Taking on the remoaners

By Leo McKinstry

The anti-Brexit campaigners are the sorest losers in modern British history.   Instead of accepting the verdict of the EU referendum, they do all they can to thwart it. In their contempt for democracy, they mirror the arrogant spirit of the unelected, unaccountable Brussels oligarchy, which has always despised the notion of the popular will.

There are two central strands to the Remoaners’ cynical effort.   One is to fight against Brexit through the courts and Parliament, putting every possible legalistic obstruction in the way of the drive for British independence.  So they mounted a judicial review against Article 50, put down a deluge of amendments against the EU Withdrawal Bill and now try to galvanise the House of Lords into wrecking the Brexit legislation.  The other, perhaps more dangerous, strategy is to wage a ruthless propaganda war on behalf of the EU. Effectively, this is a reprise of the infamous Project Fear deployed by the Government in advance of the vote. Once again, we hear the same old scare stories:  that Brexit will be a disaster for the economy, trade and employment; that the process is so complicated that it cannot even be achieved in a decade; and that Britain will be left hopelessly isolated on the global stage.

The clear aim of the Remoaners is to create a climate of such anxiety, frustration and gloom over Brexit that the British people will turn against independence, either by demanding a second referendum or by pressurizing the Government into the abandonment of the entire process.  But this ruthless campaign cannot be allowed to succeed.    A surrender to the Remoaners would completely shatter faith in democratic politics in Britain.  It would show that even the majority cannot prevail against the establishment.   Amid profound public disillusion, the EU and the Europhiles would be triumphant.  Once again, Britain would be locked into the federal project, with all dreams of nationhood and a return to self-governance broken.    Such an outcome would be perhaps the greatest humiliation in our island story.

The best way to defeat the Remoaners is to demolish their arguments.    Already, the predictions of post-referendum meltdown could hardly look hollow.  George Osborne claimed that a vote for Brexit would lead to “an immediate economic shock” and a “DIY recession.”   Yet, almost two years after the referendum, economic growth is steady, the City of London is expanding, unemployment is at its lowest level since the 1970s and manufacturing order books are at their fullest since 1988.   Similarly, the Remoaners’ synthetic alarmism about the alleged negative impact of border controls – such as skill shortages – needs to be ruthlessly exposed. Far from damaging Britain, tougher immigration will raise living standards, promote social cohesion, lower social security bills and reduce.   After, as David Cameron once pointed out, no less than 40 per cent of EU migrants are actually dependent on welfare.

The British people need to be reminded that a return to the status quo in our relationship with the EU is not an option, for Brussels is bent on the creation of a federal superstate, where every vestige of national sovereignty has disappeared.  If Britain stays in the EU, we will become nothing more than a regional province of a bureaucratic empire. Indeed, the entire Remoaner message is one of defeatism, betraying a profound lack of confidence in our country. For centuries, Britain has been a great nation, the victor in two world wars, the creator of Parliamentary democracy and the pioneer of the Industrial Revolution, yet the pro-EU brigade that we are too enfeebled to survive on our own.   This unpatriotic, sneering disdain for Britain and its people shone through a recent outburst from the former diplomat Lord Kerr, author of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, who declared that “immigration is the thing that keeps the country going.   We native British are so bloody stupid that we need injections of intelligent people from outside.”   Such self-loathing attitude infuses the Remoaners’ movement.  That is why it is so laughable when they talk about the national interest.   There will be no nation at all if they have their way.

The United Kingdom as a third country

Some  people are confused about the meaning of this term with regard to our extrication from the EU and have become needlessly indignant.  It does not mean “third rate” or “Third World”.   In the EU situation  in international law, the phrase means more or less what “third party” does in an ordinary insurance policy or other legal document – but it refers to a country or state which, in this case,  is not a member of the EU or its associated organisations such as the European Economic Area (EEA).

Background

This non-membership is exactly what Mrs. May demanded in her Lancaster House speech of January 2017.  She wishes to replace our EU membership  with a completely new but unspecified “deep and special” relationship which can only come into being after we have left the EU.  The EU does not “give” us third country status.

We acquire it automatically through leaving at our own request.   Yet this seems to have come as a bit of a surprise to David Davis.

I started to take the Daily Express when it was the first national paper to advocate leaving the EU, so I was rather surprised to read this article in its edition of Wednesday 10th January which suggests either that Mr. Davis is ill-informed or that the reporter misunderstood him.

