General Brexit discussion thread

[Baff]

All amendments have to be ratified by both sides.
When the EU made amendements to the WA earlier, they did not do so unilaterally. We agreed them.



The WA arbitration process is governed by.....


The Joint Committee

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8996/

The WA established a Joint Committee, which is "responsible for the implementation and application of [the] Agreement" (Article 164). The UK and EU will seek to resolve any disputes regarding the application of the agreement within the Joint Committee. But if no solution can be reached, disputes will be referred to an arbitration panel.

The Committee is co-chaired by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Michael Gove, for the UK (with the Paymaster General Penny Mordaunt, as his alternate) and European Commission Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič for the EU.

Decisions have to be agreed by both sides. The Joint Committee has powers to amend the WA in a limited number of areas, but cannot amend essential elements of the WA.

[GerryT]

Not how the dispute mechanism works. Sorry.
The EU raises a dispute. (Perhaps citing your reasoning).

If unaddressed by the UK, (as it has been), it goes to an an arbitration panel who suggest amendments to that treaty.
If none of these amendments are implimented to the satisfaction of both parties, then the aggrieved member, in this case the EU, either.... takes it on the chin or withdraws from the treaty.

I doubt it only suggest amending the treaty to satisfy the party breaking the treaty. But lets run with it. Can you quote the article, chapter in the WA and I'll go read it.

[Baff]

So which bit of law DOES it break?

It breaks the "good faith" provision.

But to be fair to them, the otherside hasn't kept to it either.
They have bent over backwards to act in good faith with the EU and the EU has never once acted in good faith in return.
Enough is enough.

[Nick]

proposes

So which bit of law DOES it break?

[Baff]

No what the IMB does is breach the WA. Nick is correct to say that passing the IMB does nothing, as it does just "sit on the shelf", the IMB only gives the power to the UK Govt to, at a later date, insert UK law to set aside or ignore part or parts of the WA. But the IMB doesn't affect the WA in it's current form today.

But the WA has a clause that prohibits both parties (EU & UK) from doing anything that would threaten the implementation of the WA. The IMB perfectly fits this description so even the UK suggesting that it would implement the IMB alone is in breach of the WA.

The WA is an international treaty and there is a dispute resolution process which could see the UK face hefty financial penalties if found in breach of the WA. The EU has started the process, which i guess hinges on whether the UK passes the bill or not. But I think that process will be very long and drawn out and could become redundant if a deal is struck in December, or even April next yr.

Not how the dispute mechanism works. Sorry.
The EU raises a dispute. (Perhaps citing your reasoning).

If unaddressed by the UK, (as it has been), it goes to an an arbitration panel who suggest amendments to that treaty.
If none of these amendments are implimented to the satisfaction of both parties, then the aggrieved member, in this case the EU, either.... takes it on the chin or withdraws from the treaty.

(Which, given that it is a treaty primarily implimented as a boon to help preserve the integrity of the EU, makes the UK laugh a lot.)

[GerryT]

It asserts our sovereignty. Something you and your ilk said had never been taken away.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/58-01/150/5801150.pdf

No what the IMB does is breach the WA. Nick is correct to say that passing the IMB does nothing, as it does just "sit on the shelf", the IMB only gives the power to the UK Govt to, at a later date, insert UK law to set aside or ignore part or parts of the WA. But the IMB doesn't affect the WA in it's current form today.

But the WA has a clause that prohibits both parties (EU & UK) from doing anything that would threaten the implementation of the WA. The IMB perfectly fits this description so even the UK suggesting that it would implement the IMB alone is in breach of the WA.

The WA is an international treaty and there is a dispute resolution process which could see the UK face hefty financial penalties if found in breach of the WA. The EU has started the process, which i guess hinges on whether the UK passes the bill or not. But I think that process will be very long and drawn out and could become redundant if a deal is struck in December, or even April next yr.

[BeElBeeBub]

It asserts our sovereignty. Something you and your ilk said had never been taken away.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/58-01/150/5801150.pdf

The IM bill doesn't "assert our sovereignty". It simply breaks an international agreement we made

The UK has been free to do this throughout our EU membership.

Of course of the UK breaks an agreement it made it can make future cooperation with the counter party more difficult.

Moreover it makes persuading other nations to abide by their agreements much harder.  Witness the UK complaining that China is breaking the agreements it made with the UK over HK.

