EU Tells No 10: Bill Still Breaks Intl Law Despite Compromise

[Thomas]

Don't think the EU would ever have agreed the WA with a clause similar to this in it. They haven't got much choice this way round, especially as introducing a bill into U.K. law isn't actually breaking any law. It's genius really, puts all the onus on the EU. Deal and we have a deal, don't deal and they have another open border to contend with, or they put a border in the English Channel. Can't see that if the bill is passed and been back and forth to the Lords 3 times that the EU has much choice but to parlay. Like I said, it's a genius move.

You never know, SI might be asked to leave.

Nick,  I don't think your keeping up with whats happening.
The EU/UK signed a treaty.
The UK threatens to undermine it with legislation and weapons NI to try bully the EU into a deal
The EU as ever continues with trade talks but lets the UK know it has to withdraw the bill by the end of Sept or then all talks are off.
The UK then awards a 200m contract to a company to handle customs checks between GB and NI.

So again very mixed messages from the UK, still at this stage doesn't seem to know what it wants and now the left arm doesn't know what the right arm is doing. If that's your idea of playing a blinder, I'd have to totally disagree. Unless the objective was to have no deal and put a massive wedge between the UK and EU. But if that was the plan all Johnson had to do was say so, that WTO is what the UK wants and let UK business get prepared 100%.

[T00ts]

The UK isn't threatening anything, it's passing a bill.

What purpose has the bill and what does that threaten. The Eu isn't full of 12yr olds.

You're absolutely right! They haven't reach double figures yet!   

[GerryT]

The UK isn't threatening anything, it's passing a bill.

What purpose has the bill and what does that threaten. The Eu isn't full of 12yr olds.

[GerryT]

What has that got to do with what you said. The UK got a deal with Japan via the EU. Strawman.

This is what I said

You have a trade deal with Japan via the EU.

I never said the UK GOT a trade deal via the EU. I said the UK HAS a trade deal. Today the UK HAS a trade deal with Japan, as part of the transition period. You incorrectly read what I wrote. The UK Japan deal won't come into force until after transition.

[Thomas]

It's not clear cut and it's not obviously breaking international law.

Och rubbish that false argument could be used in any example.

[Nick]

What the UK is threatening is if the EU expect the UK to honour the content of the WA

The UK isn't threatening anything, it's passing a bill.

[Nick]

You have a trade deal with Japan via the EU

Absolute rubbish, where is the link to that?

The EU-Japan trade deal cam into force Jan '19, so in Jan21 the UK will have been trading with Japan under a FTA.
https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/eu-japan-economic-partnership-agreement/

What has that got to do with what you said. The UK got a deal with Japan via the EU. Strawman.

[GerryT]

Don't think the EU would ever have agreed the WA with a clause similar to this in it. They haven't got much choice this way round, especially as introducing a bill into U.K. law isn't actually breaking any law. It's genius really, puts all the onus on the EU. Deal and we have a deal, don't deal and they have another open border to contend with, or they put a border in the English Channel. Can't see that if the bill is passed and been back and forth to the Lords 3 times that the EU has much choice but to parlay. Like I said, it's a genius move.

You never know, SI might be asked to leave.

Nick,  I don't think your keeping up with whats happening.
The EU/UK signed a treaty.
The UK threatens to undermine it with legislation and weapons NI to try bully the EU into a deal
The EU as ever continues with trade talks but lets the UK know it has to withdraw the bill by the end of Sept or then all talks are off.
The UK then awards a 200m contract to a company to handle customs checks between GB and NI.

So again very mixed messages from the UK, still at this stage doesn't seem to know what it wants and now the left arm doesn't know what the right arm is doing. If that's your idea of playing a blinder, I'd have to totally disagree. Unless the objective was to have no deal and put a massive wedge between the UK and EU. But if that was the plan all Johnson had to do was say so, that WTO is what the UK wants and let UK business get prepared 100%.

[GerryT]

"Every international lawyer is familiar with the Vienna convention on the law of treaties, and its article 27, which reflects a general principle: 'A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty'.

"There is simply no way around this binding rule – to opine that parliament is sovereign is, in this sense, hopeless."

Bit Irish if you will pardon my saying so Gerry.

The whole point of leaving the EU was to establish the supremacy of Parliament.

That's not my opinion, you managed to leave out the link of where I was quoting.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/11/brexit-override-plan-would-breach-vienna-convention-qc-says

Your missing a part of what it means to be sovereign, it gives the UK the ability to chart it's own course and make it's own decisions alone. But with that comes responsibility. The Uk knows what international law is and what the Vienna convention is. It would know signing up to a treaty is a binding contract. The Uk has responsibilities, it can walk away but that breaks the contract and there are repercussions, other countries would also watch and think, "not to be trusted".

[GerryT]

The government hasn't done any of those things, they are merely in the process of passing a bill that stops the EU potentially screwing us.
If the EU stick us in a box and we agree to stay there then that's fine. If we then cut a big escape hole in the side just in case they do something, but stay put we haven't broken any law, that's all they are doing.

The passing of the bill itself is not a problem. What the UK is threatening is if the EU expect the UK to honour the content of the WA, which means checks going from the UK to NI in certain circumstances then the UK see's this as a blockade (ffs) and will use the powers of the bill to over-rule those provisions within the WA. Thats what Johnson has been saying to the UK public.

