Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
Lisbon.
|
Ah, yes I have seen arguments that the WA was in conflict with Article 50 and in particular section 2;
Quote:
|
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
|
with particular focus on;
Quote:
|
shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union
|
The argument that the backstop is not part of the withdrawal but a permanent arrangement is somewhat strong. However, there is one killer line in the WA;
Quote:
|
This Agreement sets out the arrangements for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ("United Kingdom") from the European Union ("Union") and from the European Atomic Energy Community ("Euratom").
|
The WA which included the backstop does seem to my non-lawyer eyes comply with Article 50.2.
However, the counter argument I guess is that the backstop will become permanent if the 'unless and until' clauses are not met. This would suggest a lack of good faith which goes against Article 5 of WA, hence the need for an arbitration panel