China is merely exercising sovereignty and changing domestic legislation in one of it's territories (so it would claim).

The UK's only argument is "but you agreed with us not tondo that".

The UK (and the world) depends enormously on states abiding by agreements they have made.  If breaking agreements becomes commonplace the next resort is force of arms. A situation nobody wants.

In the near term the IMB will make cooperation with the EU much more difficult and we will find out the hard way about the web of international agreements that we took for granted.

As things stand, the US seems much more likely to side with Ireland and the EU than the UK.

So we will have pissed off all 3 of the world's major power blocks.

Great

[Barry]

It modifies the UK domestic law implementation of the WA.

It asserts our sovereignty. Something you and your ilk said had never been taken away.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/58-01/150/5801150.pdf

[BeElBeeBub]

Seeing as all it is is an internal bill what law does it break. Just sitting there as a UK piece of constitution?

It modifies the UK domestic law implementation of the WA.

The WA agreed with the EU is an international treaty it has no direct effect in UK.  Part of that treaty was that the UK would implement various bits as domestic law.

This was done with the WA bill passed in January (Johnsons "oven ready deal").

The IM bill proposes to give ministers the power to ignore some bits of the UK law the WA bill put in place (as agreed with the EU).

[Nick]

"yes, this does break international law"....

He then qualified that by "specific" and "limited", but *all* breaches of law are specific and limited.

Seeing as all it is is an internal bill what law does it break. Just sitting there as a UK piece of constitution?

[BeElBeeBub]

In your opinion.

If you quote him out of context, you can make him appear to say all sorts of things you want him to.

Not really out of context I quoted the question and then his answer which was very clear.

"yes, this does break international law"....

He then qualified that by "specific" and "limited", but *all* breaches of law are specific and limited.

You could argue it's a minor breach, not on a par with firebombing a city, using anthrax, or invading another nation.

But it's still a breech.

The critical thing is the EU have stated they will regard it as such.
The incoming US administration has indicated it will take a harder line on things it perceives as risking the GFA than the outgoing one.

It is very unlikely the UK will get much cooperation with the EU if it goes ahead with the IMB.

You may think the UK doesn't need EU cooperation or that the EU needs the UK more.  That theory may well be tested soon.

I predict that, should no deal come to pass, Leavers will blame the EU for all the things that happen despite being warned they would happen.

[Baff]

Not just my opinion though.

It's the opinion of both the EU and the UK government.

The NI sec stated it breached the WA to parliament.

In your opinion.

If you quote him out of context, you can make him appear to say all sorts of things you want him to.

[BeElBeeBub]

Not just my opinion though.

It's the opinion of both the EU and the UK government.

The NI sec stated it breached the WA to parliament.

Speaking during an urgent question on the bill, chair of the Justice Committee and Tory MP Bob Neill said the "adherence to the rule of law is not negotiable".

He asked Mr Lewis: "Will he assure us that nothing proposed in this legislation does or potentially might breach international obligations or international legal arrangements?"

The Northern Ireland secretary replied: "Yes. This does break international law in a very specific and limited way."

[BeElBeeBub]

The fact is that you think it does.
Unfortunately it is a fact that all parties do not agree with your facts.

Because in fact, your facts are not facts at all.
Only your opinion.

Regardless of whether or not the IMB is a breach of the WA, if in the light of it the EU wish to ammend the WA (or withdraw from it if they are unable to do so), they are allowed to do so.
There is a process available for them to follow.

Not just my opinion though.

It's the opinion of both the EU and the UK government.

The NI sec stated it breached the WA to parliament.

[Baff]

how typical.

When shown the facts responds by inane rambling.

The fact the IMB breaches the WA just by the fact of being passed is there in black and white

But more importantly the EU and US indicate they would regard the passing of the IMB as departing from the WA and respond accordingly (probably by halting other areas of negotiation).

Whether the UK thinks the IMB does or not (and it thinks it does) is irrelevant.

The fact is that you think it does.
Unfortunately it is a fact that all parties do not agree with your facts.

Because in fact, your facts are not facts at all.
Only your opinion.

Regardless of whether or not the IMB is a breach of the WA, if in the light of it the EU wish to ammend the WA (or withdraw from it if they are unable to do so), they are allowed to do so.
There is a process available for them to follow.