people would say "no one would trust the UK ever again", but that won't be true, as nations quite often act unilaterally to end treaties. We could claim the right to end the agreement, through "a material breach by another party, impossibility of performance, or a fundamental change of circumstances", under the Vienna Convention of Treaties. a breach could be a claim that the EU is not conducting any meaningful negotiation, or "impossibility of performance" being because, as opponents would claim, the backstop imposing stresses of the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom. I would imagine, if the country was in this position, of a clearly intransigent EU blocking trade negotiations, Parliament would be fairly united.
The Good Friday Agreement wouldn't, I think, put a legal block on that, but there is obvious fears that the gains would be lost (but there is by no means certainty in that; Northern Ireland has changed a lot in 20 years). Though that is essentially a problem between the UK and the Republic of Ireland to manage. I used to live in Northern Ireland, before and after the watchtowers being taken down. I recall that it as notable that the Republic maintained a mothballed customs post on the road to Newry. Also, when the FMV outbreak occurred, the Irish Government very quickly deployed uniformed troops to man impromptu check points, without any obvious rancour.
Just curious given that one Parliament cannot be beholden to another.
I found this artcle to be interesting:
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.c...
Are we not just over complicating this?actually in reality any government if it has enough military/financial might can do whatever it wants to ultimately?The proposed Withdrawal Agreement is critiqued because it doesn't have a formal mechanism, short of a negotiated trade agreement, to stop a backstop if that comes into play. Both parties have said there is no intention to trigger the backstop, and the EU has stated it will negotiate in good faith to achieve a final agreement within a short period. But in practice, EU negotiators may be particularly hard nosed about some issues that they consider are not up for discussion.
Parliamentary Supremacy is defined as
Parliament can make laws concerning anything.
No Parliament can bind a future parliament (that is, it cannot pass a law that cannot be changed or reversed by a future Parliament).
A valid Act of Parliament cannot be questioned by the court. Parliament is the supreme lawmaker.
If, by some unlikely miracle, a fixed term would apply to the Backstop, then in practice, this suggests a cliff edge threat; both parties caught in a contentious round of negotiation (hence the backstop), with the sword of Damocles threat of a looming deadline. That might focus minds,but in reality, might just harden positions, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy
What would stop a future Parliament just unilaterally tearing up the agreement? The WA is a Treaty, a Treaty designed to lapse upon conclusion of future trade talks. I imagine the likely scenario would be an intransigent EU, refusing to budge on some issue. If international arbitration is sought, then we could point to statements made in 2018. Is there any sanction that could be taken against the UK if that happened. I know people would say "no one would trust the UK ever again", but that won't be true, as nations quite often act unilaterally to end treaties. We could claim the right to end the agreement, through "a material breach by another party, impossibility of performance, or a fundamental change of circumstances", under the Vienna Convention of Treaties. a breach could be a claim that the EU is not conducting any meaningful negotiation, or "impossibility of performance" being because, as opponents would claim, the backstop imposing stresses of the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom. I would imagine, if the country was in this position, of a clearly intransigent EU blocking trade negotiations, Parliament would be fairly united.
The Good Friday Agreement wouldn't, I think, put a legal block on that, but there is obvious fears that the gains would be lost (but there is by no means certainty in that; Northern Ireland has changed a lot in 20 years). Though that is essentially a problem between the UK and the Republic of Ireland to manage. I used to live in Northern Ireland, before and after the watchtowers being taken down. I recall that it as notable that the Republic maintained a mothballed customs post on the road to Newry. Also, when the FMV outbreak occurred, the Irish Government very quickly deployed uniformed troops to man impromptu check points, without any obvious rancour.
Just curious given that one Parliament cannot be beholden to another.
I found this artcle to be interesting:
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.c...
MX5Biologist said:
A question for some with knowledge of International Law.
EU has stated it will negotiate in good faith to achieve a final agreement within a short period. But in practice, EU negotiators may be particularly hard nosed about some issues that they consider are not up for discussion.
You're right. On the bit above, the EU are only obliged to negotiate against what's in the Political Declaration, which is to build on the Backstop arrangements. So they would be acting legally if they held us in the backstop if a future Government tried to negotiate a completely different future relationship. Ie one that isn't a Customs Union and following Single Market rules and all the jazz that comes with that.EU has stated it will negotiate in good faith to achieve a final agreement within a short period. But in practice, EU negotiators may be particularly hard nosed about some issues that they consider are not up for discussion.
There's been a lot of focus on the backstop itself, but it's the above that is in the most insidious and objectionable element for me.
