Many critical comments about this piece and how it misreads the EU position, and misunderstands the EU itself. My problem with it (which speaks to both these criticisms) is this.. /1 theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
There is a total absence of the mention of LAW in the piece. This matters, because the EU is much more than a political construct. It is a rules-based organisation. /2
The U.K. knows this (the sovereignty argument is after all bring back law-making power, whether or not you agree or not) but somehow treats the EU as if it can come up with magic political solutions /3
This applied both to the pre-Ref Cameron ‘deal’ and in opinions we see expressed here. /4
But we aren’t talking about mere exceptions to the odd directive or even a policy area (though it is difficult to imagine what else that U.K. could want out of now it tries to opt back in so many things).
The whole point is that to ‘keep’ the U.K. there needs to be a full-scale change to free movement. This is not a policy but a key area of the Treaty. /6
To change the Treaties is a massive headache and there is no evidence to suggest that any MS would open that can of worms. The law is not set in stone, but it is as close as it gets here. /7
So it seems to be that the absence of a discussion of ‘strategic direction’ of Brexit amongst the 27 is misplaced. This would only happen if there was a desire to go back to some of the fundamentals of EU law. We don’t see that to any extent that U.K. commentators might think. /8
In short, law and politics in the EU are always mixed. But forgetting the importance of the large body of EU law and the principles it embodies is a big mistake. /END