Row over EU giving UK 3rd country status

David Davis has attacked a Brussels threat to punish British business ahead of Brexit trade talks.

The Brexit Secretary has written to Theresa May raising concerns about EU planning for a “no deal” giving Britain “third country status”  in what appears to be an act of bad faith.

Mr. Davis told the Prime Minister he would urge the EU to drop the measures which would require UK firms to relocate to Europe or risk contracts being terminated in the event of no deal.

He said he had sought legal advice but the chances of a successful challenge were “low” and could be “high risk politically and financially”

But he said he would urge the European Commission’s Brexit task force to withdraw the statements in light of the deal reached last month to start trade talks. Mr. Davis said that EU agencies have issued guidance to businesses stating the UK will become a “third country” after March 2019 with no reference to a future Trade deal.

The guidance says “compliance activity” such as quality control of goods “ would need to be based in the EU or European Economic Area.

Other statements on legal services and the transport industry do not take into account a transition period or trade deal, he said.

Mr. Davis called the moves “potential breaches of the UK’s rights as (an EU) member  state” and insisted “we cannot let these actions go unchallenged “. John Longworth of Leave Means Leave added that  the EU’s negotiating team is increasingly out of step with the mood of many of the EU27 national governments who recognise the importance for their own economies  that a free trade deal is reached with the UK…..”

Meaning of Third Country Status

The Department for Exiting the EU employs some 400 highly paid specialists and the expertise of the Foreign Office and our Representation in Brussels are claimed to be world class, so it is surprising that nobody  took the trouble to  look up some elementary rules of international law on the internet and tell Mr. Davis.

oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.0903/01/authority

Pacta tertiis nec nocunt nec prosunt – Treaties neither harm nor benefit third parties. A maxim meaning that non-parties to a treaty cannot claim benefits under it…   And, once we are out of the EU, we are no longer a party to any of its treaties.

 https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/res_inter-alios-acta

Res inter alios acta – a thing done between others – to which a given person or entity was not (or is no longer) party .

 From “Third Parties and the law of treaties  – Max Planck UNYB 6 (2002)

Basic Classical Rules

 The relationship between third parties and treaties is defined by a general formula pacta tertiis nec nocunt nec prosunt (see above). This principle has been recognised in states’ practice as fundamental and its existence has never been questioned.. For states non-parties to the treaty, the treaty is res inter alios acta (see above). It has been reflected in numerous cases before the World Court. For example in the German Interests in Polish Silesia case the PCIJ *observed that “ (a) treaty only creates law as between states which are party to it; in case of doubt no rights can be deduced from it in favour of third states.

 Lord McNair, in the Law of Treaties (1961, 309 Harvard Research Article 18) ( a) a treaty may not impose obligations upon a state which is no longer party thereto….”

*Permanent Court of international Justice

The UK as a Vassal State

By  demanding a “Hard Brexit”  from March 29 2019, the government has placed itself in the position of a supplicant to the EU for a “transition” or “implementation” period so that Mrs. May’s unspecified “deep and special” relationship may be agreed without disruption of trade.

If what we have been told is correct, all existing  EU laws will continue to apply during this period and new ones could be sprung on us without our having any say at all – complete vassal status.

Conclusion

There are strong economic reasons for both sides to come  to a mutually beneficial agreement.

However there is no good reason to suppose that the EU will abolish its external frontier procedures with a newly independent UK.  If it did that, not only would it breach its own principal trading rules, but also the World Trade Organisation would be overwhelmed with complaints from other third country states.  Every other country in the world would be demanding that the EU did the same for them.

 

Brexit hangs over the port of Dover

This article is copied by kind permission of the author, Mary Kenny. It appeared in The Oldie, edition of March 2018

Without an ingenious deal, the place could be clogged up with thousands of becalmed freight lorries.

As an Irish citizen, I abstained from the Brexit vote, although I sympathise with the argument that a country is entitled to control its own borders and make its own laws. But, living just eight miles from Dover, I am beginning to grasp that entering and leaving Britain’s major port post-Brexit could be a huge headache unless some very clever deal is accomplished.

