UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

[jfman]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

For those still clinging bravely on to a belief that Boris can do both, this snippet from the article I posted may be of interest:

https://news.sky.com/story/a-brexit-...wants-11827675

Which brings us back to why he isn’t being honest.

He’s trying to stoke divisions because it’s to his electoral advantage.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Once again, your expert legal advice is much appreciated - you and nomadking should get together and provide BJ/Cummings with legal support, to avoid further fiascos like Prorogation being declared null and void.

It is completely undeniable that the WA, as the EU specifies that it is be transitional(check your dictionaries) and unambiguously limited in time.
Link

In his presentations to the European Parliament, Barnier has stressed a number of principles for the negotiations: the four freedoms must be indivisible; any transitional agreement must unambiguously be limited in time;

It also refers to a 2nd future(check your dictionaries again) agreement. Any contract or agreement anywhere else in the World that contained something of the nature of the backstop, ie not transitional, and unambiguously not limited in time, would be ruled invalid and illegal. It is also undeniable that the Irish intention of the backstop is impose it in one way or another outside of any future 2nd agreement. It is all incompatible with the EU treaty.
Link about Article 50.

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.

The onus is on the EU to reach an agreement that is transitional and unambiguously limited in time.

The backstop could validly be part of the framework of the future relationship(ie the political declaration), but that political declaration is not legally binding on the UK and probably not on the EU. Although I'm not quite sure what, if anything, is ever legally binding on the EU.
Link

The draft political declaration on the future relationship between the EU and the UK, after Brexit, is out. Theresa May describes it as the right deal for the UK.
A few points to remember…
This is not a legally binding document.
It's not very long either, but it has grown from last week's seven-page outline to 26 pages. It sits alongside the 585-page Draft Withdrawal Agreement (which will be legally binding if it gets ratified).

What is deniable about any of that? A contract that is legally declared to have to be temporary and limited in time, cannot be legally valid to have a condition, that is not temporary or limited in time? Be interesting to know about the vast number of legal agreements, that certain people seem to think exist, that have a permanent condition applied in a temporary arrangement.
Link

Assuming then that transition can be achieved on the basis of Article 50 TEU, does the transition have to be time-limited? It would seem clear from the wording of Article 50 that it is confined to agreeing the terms of withdrawal and cannot serve as a basis for a (permanent) future relationship. This would suggest that a time limit must be included and indeed, the Commission’s draft provides that the transition period ends on 31 December 2020.

Regardless of whether the backstop is in the WA(ie Transitional agreement), the conditions set out(eg the backstop) cease to apply.

Looks like any WA has to presented to Parliament more than 3 weeks before any debate and vote.
Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010(under Gordon Brown)

20Treaties to be laid before Parliament before ratification
(1)Subject to what follows, a treaty is not to be ratified unless—
(a)a Minister of the Crown has laid before Parliament a copy of the treaty,
(b)the treaty has been published in a way that a Minister of the Crown thinks appropriate, and
(c)period A has expired without either House having resolved, within period A, that the treaty should not be ratified.
(2)Period A is the period of 21 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the date on which the requirement in subsection (1)(a) is met.
(3)Subsections (4) to (6) apply if the House of Commons resolved as mentioned in subsection (1)(c) (whether or not the House of Lords also did so).
(4)The treaty may be ratified if—
(a)a Minister of the Crown has laid before Parliament a statement indicating that the Minister is of the opinion that the treaty should nevertheless be ratified and explaining why, and
(b)period B has expired without the House of Commons having resolved, within period B, that the treaty should not be ratified.
(5)Period B is the period of 21 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the date on which the requirement in subsection (4)(a) is met.

25Meaning of “treaty” and “ratification”
(1)In this Part “treaty” means a written agreement—
(a)between States or between States and international organisations, and
(b)binding under international law.

From transcript of Santos & Miller case

SANTOS & MILLER
Applicants
-v-
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXITING THE EUROPEAN UNION
Respondent
...

18 MR EADIE: But if there was an Article 50(2) withdrawal
19 agreement, that would be a treaty between the
20 United Kingdom and the EU.
21 THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: Yes.
22 MR EADIE: As such, it is likely that it will come within
23 the procedures in CRAG. You have CRAG behind tab 29 in
24 bundle C.
25 THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: Yes.

