Share this page!

Holger Hestermeyer Profile picture
Twitter logo
18 Nov, 8 tweets, 2 min read
It's maybe time to put an end to the term "triggering Article 16" - let me explain. (thread)
Art. 16 is a rather complex provision on safeguards. Safeguards are temporary measures taken for a specific purpose. Image
@howserob has written about what that means specifically.
Now while there is a range of measures that could potentially fall under Art. 16 (curiously - when HMG unilaterally extended grace periods, this arguably could have been one of those measures), - and some that do not.
What Art. 16 specifically does not create is a way out of the protocol - or out of the core construct of the protocol Art. 5-10 (Art. 18 does that)
The wording of "triggering Art. 16" and Lord Frosts comment that it would "create a new reality" seems to assume precisely that, however - that Art. 16 opens a route out of Art. 5-10. It does not. It provides for a range of possibilities, but not an exit route.
A link to Rob's article: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
And it should be pointed out with regard to @JennyChapman 's thread: the way out that actually IS in the protocol is Art. 18, democratic consent.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Holger Hestermeyer

Holger Hestermeyer Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @hhesterm

Holger Hestermeyer Profile picture
17 Nov
Just to add - “making up“ in world-wide trade what you “lost“ in EU trade is more often than not a state based, aggregate type of rhetoric. In reality, it does not work that way /1
Companies that sold in the EU were not prevented from selling in the US. They sold in the EU because they were able to capture a market position there. They did not sell in the US because they did not capture a position there. /2
If you lose your EU sales, you cannot just compensate for that. Capturing a market position in the US will be just as hard as it was before. The barriers are just the same. The work it requires is identical. /3
Read 4 tweets
Holger Hestermeyer Profile picture
11 Nov
On the "who would accept a border in their country" line that is, again, making the rounds. (thread)
It is a line that - take in and of itself - has a lot of appeal. It sounds counterintuitive. I have seen a famous colleague use it, because it appealed to him. /2
But look at it in detail and it becomes more complicated. When a UK politician said with a view to the US "which country would accept agricultural checks between parts of it" - one could not point out that, well, the US accepts them, because there are some between states. /3
Read 10 tweets
Holger Hestermeyer Profile picture
4 Nov
Behind the increasing silliness of a tiny fishery dispute getting blown out of proportion there is a serious problem of public discourse in disputes regarding agreements (thread)
At issue in this dispute are a comparatively small number of licenses - important for those who (do not) hold them, but negligible in all other aspects /2
In practice, a short negotiation should have settled this. Or dispute settlement and they decide /3
Read 6 tweets
Holger Hestermeyer Profile picture
30 Oct
Comparative constitutional law should be made a mandatory topic in law school. There is an almost automatic incomprehension of systems different from the one you grew up in. And usually in rather drastic terms. (Thread)
This goes every which way. A person from systems with strong judicial review and written constitution learning about UK constitutional conventions needs years to get over that shock. /2
Lawyers from the UK in return are used to one strict all powerful rule - sovereignty of parliament. The one rule to bind them all. Of course, different in other systems. Fights between state and federal courts? Checks and balances? You mean chaos! /3
Read 7 tweets
Holger Hestermeyer Profile picture
27 Oct
The 24 hour news cycle at work. Here's a quick deescalation thread to explain (thread)
France was contemplating measures. Apparently in a press meeting these were discussed under the heading of "seafood ban" (h/t @jonhenley ). This lead to the times report. thetimes.co.uk/article/france…
Now a seafood ban in my off-the-top-of-my-hat analysis seems to breach the TCA. (Is it a countermeasure? Cannot do those under the TCA if you don't find wording to support it). BUT...
Read 5 tweets
Holger Hestermeyer Profile picture
27 Oct
Apart from the increasing level of humour of this story, there's a problem of our discourse that is dangerous for our society and our future. /1
Apparently a moderator invited someone from an organization he profoundly dislikes to interview him. He regarded the person as discredited when the person stated he's a carpenter - and thus works with dead wood. His mind turned off. /2
When the carpenter pointed out that we can grow wood, the moderator curiously stated that we can also grow concrete - and now seems on a mission to confirm this wrong statement. Why is this tragic? /3
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @hhesterm has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @hhesterm!

Read all threads by @hhesterm

:(