Today's Brexit news is that the Government will exclude an extension of the transition period, and enshrine this in the Withdrawal Agreement Bill. This is not a good-faith implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement. 1/
Why? The Bill is the vehicle through which the UK expresses its consent to the Agreement. It's a precondition for the UK's ratification. Yet through the Bill the UK would kill the scope for an extension, which may benefit the EU as much as the UK. 2/
Everyone always looks at the extension as something the UK may want to ask for. But the Agreement is neutral: the EU may want to ask for this as well: see Art 132(1). Who says the EU has never had this in mind when negotiating the Agreement? 3/
And even if the EU did not have this in mind: the text is clear: there is scope for an extension decision by the Joint Committee before 1 July 2020. But the Bill will exclude this even before the Agreement enters into force. 4/
I don't see that as implementation in good faith, which is what international law requires. I don't think the EU should accept this. And it does not bode well for other implementation issues. 5/
Nor do I think the Government could defend its position by saying that the Bill, once on the statute book, can be amended. Of course it can, but clearly the UK would very heavily signal, from the start, that a provision of the Agreement is likely to be redundant. 6/
And it's a very important provision, of course. The length of the transition period matters a lot to the shaping of the future relationship. 7/
Nor could the Government defends its action by stating that, on the international plane (i.e. in the Joint Committee) it could do what it likes, and that the Bill is an internal matter. The Government could not lawfully extend, under the current Bill, which would mean ... 8/
that any extension, agreed in the Joint Committee, would become inoperable in the UK. This is because the Withdrawal Agreement Implementation Act will be the legal basis in UK law for the continued application of EU law. 9/
Would be very interested in the views of other EU or international lawyers. END