Dr Jekyll said:
Mrr T said:
WTO rules require that unless you have a FTA you must treat all members the same. So no FTA with the EU and no border in Ireland the UK must drop all border controls with the rest of the world or be in breach of the WTO rules.
Not an issue. If Ruritania complains that Irish imports are coming across from Ireland to NI without being searched, we just point out that Ruritanian imports taking the same route won't be searched either. Dr Jekyll said:
Mrr T said:
As for the UK and Irish government saying they are ready to have border controls in place, you should cut down on the pills.
They've said they won't put in any hard border controls, they have a mechanism that doesn't require them. Mrr T said:
s2art said:
Mrr T said:
s2art said:
Mrr T said:
The UK has a choice. It can either a) put in place the same border processes which handle goods currently entering the UK from outside the EU or b )it can be in breach of WTO rules.
Being in breach of WTO rules might make negotiation of all these new FTA a touch difficult.
The WTO disagrees with you.Being in breach of WTO rules might make negotiation of all these new FTA a touch difficult.
I have never suggested WTO rules require hard borders.
WTO rules require that unless you have a FTA you must treat all members the same. So no FTA with the EU and no border in Ireland the UK must drop all border controls with the rest of the world or be in breach of the WTO rules.
As for the UK and Irish government saying they are ready to have border controls in place, you should cut down on the pills.
Further, WTO does not require, when borders change, for Day 1 implementation. They are entirely comfortable with a "best endeavours" approach whilst a proper solution can be put in place...
p1stonhead said:
TTwiggy said:
Puggit said:
C5 has wheeled the lip readers in: https://twitter.com/5_News/status/1073552684026945...
He's not wrong either.paulrockliffe said:
p1stonhead said:
TTwiggy said:
Puggit said:
C5 has wheeled the lip readers in: https://twitter.com/5_News/status/1073552684026945...
He's not wrong either.Poor Junker though, he'll have no idea whether he said it or not!
Plus the lip readers have it wrong. His reply was “No I didn’t, it was the gin”
Sway said:
WTO does not however, require "exact same" processes. Merely "exact same" level of controls - which is open to a level of interpretation (indeed WTO permits risk based sampling for inspections, as an example of differential treatment).
Further, WTO does not require, when borders change, for Day 1 implementation. They are entirely comfortable with a "best endeavours" approach whilst a proper solution can be put in place...
So let’s see how this works. Further, WTO does not require, when borders change, for Day 1 implementation. They are entirely comfortable with a "best endeavours" approach whilst a proper solution can be put in place...
Harwich goods entering from outside the EU. Have to have custom declaration. Which are matched to the goods and VAT and tariffs paid, the goods are then allowed to cross into the UK. Goods entering the UK from Ireland. No documentation, no controls no collection of VAT or tariffs. I am sure the WTO court will agree these are broadly similar.
We can certainly argue it’s a border change and change could not be implemented in time. Mind you we have 2 years and our only plans are a half page description of a technology solution. Again you might win but then again the court might think you are an idiot
The irony of all of this is that if the EU had given the UK just a little of what Camoron was asking for back in 2015, the UK might have returned a majority remain vote in the 2016 referendum.
But being so smug and arrogant, and ignoring the fact that the UK is the EU`s second greatest net contributor of funds into its coffers whilst receiving not a single net positive penny of funding from the EU for all the time it has been a member. As well as being its biggest single market, and one which buys up 95 billion pounds worth of goods and services a year more than is sold into the EU from the UK. The EU just said No. just like they have repeated in answer to Mays requests for something to take back to the UK parliament to help get the chequers deal through.
Ultimately it would seem, that what would be deemed to be a good deal for the EU, is an awful deal for the UK, whilst what would be a good deal for the UK would be regarded as an awful deal for the EU
proving that all along, being in the EU is not, and never was a good deal for the UK.
But being so smug and arrogant, and ignoring the fact that the UK is the EU`s second greatest net contributor of funds into its coffers whilst receiving not a single net positive penny of funding from the EU for all the time it has been a member. As well as being its biggest single market, and one which buys up 95 billion pounds worth of goods and services a year more than is sold into the EU from the UK. The EU just said No. just like they have repeated in answer to Mays requests for something to take back to the UK parliament to help get the chequers deal through.
Ultimately it would seem, that what would be deemed to be a good deal for the EU, is an awful deal for the UK, whilst what would be a good deal for the UK would be regarded as an awful deal for the EU
proving that all along, being in the EU is not, and never was a good deal for the UK.
Mrr T said:
You really really have never understood some basic concepts.
I have never suggested WTO rules require hard borders.
WTO rules require that unless you have a FTA you must treat all members the same. So no FTA with the EU and no border in Ireland the UK must drop all border controls with the rest of the world or be in breach of the WTO rules.