The EU isn't looking to put the UK into a box, if that's your interpretation it's only because that's the BOX Johnson put the UK into. Johnson agreed the WA which prevents any barriers to movement of goods/employment/trade on the island of IRL. That was his oven ready deal.

[GerryT]

The same way it already does.
If a part takes 2 days to import, you order it 2 days before you want it.
If a part takes 2 weeks to import you order it two weeks before you want it.

All the supply chains I have worked with come from both inside and outside of the EU. Not one or the other.
For Japan, who has an FTA, they can supply from Japan instead of the EU to get the tarif reduction.
You may also consider buying a Merc or BMW made outside the EU as their price will not change.

It's not always that simple, to keep production running the longer the lead time the more stock you need to carry. If your delivery is now subject to variable delays, such as will the container your sending get selected for customs inspection, what if there's an issue with paperwork, what if there are delays at ports because of other shipments being incomplete, your in a queue so you get delayed.
I red about the UK car industry, a mini crankshaft crosses the channel 3 times for each car. Have supply chains/manufacturing process adjusted that much, if not stock levels will be greatly increased.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/03/brexit-uk-car-industry-mini-britain-eu

This shows the extent of the issue, it might not be so bad but a hard brexit also makes the sales of UK manufactured cars into the EU far less predictable. There will be additional tariffs and peoples choices will change.

[GerryT]

Whilst I admittedly wouldn't pretend to have received any legal tuition, other than a smattering of domestic law many years ago, I would never pretend otherwise.... however,  it would seem to me that a truly sovereign state would have the power to both enter into an international agreement - and also withdraw from it.
Clearly however, on that basis, a country should exercise that power of withdrawing from an agreement, if it subsequently didn't wish to 'apply' it in a particular  circumstance , rather than just refuse to apply it because it didn't suit their wishes.

It depends how the treaty is written, there will usually be an exit clause. It could be that the treaty was time limiting or there for a specific task or in a lot of cases exiting can be by mutual consent. It is not normal that it is done by unilateral decision, this is what the UK is doing.
The WA has a joint committee that has a number of functions one is to look at disputes and try settle them, if it can't then an agreed formula for an arbitration panel to decide on disputes is used with a binding outcome.
If the UK feels that the EU is breaking the terms of the agreement or even the spirit of the agreement then it would easily win a case and reach satisfaction, the question is then, why has the UK not tried to work within the scope of the agreement and just abandon the WA ?

If he UK wanted to enter into a take it or leave type WA, I would think the EU wouldn't have agreed to that in the first place.

To me it looks like the UK is trying to make a story that the EU is not acting in good faith and is not adhering to the agreement. My take is that's all nonsense, a rouse so they can excuse their action, but it doesn't i any way. The UK should have worked withing the agreement. I've been saying on here since last yr that this deal Johnson signed is worse than the May deal as it locked NI into tracking the EU forever. Only a border poll that reunites IRL changes that.

[GerryT]

You have a trade deal with Japan via the EU

Absolute rubbish, where is the link to that?

The EU-Japan trade deal cam into force Jan '19, so in Jan21 the UK will have been trading with Japan under a FTA.
https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/eu-japan-economic-partnership-agreement/

[Nick]

The government hasn't done any of those things, they are merely in the process of passing a bill that stops the EU potentially screwing us.
If the EU stick us in a box and we agree to stay there then that's fine. If we then cut a big escape hole in the side just in case they do something, but stay put we haven't broken any law, that's all they are doing.

There is a swell of 'opinion', that the UK is about to BREAK the withdrawal agreement that was agreed by Boris, after it had been amended at Boris' request.
IF that is so - then, as I stated, he certainly has the power as the Head of a sovereign (nearly) State, to withdraw from that agreement.....and, in my opinion,  he shouldn't just fail to follow the agreement that he made - he  should 'withdraw from it'.  It also begs the question, IF he doesn't wish to comply with it, ( especially if it was to stop the EU from 'screwing us').....so why the hell did he MAKE such a ridiculous Agreement in the first place??

Don't think the EU would ever have agreed the WA with a clause similar to this in it. They haven't got much choice this way round, especially as introducing a bill into U.K. law isn't actually breaking any law. It's genius really, puts all the onus on the EU. Deal and we have a deal, don't deal and they have another open border to contend with, or they put a border in the English Channel. Can't see that if the bill is passed and been back and forth to the Lords 3 times that the EU has much choice but to parlay. Like I said, it's a genius move.

You never know, SI might be asked to leave.

[Stevlin]

The government hasn't done any of those things, they are merely in the process of passing a bill that stops the EU potentially screwing us.
If the EU stick us in a box and we agree to stay there then that's fine. If we then cut a big escape hole in the side just in case they do something, but stay put we haven't broken any law, that's all they are doing.

There is a swell of 'opinion', that the UK is about to BREAK the withdrawal agreement that was agreed by Boris, after it had been amended at Boris' request.
IF that is so - then, as I stated, he certainly has the power as the Head of a sovereign (nearly) State, to withdraw from that agreement.....and, in my opinion,  he shouldn't just fail to follow the agreement that he made - he  should 'withdraw from it'.  It also begs the question, IF he doesn't wish to comply with it, ( especially if it was to stop the EU from 'screwing us').....so why the hell did he MAKE such a ridiculous Agreement in the first place??