,
9 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
This prompts a quick note about international commitments
1/
1/
Basically, the conventions of behaviour in the international system say that states have to stick to their legal commitments, unless one of two cases applies
2/
2/
Either those commitments come with an agreed mechanism for ending/changing them
or
there's a fundamental change of circumstances
3/
or
there's a fundamental change of circumstances
3/
That's easy enough to set out, but part of the UK's issue is that the multiple commitments it has entered into over the past 46 years have been on the basis of EEC/EU membership
4/
4/
Undoing that membership now creates consequences that feed back into all the other commitments made (be that GFA, WTO, whatever)
5/
5/
Plus, handling those consequences has to be done in a way that's consistent with all those commitments (unless there's willingness to adapt them), since ending EU membership isn't a fundamental change of circumstances (as usually understood)
6/
6/
And even if UK were to argue that it was such a change, main effect would be to annul much of its remaining international commitments...
7/
7/
...either because UK said treaty X didn't apply anymore, or because another state said treaty Y didn't apply
8/
8/
In sum, everything is connected
/end
/end
