It had escaped my notice that in June the EU proposed a series of amendments to the Withdrawal Agreement. These are described as corrections and as dealing with situations unforeseen at the time the WA was signed (as per Art 164 WA). The proposed amendments are … 1/n
To do with the UK’s financial contributions, and social security coordination. Others involve Annex 2, which sets out legislation that applies via Art 5(4) without exceptions to NI. Several regulations are proposed for inclusion, which had been omitted by mistake or are new …2/n
Then there are clarifications to the EU’s trade remedies applied to NI. These have no exceptions, unlike ordinary EU customs duties which are waived for products not ‘at risk’ of being moved to the EU. That is strange. Why are these not treated the same as ordinary duties? … 3/n
But what do the amendments propose? One says its purpose is to apply safeguards legislation to products not ‘at risk’ of being moved to the EU. But as said, Annex 2 (badly, for duties) applies regardless of risk. Others remove NI as a de facto MS under TDI legislation. Why? 4/n
I am still working my way through this. Also, the UK has not yet (apparently) consented to these amendments. So: what does it mean? Does it affect the new customs legislation we now await? Any thoughts from @GeorgePeretzQC, @SamuelMarcLowe, @hhesterm, others …? 5/5
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Some problems with the EU’s legal action. First, Art 4 WA requires the UK to ‘ensure compliance’ with a statement that the WA must have the ‘same legal effects’ (ie primacy/direct effect) in the UK as in the EU, including ‘through domestic legislation’. /n
But the provisions to be granted this effect (in the NI Protocol) are not in force until 1.1.21. So they have no such effects until then. How can there be a breach of Art until then? 2/n
Art 5 requires the UK to refrain from any ‘measures’ which could jeopardise the attainment of the WA objectives. What is a measure? In normal EU law the equivalent obligation would cover the introduction of a Bill. But this is not normal EU law. It is an EU external agreement 3/n
@pmdfoster Art 62 VCLT comes with conditions. First, the changed ‘circumstances’ cannot have been foreseen by the parties. So if the treaty provides for these, Art 62 does not apply. Second, it’s not about breach, but about bare facts. 1/n
@pmdfoster So here we are talking about the emergence of unicorns (to use the vernacular) that are not presently foreseen, which ‘radically transforms the obligations’ of the treaty. But the treaty regulates the emergence of those unicorns. So how can Art 62 apply? 2/n
@pmdfoster Fns for the above: ICJ case Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros [1997] ICJ Rep 7, para 111 et seq