FT: Bojo to override WA

[Baff]

The UK.

[Nalaar]

We don't care. We want out, deal or no deal. Border in Ireland or no border in Ireland. When are you going to get it?

Who exactly is the "we" in this?

[Nick]

Ireland aside the EU have not been negotiating in good faith since talks began . They have insisted on negotiations following ECHR and EU protocols . They seem to have forgotten that we have left and have our own set of rules to follow . It is not the way that trade agreements are made .

So David Davis showing up 4 times in a yr is good faith ?  agreeing a treaty and breaking it soon after is good faith. You don't know the meaning of good faith. The EU have not insisted on anything regarding the talks, the first meeting back in 2016 was to agree the format and process for brexit, the 2 parties at that meeting EU/UK agreed the way forward. Stop bleating on that you now don't like what you agreed. Give one example of where the EU has not negotiated in good faith.

Article 184 of the WA says the talks should proceed in good faith , I have seen little of that . What I have seen is stubborn people who if we locked them in a room for 4 years would not be able to agree the price of fish let alone who can catch it .

So you say but haven't shown how the EU has not proceeded in good faith. Being in the room trying to agree is the point. Agreeing and later unilaterally breaking that agreement is the best example of proceeding in bad faith

For me the WA became null and void almost as soon as the ink was dry with the attitude of Barnier  who refused to discuss anything until we agreed with him .

Totally wrong, the EU and UK agreed the process. on day 1. No-one told anyone what to do.

Johnsons tweaking with the N Ireland protocol is as we have said a sign that we will walk and are prepared in the event of a no deal . The  legality  of what he is up to is still to be proven one way or the other but for sure his case is not helped with all the usual suspects coming out in support of what are in effect our opponents in trade talks .

Johnson is a liar and has broken international law, He can't "tweak" the GFA, its not in his power. It's this attitude of UK superiority has the UK where it is. The GFA is agreed, if the UK wants to change it there is a mechanism to do so. He has zero power to make any changes on his own

Still thats enough of supporting the conservatives for one day from me . It could all be political game and probably is where the picture of doom and gloom is painted by the remoaners and Johnson comes to the rescue at the last minute with such a crap deal that the remoaners rejoice and those that voted leave accept it as the best deal we will get .

Its how we got into this mess in the first place .

Johnson is prob the worst PM the UK has ever had and will ever have. He has not the capacity or wit to secure a deal. Don't you realise his action today has stopped any chance of a deal. The EU will now start to play hardball, you might think they have up to now but they have been trying to help the UK. But that day has past.

We don't care. We want out, deal or no deal. Border in Ireland or no border in Ireland. When are you going to get it?

[Borg Refinery]

What happened to "they need us more than we need them"?

It says a lot about the strength of the UK's negotiating position that the only way they can even attempt to extract concessions from the EU is to threaten to break international law by breaking a treaty that they themselves signed up to only 6 months earlier.

The argument that the treaty was only contingent on the EU giving the UK the trade deal they want is legally complete nonsense.

Still - it will all be fine because BMW and Mercedes are going to come to the UK rescue any day now.

The funniest part is that everyone who voted Conservative in the last election based on the "oven ready" deal has basically now been informed that the deal was actually rubbish and shouldn't have been signed.

All that said, I guess international treaties can of course be cancelled or reneged upon, similar to the treaty between Germany and Russia in WW2 - however, cancelling the treaty cancels the obligations on both sides not only one side.

Nail hit head.

[Baff]

This is where the power lies.

The UK says "we are unilaterally changing the treaty to somethng you don't like".

If the EU says, "OK then, the treaty is now cancelled" then they don't need us more than we need them.
If not....   they do.

[Javert]

What happened to "they need us more than we need them"?

It says a lot about the strength of the UK's negotiating position that the only way they can even attempt to extract concessions from the EU is to threaten to break international law by breaking a treaty that they themselves signed up to only 6 months earlier.

The argument that the treaty was only contingent on the EU giving the UK the trade deal they want is legally complete nonsense.

Still - it will all be fine because BMW and Mercedes are going to come to the UK rescue any day now.

The funniest part is that everyone who voted Conservative in the last election based on the "oven ready" deal has basically now been informed that the deal was actually rubbish and shouldn't have been signed.

All that said, I guess international treaties can of course be cancelled or reneged upon, similar to the treaty between Germany and Russia in WW2 - however, cancelling the treaty cancels the obligations on both sides not only one side.

[T00ts]

There is more than one way to look at this surely. In the so called negotiations for the WA we were hogtied at every step. The EU set out the agenda from the word go and if I remember correctly refused to discuss anything out of their preferred order. With weak PM in charge we gave and gave  to get us to a WA. Then May swooped at Chequers and forced Ministers to accept it. There was uproar!  BJ took over, got some changes and got it through but again there was uproar.

What are we saying here? That UK is prepared to lie down and be walked over? Any country in the world outside of the EU would be hard pressed to have put up with the treatment the EU has dished out. Even now they won't discuss anything until we agree their terms on fishing and State Aid. This isn't negotiation this is domination. It is time to get things in order and if our Government feels that we need to change our laws to suit the situation after Jan 1st 2021 then so be it. We have spent the last goodness how many years appeasing the EU. Each time they have said jump we have doffed our caps and begged to leap higher. Enough is enough.

