You mean Labour votes backing the deal?
I’ll extract it for you:
First, the positives. Boris Johnson’s deal is miles better than Theresa May’s ghastly capitulation. The Northern Ireland backstop protocol in the Withdrawal Agreement (WA) has removed Great Britain from being locked into a vassal-state customs union with the EU.
Secondly, the Political Declaration (PD) setting out the future EU-UK relationship now foreshadows a Free Trade Agreement under which the UK will be able to operate its independent trade policy, instead of being locked into the EU’s external customs tariffs.
Thirdly, references in the PD to the UK aligning its rules to EU rules have been deleted, and “level playing field” commitments have been de-coupled from closely shadowing the EU rules on competition and state aid.
These three changes interrelate with each other in a beneficial way. Together, they transform the dynamic under which the long term UK-EU agreement will be negotiated. Unlike under the May deal, the UK will have the real option of walking away if the terms are not good enough.
But the revised WA still contains many negative features. Unfortunately all the text of the WA outside the backstop protocol will be untouched. The most important and damaging feature which remains is the long-term subjection of the UK to rulings of the European Court of Justice.
May’s WA contains a clause, based on the EU’s agreement with Ukraine, which means that the nominally independent arbitration panel set up to decide disputes would have to refer issues of EU law for decision by the ECJ. This clause in the WA would apply long term: for EU citizens’ rights, at least for the lifetime of EU citizens in the UK and their children.
The revised PD will include a similar clause in the long-term relationship agreement with the EU. Secondly, the WA would still contain the so-called transition period. The UK would be subject to all EU laws – those that exist and those that are brought in – but would not have a vote or veto.
The third big problem is that the WA imposes huge financial obligations on the UK well beyond those under international law. This money will be unconditionally payable, whether or not the EU offers the UK a satisfactory long-term trade agreement.
The deal is much much better than May’s deal. But even with the improvements, the deal is much worse than would have been negotiated by a competent government from the outset (in other words, if this hadn’t been a renegotiation), and worse than a no-deal alternative.
But is it tolerable, in order to prevent Brexit being derailed altogether? This question is more political than legal.
Many Brexit-supporting politicians voted for the May deal because they thought it was preferable to the risk of not getting Brexit through at all. But the improvements show it was right to reject the May deal. So I can understand a political judgment that the revised deal is tolerable as a price for the greater prize of regaining our freedom.
The problem, however, is that, by law, the UK cannot ratify an Article 50 Withdrawal Agreement without an implementing Act of Parliament. A Bill has been drafted with 175 clauses and multiple schedules.
The Government will have no control over what amendments are tabled by the last-ditch anti-Brexit majority in both Houses. Amendments could be made – for example either for a second referendum, or requiring the Government to negotiate changes to the deal – which would turn a just-tolerable deal into a disastrous one.
Thanks Legal. Wow. As with most Yanks, I have trou le following all the Gordian meanderings within the Brexit debacle. However I cannot for the life of me understand why a country would voluntarily subject their court rulings to EU court law. This seems absolutely unbelievable as part of the deal.
2 Likes
It is, mercifully, temporary and limited. The ECJ was my absolute red line.
Christ, most Brits struggle with it, I can hardly begrudge you yanks for struggling. Happy to help with traversing the labyrinthine complexity of the situation.
DEFINITELY confusing, @Legalsteel!
Thank you for breaking down a very complex situation.
My guess is that most of the people yelling, screaming and protesting that they were “for” or “against” leaving or staying in the EU didn’t have a clue about the complexity; and were just following bullet-points spit out by the Politicians? (Many of whom probably didn’t even understand it all?)
(I’m not placing either “good” nor “bad” on this…but just making more of an observation).
1 Like
Thank heavens! Brussels has no business in London.
The commentary you provide and the articles are both fantastic help towards that end!
1 Like
Ah, l had seen a prelim count and it looked to need 20 votes on top of conservative projection to reach threshold. Only saw that Letwin measure after posting. Agree with other 2 Yanks - hard to follow the labyrinthine legislative process.
Edit l swear l did not see you had used the exact same word labyrinthine.
While coincidental, think l’ll go buy a lottery ticket.
2 Likes
You are bang on with that observation.
1 Like
By the love of all that is Holy, not more delays! @loppar, activate your commission friend, or I am heading to parliament to end this deadlock with explosives.
Just tell them that they’ll have to have Farage in the Europarl for another 3 months, that may be enough to get at least one veto.
From what I’ve heard, everybody in Brussels is collectively freaking out that Britain won’t be leaving on October 31st.
From what I understand the Euro bureaucrats are agonizing over the fact that regardless whether the EU decide to grant an extension or not, their decision will feature prominently in the UK election campaign.
1 Like
Understandable, however, I think Parliament will feature more heavily than them.
Reflecting on his time as President, Juncker recognised Brexit as one of the defining features of pan-European politics over the past five years, remarking: “In truth, it has pained me to spend so much of this mandate dealing with Brexit, when I have thought of nothing less of how this union could od better for its citizens. A waste of time, and a waste of energy.”
Wasn’t this vote stymied by Northern Irish MPs?
1 Like
We need a time machine.
The just over half that sit, yes.
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?
@loppar you have any insider baseball about the EU’s decision? Because, by God, I’m getting sick of the delay.
Sadly, I’m not privy to such information. What I can tell you is that almost not a single Eurocrat cares or thinks about Brexit. It’s done. They’re worried about the next Turkey-induced migrant crisis and the inevitable backlash of right wing parties that could sweep them from their cushy positions, but Brexit? No.
I’ve been looked at as if I’m mad after inquiring about Brexit. The only thing Brexit-related thing they pay attention to is that RoI is not being fucked over in any shape or form as it would challenge the fundamental principle of EU membership.
So occasionally they touch base with the Irish to check that there’s isn’t something done behind their backs and if all is well they ignore Boris and everything. Even the media is getting tired. You can interest the general public in arcane parliamentary procedure only so much.
The Remainers are also an embarrassment - like you’re exes’ friend that doesn’t seem to understand you hang out only because you were dating his friend.
1 Like
Hear, hear. The inestimable John Gray eviscerates them in his new column.
2 Likes