Official government Explainer on the WA

16. The Withdrawal Agreement will also be subject to the provisions of the
Constitutional Reform and Governance Act (CRaG) 2010. Following this, the treaty
will be ratified, and can enter into force.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Not asking for an extension. While simultaneously telling the court that he will. Both can’t be true.

Plus many others.

He has to seek an extension, it’s the law.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Pierre

He has to seek an extension, it’s the law.

And what if one of the EU 27 says no?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

And what if one of the EU 27 says no?

Why would they do that? Crumbling Empire, need our £1bn a month, etc etc.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

And what if one of the EU 27 says no?

We would have to strike a deal or leave by 31/10. It's in every member country's interests for us to remain so that would be a strange decision to make. Hungary won't upset the applecart.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by jfman

Why would they do that? Crumbling Empire, need our £1bn a month, etc etc.

Maybe we are just in the way of their future plans.

Maybe they are just sick of us and want us gone.

---------- Post added at 16:18 ---------- Previous post was at 16:16 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

We would have to strike a deal or leave by 31/10. It's in every member country's interests for us to remain so that would be a strange decision to make. Hungary won't upset the applecart.

Why do you single out Hungary ?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Maybe we are just in the way of their future plans.

Maybe they are just sick of us and want us gone.

Couple of maybes there. Maybe not.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Maybe we are just in the way of their future plans.

Maybe they are just sick of us and want us gone.

They're probably sick of us but they're stronger with us in the tent and we have our reputation to uphold so wouldn't want to stand in the way of future plans.

---------- Post added at 16:26 ---------- Previous post was at 16:20 ----------

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Why do you single out Hungary ?

It was mentioned in an Express article at some stage when they were looking for a Brexit good news story to fit in between a Diana conspiracy story and a worst-weather-ever coming story.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

They're probably sick of us but they're stronger with us in the tent and we have our reputation to uphold so wouldn't want to stand in the way of future plans.

---------- Post added at 16:26 ---------- Previous post was at 16:20 ----------


It was mentioned in an Express article at some stage when they were looking for a Brexit good news story to fit in between a Diana conspiracy story and a worst-weather-ever coming story.

I won't comment on your choice of reading matter,it is of course your prerogative to read, inwardly digest and believe such material.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Maybe we are just in the way of their future plans.

Maybe they are just sick of us and want us gone.

Bottom line is they won’t throw Ireland under the bus. Macron would only be too happy to see the back of us, but even he won’t do it.

No one has any idea what will happen after the 19th. No one knows what tricks, if any, BJ has - or thinks he has. What actions he will take or possible reactions Parliament may take.

Suffice to say nothing much will happen for the next two weeks. Then, we’ll see how it plays out.

Whatever happens, the Backstop is extension followed by election, followed by hung parliament, followed by...........who knows.

All those u18s that didn’t vote in the referendum and election, that everyone thinks will deliver a Labour Govt and Remain. I wonder what they think of MPs 2-3 years on.

[Sephiroth]

Nomad king has said some pretty important stuff.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...&postcount=962

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Pierre

He has to seek an extension, it’s the law.

But is it? Primary legislation has set a minimum 21 sitting days before any deal can be debated and voted upon.
The Benn(?) bill limits it to 2 days. Even if the EU council and EU Parliament agreed to something, there isn't time to ratify it.

1Duties in connection with the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union
(1)The condition in this subsection is that a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament a statement that the United Kingdom has concluded an agreement with the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union and a copy of the agreement and—
(a)the agreement has been approved by resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
(b)a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the agreement has been tabled in the House of Lords by a Minister of the Crown and—
(i)the House of Lords has debated the motion, or
(ii)the House of Lords has not concluded a debate on the motion before the end of the period of two Lords sitting days beginning with the first Lords sitting day after the day on which the House of Commons passes the resolution mentioned in paragraph (a).

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by nomadking

But is it? Primary legislation has set a minimum 21 sitting days before any deal can be debated and voted upon.
The Benn(?) bill limits it to 2 days. Even if the EU council and EU Parliament agreed to something, there isn't time to ratify it.

... and what is more, the Benn Act does not repeal or set aside for its purposes the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act.

[jfman]

If all of the above is a correct interpretation all that will happen is a minor technical extension for the purposes of approving a deal. If Boris has a deal acceptable to Parliament, and results in leaving, it'd be fairly uncontroversial.

If he doesn't have a deal, and Parliament hasn't approved one in principle, the Benn Act applies.