[Streetwalker]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hmg-legal-position-ukim-bill-and-northern-ireland-protocol?fbclid=IwAR0srKfvk90ygoj6Tq_Q31dqTPJhxR9VX3EgH7CPTfJEZ_-NuDyCujwd3Xo

HM government legal position on the Northern Ireland protocol states that Parliament is sovereign as a matter of domestic law . This principle was recently approved unanimously by the supreme court in the R (Miller ) v secretary of state for exiting the European Union  (2017 )

Oh the irony , way to go Gina !

[papasmurf]

I'll give you my Paypal.

Send me a thousand.

I wrote in the big scheme of things.  My wife and I use Kepner Tregoe  decision making analysis for any purchase above £5.

[Baff]

I'll give you my Paypal. Send me a thousand.


Flippancy aside, I think you are correct.

Despite the EU claiming to be all about the money, it clearly is nothing of the sort.
They really don't care about the economics of Brexit (or the EU) at all. And never have.
It doesn't affect them one jot.
They will still get their payrises and pensions and palace lifestyles.

This is all about power, not money.
To think otherwise is to misunderstand the motivations of both sides.

[papasmurf]

they will be out of pocket to the tune of 30 billion for absolutely no gain.

In the big scheme of things £30 billion is peanuts.

[Baff]

So... only a vague idea of what the joint commitee does.
I have no idea either.

Who does?


The UK government has not said it is breaking international law.
One member of the cabinet has said so. And he is neither it's spokesperson nor leader.

So you have misrepresented. Fake news, I'm afraid.



We most certainly expect our own people to interpret our own laws in our own favour.
We recognise that others may not wish us to.

We are not offering the EU an FTA at this time. Only a TA.
The EU requirements for us to get anFTA with them are incompatible with the referendum result.
The EU would very much like us to get an FTA with them, but we just left the EU. Ended our FTA with them.
An FTA with the EU = Brino. Brexit in name only. Theresa May's style which cost her not only her job, but her reputation.


Both the EU and Westminster will continue to blame each other until the end of time, just as they have since the beginning of the EU.
No change there.

I also agree that the EU will not react in any great way. If they do we will simply end the agreement and they will be out of pocket to the tune of 30 billion for absolutely no gain.

[GerryT]

No idea.
What is the role of the joint commitee?
The internet provides little information on it's remit.
(Apart from "The institute of government" complaining it has no teeth to do anything).
I suspect it's just another talking shop.

Article 38 of the Withdrawal Agreement is the pertinent part to UK's right to act unilaterally.
Apparently. But I haven't read it myself.

The joint committee site at least once a yr but usually 4 times a yr and deals with any issues with the WE. It consists of equal numbers of UK and EU people, I think 2 from each side. As the yrs roll on they would alter the treaty by joint agreement to suit the current trends. If the UK fet there were loose ends in the treaty that's where the UK should address the issue.
If no agreement is possible then an arbitration panel steps in, they are independent and it's all spelt out how that works. Their ruling is binding.

Art38 deals with most favoured provisions. The UK is trying to interpret a clause that allows for differences, such as the UK/IRL common travel area, which is not common across EU/UK. But the UK govt themselves have said that what they are doing is wrong and will break international law, but it hasn't stopped some nutters going around spouting nonsense. Johnson is looking for a fight, so he can blame the EU. He's picked one but I doubt the EU will react in any great way. They will start the process within the guidelines of the WA, but the EU will continue to negotiate a FTA. That process will take months, and the EU will drag it out so it goes into next yr. Johnson can't then blame the EU in any way, if the EU don't entertain his threats he's left standing and having to explain to the British people why there's no deal and why other countries USA and more will follow, are also turning their back on the UK.

here it is, very short:
More favourable provisions
1. This Part shall not affect any laws, regulations or administrative provisions applicable in a host State or a State of
work which would be more favourable to the persons concerned. This paragraph shall not apply to Title III.
2. Article 12 and Article 23(1) shall be without prejudice to the Common Travel Area arrangements between the United
Kingdom and Ireland as regards more favourable treatment which may result from these arrangements for the persons
concerned.

[Baff]

No idea.
What is the role of the joint commitee?
The internet provides little information on it's remit.
(Apart from "The institute of government" complaining it has no teeth to do anything).
I suspect it's just another talking shop.

Article 38 of the Withdrawal Agreement is the pertinent part to UK's right to act unilaterally.
Apparently. But I haven't read it myself.

[GerryT]

The WA explicitly allows the UK unilateral action.
The reason for this is because the UK was worried that if no trade deal was signed, it would not be able to leave the EU under the previous terms of the unratified WA. That it must first gain EU approval.

That this would be used as leverage to either keep the UK in the EU indefinitely by offering a terribly bad trade deal, or to force the UK to accept a terrible trade deal just to get out of the EU.


The UK is still worried by this.
Talk of the EU banning UK food sales in NI being used as leverage in the current trade negotiations have prompted them to use the WA as intended.

That's some story Baff, no treaty allows the other party to tear up the treaty. If that's the case what is the joint committee, arbitration panel and such processes for ? The EU are miles ahead of UK negotiators, so if you want people to believe that youll need to show some evidence.