As for the UK and Irish government saying they are ready to have border controls in place, you should cut down on the pills.
You've been repeating the same argument for as long as these threads have been going - that the Irish border prevents anything other than the current arrangements.I have never suggested WTO rules require hard borders.
WTO rules require that unless you have a FTA you must treat all members the same. So no FTA with the EU and no border in Ireland the UK must drop all border controls with the rest of the world or be in breach of the WTO rules.
As for the UK and Irish government saying they are ready to have border controls in place, you should cut down on the pills.
You've been told - repeatedly - that WTO does not preclude a 'soft' border in Ireland, using technological means, and that it doesn't have to be in place on day one. And you've also been told that the handling of the border and the existence of a FTA are two separate issues.
Unless you have evidence that those two assertions are wrong, just endlessly repeating your personal beliefs is not going to change the discussion on here. Please do put up some evidence, because I'm bored of everyone going round the same loop every other week.
Tuna said:
Mrr T said:
You really really have never understood some basic concepts.
I have never suggested WTO rules require hard borders.
WTO rules require that unless you have a FTA you must treat all members the same. So no FTA with the EU and no border in Ireland the UK must drop all border controls with the rest of the world or be in breach of the WTO rules.
As for the UK and Irish government saying they are ready to have border controls in place, you should cut down on the pills.
You've been repeating the same argument for as long as these threads have been going - that the Irish border prevents anything other than the current arrangements.I have never suggested WTO rules require hard borders.
WTO rules require that unless you have a FTA you must treat all members the same. So no FTA with the EU and no border in Ireland the UK must drop all border controls with the rest of the world or be in breach of the WTO rules.
As for the UK and Irish government saying they are ready to have border controls in place, you should cut down on the pills.
You've been told - repeatedly - that WTO does not preclude a 'soft' border in Ireland, using technological means, and that it doesn't have to be in place on day one. And you've also been told that the handling of the border and the existence of a FTA are two separate issues.
Unless you have evidence that those two assertions are wrong, just endlessly repeating your personal beliefs is not going to change the discussion on here. Please do put up some evidence, because I'm bored of everyone going round the same loop every other week.
Mrr T said:
Sway said:
WTO does not however, require "exact same" processes. Merely "exact same" level of controls - which is open to a level of interpretation (indeed WTO permits risk based sampling for inspections, as an example of differential treatment).
Further, WTO does not require, when borders change, for Day 1 implementation. They are entirely comfortable with a "best endeavours" approach whilst a proper solution can be put in place...
So let’s see how this works. Further, WTO does not require, when borders change, for Day 1 implementation. They are entirely comfortable with a "best endeavours" approach whilst a proper solution can be put in place...
Harwich goods entering from outside the EU. Have to have custom declaration. Which are matched to the goods and VAT and tariffs paid, the goods are then allowed to cross into the UK. Goods entering the UK from Ireland. No documentation, no controls no collection of VAT or tariffs. I am sure the WTO court will agree these are broadly similar.
We can certainly argue it’s a border change and change could not be implemented in time. Mind you we have 2 years and our only plans are a half page description of a technology solution. Again you might win but then again the court might think you are an idiot
We've had two years of negotiations - the outcome of which have a material impact on the needs regarding the goods border. So it's entirely understandable that we're in a position of needing to act quickly without a fully detailed plan.
Implementation periods are entirely normal for WTO, and the pace of the arbitration process is slow enough that it's entirely likely by the time of any judgement, the full solution would already be in place.
You may be "sure" - you also have limited experience of how international trade disputes are heard, and have spent two years misrepresenting normal WTO practice relating to border change and ignoring the rebuttals - waiting a few weeks to pop up again with exactly the same argument...
Just as you've completely ignored the responses pointing out you don't need the same level of "control" over every border, and every category of goods/CoO.
MX5Biologist said:
A question for some with knowledge of International Law.
The proposed Withdrawal Agreement is critiqued because it doesn't have a formal mechanism, short of a negotiated trade agreement, to stop a backstop if that comes into play. Both parties have said there is no intention to trigger the backstop, and the EU has stated it will negotiate in good faith to achieve a final agreement within a short period. But in practice, EU negotiators may be particularly hard nosed about some issues that they consider are not up for discussion.
Parliamentary Supremacy is defined as
Parliament can make laws concerning anything.
No Parliament can bind a future parliament (that is, it cannot pass a law that cannot be changed or reversed by a future Parliament).
A valid Act of Parliament cannot be questioned by the court. Parliament is the supreme lawmaker.
