Brexit (Old)

[1andrew1]

Labour are unimpressed.

Shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer says the change "adds nothing" to the letter Theresa May returned from negotiations with back in January.
He said: "If all that's happening is to turn this letter into an interpretative tool for legal purposes, I remind the House what the Prime Minister said on January 14 about this letter.
"She said she had been advised this letter would have legal force in international law."To stand here today and say this is a significant change when she's repeating what she said on January 14 is not going to take anyone here far."

https://news.sky.com/story/live-ther...rough-11662218

[jfman]

Hillary Benn just asked a question as to whether the European Court of Justice would have a say in the interpretation of these “legally binding changes” affecting any ruling of an arbitration panel. The answer didn’t console John Redwood.

---------- Post added at 22:47 ---------- Previous post was at 22:37 ----------

The Government motion tomorrow says: “which reduces the risk the UK could be deliberately held in the Northern Ireland backstop indefinitely”.

Does it reduce the risk or eliminate it? If the latter why is more vague terminology being put before the House?

[djfunkdup]

^^^^^^^^ Blah Blah Blah ..


Onwards and Upwards

[jfman]

Originally Posted by djfunkdup

^^^^^^^^ Blah Blah Blah ..

Onwards and Upwards

Some of us are discussing Brexit and the Parliamentary process. I understand it’ll involve difficult concepts for you so perhaps best to just go to bed and hope it’s a bad dream.

Have you fixed your countdown?

[nomadking]

Mr Lidington said it could be used to start a "formal dispute" against the EU if it tried to keep the UK tied into the backstop indefinitely.
The second is a "joint statement" adding to the political declaration to commit to replacing the backstop with alternative arrangements by December 2020.
Mr Lidington said: "The House was clear on the need for legally-binding changes to the backstop. Today we have secured these changes.
"Now is the time to come together, to back this improved Brexit deal and deliver on the instruction of the British people."

Isn't that what the original agreement amounted to? Apart from the time it would take to finalise any "formal dispute", all the EU has to do is proclaim they showed "good faith".
From "Legal position on the Withdrawal Agreement" document, Dec 2018.

14. Article 5 provides that the UK and the EU must, in good faith, assist each other in carrying out the tasks which flow from the Agreement and ensure that obligations arising from it are fulfilled. See also Article 20 of the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol, below. A reciprocal legal obligation on the parties to act in good faith is a common feature of international agreements. The principle of good faith is a rule of customary international law, as has been recognised by the CJEU and the International Court of Justice. A dispute about compliance with this obligation could be raised under the applicable dispute resolution mechanism in the Agreement (see below). It is likely that there would only be a finding of breach where it was supported by clear evidence.

[djfunkdup]

These significant changes to the backstop were always on the cards,Just had to wait for the EU to have a bumrush ...

[jfman]

There’s no meaningful changes here. The words have been shuffled around on the side document but the basics are the EU only has to demonstrate good faith to the CJEU, it’s own highest court.

[1andrew1]

Some interesting Tweets from Sky's Kate McCann:
- Brexiteer Sir Mike Penning: I can now vote for the deal
- A lot rests on how the DUP interpret tonight. Feeling that if they back deal it becomes v difficult for Conservatives not to do the same. If DUP say no, one senior minister tells me: "We're screwed".
- One pro-Brexit Conservative MP (opposed to deal) says the new stuff looks "ropey" but will be enough for a number of Brexiteers who were looking for a way to "climb down". They'll make a call based on Martin Howe QC's legal advice (star chamber), not Cox.
https://twitter.com/KateEMcCann

[nomadking]

"Today we have agreed legally binding changes that will guarantee that the EU cannot enforce the backstop indefinitely," she says.

That was never the case. It has always been AND STILL IS, that by refusing to come to an agreement on alternative arrangements, the backstop remains.
Original draft agreement on the backstop.

3. This Protocol sets out arrangements necessary to address the unique circumstances on the
island of Ireland, maintain the necessary conditions for continued North-South cooperation, avoid a
hard border and protect the 1998 Agreement in all its dimensions.
4. The objective of the Withdrawal Agreement is not to establish a permanent relationship
between the Union and the United Kingdom. The provisions of this Protocol are therefore intended
to apply only temporarily, taking into account the commitments of the Parties set out in Article
2(1). The provisions of this Protocol shall apply unless and until they are superseded, in whole or in
part, by a subsequent agreement.

No subsequent agreement = backstop remains.

[jfman]

May has them exactly where she wants them. They know that the day after tomorrow Parliament will vote down no deal, leaving no choice but to extend. In that time? Who knows what could happen in that time.

May is handing them the chance to deliver Brexit tomorrow.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jfman

May has them exactly where she wants them. They know that the day after tomorrow Parliament will vote down no deal, leaving no choice but to extend. In that time? Who knows what could happen in that time.

May is handing them the chance to deliver Brexit tomorrow.

I reckon she could get it through tomorrow.

[JMcB]

So the deal is still the same deal.

Deal or no deal.

Time for a people vote.
Q1. LEAVE OR REMAIN
Q2. If Leave wins by 50.1%
Vote for Deal or No Deal.[COLOR="Silver"]

---------- Post added at 01:39 ---------- Previous post was at 01:33 ----------

Yeah the changes don’t seem to really be changes but better language with which to sell it and ones which might help the U.K.in a court case over the backstop.

What it does do is give Brexiters an excuse to vote for the deal and the press are backing the deal this morning..

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Damien

Yeah the changes don’t seem to really be changes but better language with which to sell it and ones which might help the U.K.in a court case over the backstop.

What it does do is give Brexiters an excuse to vote for the deal and the press are backing the deal this morning..

All comes down to what the Attorney General says now.

I think it will get through by the skin of it's teeth.

I hope it does. Sick of it. No deal should be avoided. However if the ERG do throw their toys out of the pram then they risk a less 'clean' Brexit.