Here is @DanielBoffey ’s article on Johnson’s claim that the EU threatens to cut off NI. And he, too, gets it wrong. So let’s be clear and concise, folks. (Thread) theguardian.com/politics/2020/…
@DanielBoffey identifies two risks to the food supply to NI that are allegedly the cause for the Internal Market Bill’s violation of international law: tariffs (that’s art. 5 of the NI protocol) and listing as a food exporter (that’s a requirement under EU law)
He then claims that the Internal Market bill tackles just one of them. That is wrong. How many of these concerns does the bill tackle:
ZERO, none at all. Making it a bit unlikely that the bill was conceived for that purpose.
How can I be so sure? The Bill makes this very convenient. It explicitly says what provisions are supposed to survive a conflict with international law / the WA / EU law / UK law. Sect. 42, 43 and regulations made under 42(1) and 43(1).
Here’s the bill if you want to read the whole long sections (please do!). But I’ll focus on the regulations under 42(1) and 43(1) publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill…
Let’s start with 43(1). Here’s the text
That, clearly, is a power relating to Art. 10 of the NI Protocol. Here’s the first two paras of it. The article is about state aid. So this one has nothing to do with tariffs or other barriers to GB->NI trade. Let’s move on.
Sect. 42(1). Here’s the text. Does it cover tariffs on GB->NI trade or listing for food stuffs in GB->NI trade?
Nope. It explicitly applies to NI->GB trade. As regulations under 42(1) and 43(1) are the only one made immune to the WA/international law/EU law/domestic law that’s it folks.
In short: this bill does not tackle either of the problems mentioned.
But the fact that even the Guardian - despite its leanings - gets this wrong shows that 1) nobody ever reads a bill. Everyone gets their information about the bill from some fancy rumour mill. 2) the concerted efforts of academia reach a readership of 4. This includes my 2 kids
Maybe this is because every time I say I’ll be concise I torture you with 15 tweets and actual legal text?
Please @StevePeers say I’m wrong. I feel like a deranged lunatic shouting at the wind - journalist after journalist keeps repeating a rationale for breaking international law that I CANNOT EVEN FIND IN THE DAMN BILL.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I wish I could share the optimism of John Curtice. But behind the -250 Conservative seats +213 Labour seats and +63 LibDem seats I cannot help but see a populist rather than a competence revolution /1
First of all Labour only gained 1.7% of the votes, the victory is due to reform winning 14.3%. That, my friends, is more than the AfD has won in German parliamentary elections. What protected Parliament is that the 14.3% translated into a Tory loss rather than a populist win/2
And while amongst the Tory losses there inevitably were some non-fact-based "big beasts", some of those who tended to consistently be on the wrong side of facts retained them. Instead, some of those who worked well behind the scenes lost theirs. /3
I fear the framing of the discussions surrounding EU-UK relations under Labour is still quite wrong when sources say the "EU will not rush to reopen Brexit talks". Let me explain. /1
The UK and the EU chose an FTA as the basis for their trade relations. There are quite a few additional add-ons, it's a very broad FTA, but that's what it is. /2
That basic logic is currently uncontested. The Tories don't want to change it. But Labour does not, either. We will remain within the logic of an FTA. But that does not mean that nothing can be done. /3
"The ICC is a basic achievement of the international community that Germany always supported. Germany respects its independence and its procedures as those of other international courts. /2
Part of that is that that the pretrial chamber now has to decide on the applications of the chief prosecutor. /3
I know some will brush off @RishiSunak 's comments on the ECtHR and the ECHR as irrelevant given that his days in office are almost over. They are not. They are dangerous for the UK and show some politicians have not learned a thing. Why? /1
First: Once again a UK leader makes a commitment to leave an international system to limit immigration without any regard to the impact of leaving. That impact? /2
The UK was instrumental in drafting the ECHR. The agreement is at the core of the Council of Europe, underlies the good Friday agreement and the TCA. Leaving it means the UK leaves the CoE, destroys the Belfast Agreement and ultimately terminates significant chunks of the TCA. /3
Sorry to emphasize this again, but please note the "direct and public incitement to commit genocide" aspect of the case, which weirdly is often left out of commentary on the ICJ case. It is incredibly important. /1
South Africa submitted numerous statements that show that a cavalier attitude has developed to say truly horrendous things. Now that does not equal showing a state policy of genocide. But it is deeply troubling. And the court decided to remind Israel of what needs to be done /2
And the order of the Court in this regard is all the more stronger by who voted for it: Also Israel's ad hoc judge Barak, the former President of Israel's Supreme Court. /3