If, by some unlikely miracle, a fixed term would apply to the Backstop, then in practice, this suggests a cliff edge threat; both parties caught in a contentious round of negotiation (hence the backstop), with the sword of Damocles threat of a looming deadline. That might focus minds,but in reality, might just harden positions, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy
What would stop a future Parliament just unilaterally tearing up the agreement? The WA is a Treaty, a Treaty designed to lapse upon conclusion of future trade talks. I imagine the likely scenario would be an intransigent EU, refusing to budge on some issue. If international arbitration is sought, then we could point to statements made in 2018. Is there any sanction that could be taken against the UK if that happened. I know people would say "no one would trust the UK ever again", but that won't be true, as nations quite often act unilaterally to end treaties. We could claim the right to end the agreement, through "a material breach by another party, impossibility of performance, or a fundamental change of circumstances", under the Vienna Convention of Treaties. a breach could be a claim that the EU is not conducting any meaningful negotiation, or "impossibility of performance" being because, as opponents would claim, the backstop imposing stresses of the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom. I would imagine, if the country was in this position, of a clearly intransigent EU blocking trade negotiations, Parliament would be fairly united.
The Good Friday Agreement wouldn't, I think, put a legal block on that, but there is obvious fears that the gains would be lost (but there is by no means certainty in that; Northern Ireland has changed a lot in 20 years). Though that is essentially a problem between the UK and the Republic of Ireland to manage. I used to live in Northern Ireland, before and after the watchtowers being taken down. I recall that it as notable that the Republic maintained a mothballed customs post on the road to Newry. Also, when the FMV outbreak occurred, the Irish Government very quickly deployed uniformed troops to man impromptu check points, without any obvious rancour.
Just curious given that one Parliament cannot be beholden to another.
I found this artcle to be interesting:
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.c...
This has always been my issue with the concept that Brexit is required to restore the sovereignty of our Parliament. The proposed Withdrawal Agreement is critiqued because it doesn't have a formal mechanism, short of a negotiated trade agreement, to stop a backstop if that comes into play. Both parties have said there is no intention to trigger the backstop, and the EU has stated it will negotiate in good faith to achieve a final agreement within a short period. But in practice, EU negotiators may be particularly hard nosed about some issues that they consider are not up for discussion.
Parliamentary Supremacy is defined as
Parliament can make laws concerning anything.
No Parliament can bind a future parliament (that is, it cannot pass a law that cannot be changed or reversed by a future Parliament).
A valid Act of Parliament cannot be questioned by the court. Parliament is the supreme lawmaker.
If, by some unlikely miracle, a fixed term would apply to the Backstop, then in practice, this suggests a cliff edge threat; both parties caught in a contentious round of negotiation (hence the backstop), with the sword of Damocles threat of a looming deadline. That might focus minds,but in reality, might just harden positions, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy
What would stop a future Parliament just unilaterally tearing up the agreement? The WA is a Treaty, a Treaty designed to lapse upon conclusion of future trade talks. I imagine the likely scenario would be an intransigent EU, refusing to budge on some issue. If international arbitration is sought, then we could point to statements made in 2018. Is there any sanction that could be taken against the UK if that happened. I know people would say "no one would trust the UK ever again", but that won't be true, as nations quite often act unilaterally to end treaties. We could claim the right to end the agreement, through "a material breach by another party, impossibility of performance, or a fundamental change of circumstances", under the Vienna Convention of Treaties. a breach could be a claim that the EU is not conducting any meaningful negotiation, or "impossibility of performance" being because, as opponents would claim, the backstop imposing stresses of the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom. I would imagine, if the country was in this position, of a clearly intransigent EU blocking trade negotiations, Parliament would be fairly united.
The Good Friday Agreement wouldn't, I think, put a legal block on that, but there is obvious fears that the gains would be lost (but there is by no means certainty in that; Northern Ireland has changed a lot in 20 years). Though that is essentially a problem between the UK and the Republic of Ireland to manage. I used to live in Northern Ireland, before and after the watchtowers being taken down. I recall that it as notable that the Republic maintained a mothballed customs post on the road to Newry. Also, when the FMV outbreak occurred, the Irish Government very quickly deployed uniformed troops to man impromptu check points, without any obvious rancour.
Just curious given that one Parliament cannot be beholden to another.
I found this artcle to be interesting:
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.c...
It has always been Sovereign, it is simply that it has agreed to cede some of that sovereignty to the EU through the European Communities Act.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cms...
We would be repealing that act under May's deal and replacing it with something new. Parliament can later decide to rip that up, which would be in breach of EU law, but not UK law.
The idea that Mays deal binds us to the EU in perpetuity makes no sense.
It's also stated very clearly here:
https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereign...
In theory, we did not need to follow article 50. We are just being polite.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff