The suspension provisions under Art.772 aren't simple or a free-for-all, as you have to make a strong case for their use and you're bound to be proportionate
2/
By contrast, the general (Art.779) and Part (Art.591/692) provisions on termination don't need any justifications or thresholds, or even to talk about it, so they're much less liable to challenge
3/
And remember here we'd be looking at a cross-linkage from NIP to TCA, so it's not only a major escalation but also a jump of treaty, so EU will want to avoid any gaps in legal logic
4/
Finally, also note the termination clauses don't provide for brakes, so everything would hang on political negotiations to find a solution prior to end of notice period
DSM isn't in play here
5/
Overall, these are quite clunky instruments and Art.772 wasn't really designed for this scenario AFAICS
/end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Given that my plan to be on leave while the whole Jersey fishing thing blew over has come to nothing, here's a guide to what the TCA actually says both on access and on disputes
Like much of the rest of the TCA, there's a lot that isn't well-specified. Vessels should 'demonstrate' historic access, but how that works practically isn't clear: what's the benchmark and relevant case-law to draw on? (@chris_huggins any equivalent cases?)
2/
Also note provisions at end of Art.502, which suggest this was something the drafters thought might well be reworked, so sense of a bodge is evident
3/
This belief has roots in mythology of WA/TCA negotiations, where Johnson Ian view that his erratic behaviour got former through hostile Parliament with some big wins on Protocol
2/
A cursory look at the various versions of that Protocol will show this wasn't actually the case, but the mythology has stuck
3/
Let's think a bit about Frost's speech today and the use of threats in negotiation
1/
To be clear, this is negotiation, given that there is a live process of interaction between EU and UK, both on the narrow issue of making the Protocol work and more generally on the overall relationship
2/
Threats in negotiation are simply the mirror of promises: things that might be in the future, depending on whether the other side do or don't do the thing you want
3/
Remember that Art.16 is designed to deal with temporary situations, so it can't be a permanent tool (we'll leave the review and cross-linkage aspects for now), so essentially UK can use it only 2 purposes:
- easing pressure on NI
- raising pressure on EU to renegotiate
2/
On easing pressure,l on NI, the only limit to disapplication of Protocol is that which is under UK control (ie can't stop EU doing what they do)
That means - at most - full disapplication w/in NI/rUK
3/