,
13 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
A quick thread on this excellent piece.
I agree (I suppose I would) that lawyers have tended to have a better feel for the issues than politicians. There are, I think, two main reasons.
One is (as @davidallengreen has always emphasised) the nature of the EU as a creature of and master of rules/procedure. That’s not an accident: it’s inherent in the idea of replacing rule by armies/economic heft with rule by law (an ideal that is both noble and frustrating).
And holding 27/28 States with disparate attitudes and interests together demands a certain determination to stick firmly to the agreed rules.
It’s true that the EU can be “creative” with its rules. But there are limits. And in dealing with third countries (which the U.K. now effectively is) the EU correctly realises that firm adherence to its rules is an enormous strength.
The second point is a complete failure by key decision makers across the political spectrum - from Nick Timothy dictating May’s red lines to Corbyn on State aid ...
... to understand, or, it sometimes appears, even to try to understand, the constraints imposed by legal rules - EU and WTO - on the UK’s freedom of action and the necessary legal implications of the policy choices they have made.
It’s that failure that has left our politics vulnerable to self-styled “experts” who say only what their favoured politicians want to hear.
It’s that failure that has got me and I think other lawyers and experts on trade and the EU onto Twitter and elsewhere in an attempt to improve public understanding and debate.
And - despite our efforts - it’s that failure that has led us into this mess.
PS: None of the above is to suggest that lawyers have the answer to the “what is the right thing to do?” question. That’s for democratic decision and our views on that are worth no more than those of any other voter.
There are many legally possible options open, from hard as diamonds Brexit to soft Brexit to Remain. And there is lots of room for robust political discussion on their merits and demerits: all options have both.
But what is unacceptable is to ignore or misrepresent the legal constraints and to pretend that options do not have legal consequences when that is what they do, definitely, have. /ends.