A well-informed Doverian, Mick Tedder, who has forty years of experience of working at the port, and is a member of the Port and Community Forum, is very “pessimistic” about Dover’s immediate future. The port of Dover can see more than 10,000 freight vehicles pass through daily; he worked there before 1973 when there was only a fraction of such traffic and a truck might have to park up for two or three hours while the paperwork was completed. Mr Tedder, who voted Brexit (as did most of the Dover referendum voters) predicts that if border controls are introduced, there will be “Armageddon” in the garden of England. He envisages the need for a huge parking holding area for vehicles awaiting processing, and congestion spiralling out in all directions.

Supposing everything has to be stopped and checked too, at the Channel Tunnel? Imagine the traffic jams and delays.

The local MP, Charlie Elphicke, seems to place his confidence in electronic scanning, as occurs between Canada and the US, but local lobby groups, such as EU Thinking Deal + Dover are sceptical that this can be done at a huge maritime port such as Dover, which handles 17 per cent of Britain’s imports. There are other issues too, such as the transport of animals – animals can only be confined in lorries for a certain amount of time, and long waiting periods would be disastrous.

The authorities at the Port of Dover have little to say about the situation because it seems still so hazy. Talk about Continent cut off by fog!

Mr Tedder, a Brexit voter, is now keen on a soft Brexit to allow Britain’s major port to function effectively, although he does add, “You’re not just dealing with the EU. You’re dealing with the French!” (French industrial stoppages have been known to cause mayhem.)

On the plus side, there’s a boat in Dover Museum dating from the Bronze Age, witness the fact that there’s been trading across the narrow twenty mile Channel since the time of the Pyramids. Though not at the rate of 10,000 trucks per day.

Photo by ketmonkey

Lord David Owen: Here’s how to stop the EU yelling “heel” and prosper after Brexit

This piece first appeared in the Sunday Times and was also posted on Lord Owen’s personal website. It is used with full permission of the author.

A vital Brexit issue will have to be resolved in the next six to eight weeks. Are we to be thrust into political limbo after leaving the European Union next year or will we assert democratic control through parliament, a core reason for many voting to leave the EU?

The guidelines from the other 27 EU heads of government, published last month, called for any transitional arrangement between the UK leaving the EU on March 29, 2019 and the end of December 2020 to be “clearly defined and precisely limited in time”. It went on to say any EU legislation would have to apply to the UK under the competence of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), and that the UK would participate in the customs union and the single market.

We have already seen the peremptory way the EU-UK agreement document published in phase one of the negotiations was brushed aside a fortnight ago, when a Brussels source spoke bluntly: “The deal in December did specify March 2019 for [ending] free movement rights. That was then.” Now free movement extends throughout the transition. The European parliament’s Brexit co-ordinator says “it will be whole acquis [the term for the EU’s body of laws] and nothing else”. He says MEPs would accept a longer transition from 21 months up to 36 months.

What all this demonstrates is that, under article 50, the EU negotiators see themselves as prisoners to agreement from any of the 27 member states. Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, made this crystal clear over Ireland. Now objections from former east European countries have moved the goalposts to the UK’s detriment. We are on notice that the next problem will be Gibraltar. This pattern will continue in other areas until we have more leverage in negotiations. The UK has already shaken hands on shelling out billions of pounds during the transition and we talk in parliament of no taxation without representation. Yet that is exactly what we are going to see more of during our period in limbo with no vote.

The think tank Open Europe, an objective commentator, puts the figure at approaching €60bn. As a Brexiteer, I fully accept that the UK would make payments to the EU budget during our transition, as all non-EU members of the European Economic Area (EEA) already do. However, like Norway, we would make extra payments if there were a successful free trade agreement. Lord Kerr, who as a diplomat designed article 50, told the House of Lords: “We will come to heel in the end, probably quite quickly, because it is very important to avoid the cliff edge next year. We will not avoid it, but we will postpone it.” That sums it all up. This government is coming to heel and we had better realise it now.

We could effectively avoid both these cliff edges — an agreement on leaving the EU and on free trade — if the European Council’s guidelines for the “political limbo” period allowed for the UK to participate inside the single market as a non-EU member of the EEA. For the past 18 months, I have quietly tried to
convince the prime minister that this is the best existing democratic framework for us to be within for the transition period. It does not mean exercising the same powers as are open to the other three members — Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein — and we would be accepting the European Council’s demand for an absolutist status quo standstill, but we would not be in limbo.

