Steve Barclay, Brexit Secretary: “the Eu cannot enter into a permanent relationship while we are still a member”
For a decent period, best part of a year, after the referendum, time was wasted by predecessor suggesting this was not the case.
For a decent period, best part of a year, after the referendum, time was wasted by predecessor suggesting this was not the case.
Tense exchange with Rees Mogg -
“if EU sets tariffs this is taxation without representation, a fundamental constitutional principle given away in the backstop”
Barclay: “i don’t accept that - at all”
JRM: “you don’t seem to know about it - that’s the problem”
“if EU sets tariffs this is taxation without representation, a fundamental constitutional principle given away in the backstop”
Barclay: “i don’t accept that - at all”
JRM: “you don’t seem to know about it - that’s the problem”
Rees Mogg says “the tampon tax couldn’t be removed in Northern Ireland [if it was by UK Parliament] under this backstop and the ECJ would adjudicate”
Rees Mogg points out that Article 4 establishes the Withdrawal Treaty as “superior law” in the same way the European Communities Act
Brexit Secretary Barclay says “we can all play at picking out individual bits of law where the courts have a reach... but the bigger picture if you look at biggest employers/farmers in NI support because they see benefits that EU27 concerned about - the best of both worlds”
Brexit legal advice summary 52 pages from Government: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl… 
Legal analysis rather than the advice, it should be said... this part speaks to Rees Mogg point about Article 4:
Here’s the thing about the dispute panel to ajudicate disagreements on the Withdrawal Deal for example on divorce bill etc.
Two appointed by UK
Two appointed by EU.
Mutually agreed independent chair by those 4.
If not the chair is appointed “by lot” from shortlist.
Two appointed by UK
Two appointed by EU.
Mutually agreed independent chair by those 4.
If not the chair is appointed “by lot” from shortlist.
So who will adjudicate whether or not both parties have acted in good faith on using “best endeavours” to reach a future trade deal expeditiously before the end of the implementation period/ transition...?
...
it’s the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg.
...
it’s the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg.
So, in other words, if the EU or the EU27 is dragging its feet in say spring 2020 in negotiations in expectation that UK will be forced into either implementation extension or backstop, it is its own ECJ, with no UK representation, which will decide, independently.
To be fair, the ECJ is known to give judgements against the Commission and member states etc - but this seems to be somewhat difficult a sell
Parliamentary sources:
The document is in fact the glossary given to Cabinet around the actual six page legal advice from the Attorney General given to Cabinet. The six page document hasn’t been published, apart from the four words in S Times.
The document is in fact the glossary given to Cabinet around the actual six page legal advice from the Attorney General given to Cabinet. The six page document hasn’t been published, apart from the four words in S Times.