We would have automatic EEA consultation rights on EU legislation and would not be under the ECJ, but the EEA-Efta (European Free Trade Association) court and the EEA governance pillar. Professor Carl Baudenbacher, a judge of the Efta court, giving evidence in the Lords, indicated that the EEA/Efta option for the UK’s transition period is feasible, even given the short timescale.

I have no doubt whatever that a transition predominantly via the EEA would, quite manifestly, be better for all concerned. A domestic advantage is it would curb any legal action over the EEA agreement that might be in prospect. A court case in November 2016 claimed that the UK had a legal right to remain in the EEA, despite ceasing to be a member of the EU, until parliament voted otherwise. This was not accepted by the High Court, which ruled that the case was being brought too early for it to adjudicate. If the UK government does not give the year’s statutory notice of leaving the EEA in March, and relies on automatic exit in March 2019, we could see the lawfulness of the government’s conduct being challenged in UK courts.

Despite constant warnings, the government has hidden behind a longstanding diverence of interpretation on whether, on leaving the EU, a country ceases to be a contracting party to the EEA agreement. The fact is the UK government— not the EU — signed the relevant documents to enter the agreement. A government that was serious about negotiations and acquiring more leverage would have no hesitation at all in testing this case as a matter of international law by the Vienna convention and where the ECJ is not the final authority. Nevertheless, that is history. Now if the EU-UK withdrawal agreement contained a few technical amendments, the UK could set aside all legal arguments by staying in the EEA during the transition period.

The details will soon emerge where it will be clear that the EU accepts the EEA agreement continues to apply during the limbo period but the UK is not allowed to participate. The EEA option I am arguing for — for the duration of the transition only — is a mixture of bespoke and off-the-shelf. It cannot become a
permanent mechanism for leaving the EU, as many Brexiteers feared might happen. It is being advocated as a good-faith response to the European Council’s guidelines. It would help fill in the detail of how the UK government will approach the transition to achieve its aim of a bold and ambitious free trade agreement. Having the greatest possible tarie and barrier-free trade with our neighbours is an achievable ambition, as well as negotiating our own trade agreements around the world on leaving the EEA.

Few want a hard Brexit, but to avoid it the UK needs to put forward a reasoned democratic arrangement for handling the transition. Any proposed limbo status is unacceptable. The UK should insist on full participation and full rights under this agreement, including, subject to the consent of its non-EU parties, the ability to participate in its EEA-Efta governance pillar, free of direct ECJ and European Commission supervision. For EU members, an EEA transition follows precedent in using existing democratic machinery and treaties. It could hopefully unite all shades of “leave” opinion, and attract some former remainers who are vocal over continuing in the single market outside the EU for the transition. It is high time we came closer together in parliament as we embark on this national endeavour.

Lord Owen was the Labour foreign secretary from 1977 to 1979 and later led the Social Democratic Party

Fishing for Leave’s comments on the proposed transitional arrangements

Below is the EUs recommendations for the transition. Those with the particular detrimental implications for the United Kingdoms trade are Clause 14 and 15 as amended by the Council. Indeed, the implications defeat the whole point of HM Governments raison-d’etre for a transition.

TRADE

14. During the transition period, and in line with the European Council guidelines of 29 April 2017, the United Kingdom will remain bound by the obligations stemming from the agreements concluded by the Union, or by Member States acting on its behalf, or by the Union and its Member States acting jointly; while the United Kingdom should however no longer participate in any bodies set up by those agreements.

The Council replaced the words ‘will no longer benefit from’ with ‘will remain bound by the obligations stemming from’. It also deleted the words Where it is in the interest of the Union, the Union may consider whether and how arrangements can be agreed that would maintain the effects of the agreements as regards the United Kingdom during the transition period’.

The intention seems to be that the UK will still have obligations to the EU to apply agreements concluded with non-EU countries by the EU (or the EU jointly with its Member States).

However, since the withdrawal agreement cannot bind non-EU countries, those non-EU countries will no longer have obligations to the UK as the UK will no longer be an official member of the EU but merely maintaining regulatory alignment.

The UK would only be able to be recognised within such agreements if other non-Eu countries agree to continuing existing obligations in force.

The negotiation of treaties between the UK and non-EU countries is the subject of the next paragraph which seemingly makes that an impossible contradiction. 

15. In line with the European Council guidelines of 15 December 2017, any transitional arrangements require the United Kingdom’s continued participation in the Customs Union and the Single Market (with all four freedoms) during the transition. The United Kingdom should take all necessary measures to preserve the integrity of the Single Market and of the Customs Union. (full regulatory alignment is the only way to do so and this complies with Clause 49 of Phase 1 regards UK vs EU border on island of Ireland)

The United Kingdom should continue to comply with the Union trade policy. It should also in particular ensure that its customs authorities continue to act in accordance with the mission of EU customs authorities including by collecting Common Customs Tariff duties and by performing all checks required under Union law at the border vis-à-vis other third countries. During the transition period, the United Kingdom may not become bound by international agreements entered into in its own capacity in the fields of competence of Union law, unless authorised to do so by the Union.  

The final sentence added by the Council. This paragraph ensures no change in the application of the single market or the customs union to the UK during the transitional period.

This limits the UK’s power to enter into treaties and subjects the UK to more constraints than it would have as a Member State.

The UK will not be free to negotiate and sign treaties within the transitional period, even if those treaties only come into force afterward – we will only be able to begin to negotiate treaties AFTER the transition period.

How will this allow the UK to sign a trade deal with the EU for post-transition as David Davis claims the transition is necessary to facilitate?

One has to ask how under the terms of Clause 15 the UK will be able to respond to Clause 14 where the UK (as a non-EU member) would have to seek recognition by other non-EU counties for the UK being party to agreements they have concluded with the EU.

One struggles to see how we can enable a continuation of any agreements the EU has concluded with the rest of the world as per Clause 14 yet still comply with Clause 15?

This revised text means they have amended Clause 14 to appear a lifeline that doesn’t actually attach to anything.

We take this contradiction to mean we are locked into the single market and customs union but if other non-Eu nations fail to recognize the UK being party to the agreements they concluded with the EU (as we’re no longer a member – merely maintaining regulatory alignment) and we are unable to pursue our own agreement with such other non-EU nation then we are on WTO with the rest of the world which defeats the point of a transition in the first place.

It would be interesting to hear the government and DexEUs response to how Britain can conclude a future “deep and special” trade deal with the EU under the transition as David Davis professes is required if Clause 15 bars us from concluding agreements…?!?

 

FISHING INDUSTRY

Clause 20 obliges the UK to “consult” on fishing opportunities in full respect of the Acquis – i.e. obey the entire CFP!

20. Specific consultations should also be foreseen with regard to for the (interesting change/use of language..?)  fixing of fishing opportunities during the transition period, in full respect of the Union acquis.

Therefore, the UK delegation would possible be allowed to sit in the room yet the UK will still be bound by the ENTIRE ACQUIS and therefore the entire CFP – Equal Access, Relative Stability Shares and Quota system.

A continuation of the quota system where fishermen have to discard in order to find the species their quota allows them to keep conjoined with a fully enforced discard ban will finish the UK fleet.

Under the discard ban rather than address the cause of the discard problem, that a quota system does not work in mixed fisheries, the symptom of discards is banned. Under the discard ban a vessel must stop fishing when it exhausts its smallest quota allocation – these “choke species” will bankrupt 60% of the UK fleet as detailed by the governments own figures through Seafish.

This would destroy our catching capacity and allowing the EU to claim the “surplus” of our resources we would no longer be able to catch under terms of UNCLOS Article 62.2 due to such a culling of our fleet.

Signing up to a transition on will see the ruination of what is left of the UK fishing industry when Brexit should be its salvation. Another 2 years of the CFP and a continuation of the quota system will see our fishing industry become yet another British industry consigned to museum and memory.

CONCLUSION

Under the auspices of this proposed “deal” (more a dictation) the UK will be on WTO with the rest of the world, unable to conclude deals with the rest of the world until after the transition and will be locked into maintaining regulatory alignment whilst obeying the entire Acquis (with continued freedom of movement) and trapped in the CFP where our fishing industry will be culled to make way for the EU fleet. All whilst being subject to the ECJ and ruled by the Commission and Council as some sort of vassal state.

It is nearly unbelievable that the political establishment could contemplate locking the 5th most powerful nation in the world into such a subservient position especially against the expressed wish of the British people to leave the EU in its entirety as voted for in the biggest vote in British history.

Mr Davis’ Brexit bridge to nowhere

Some of us will no doubt remember learning the song Sur le pont d’Avignon in our French classes at school. If you are careful, the bridge in question, the Pont St. Bénézet, may be a possible venue for dancing, as the song suggests, but it no longer fills its original function of providing a crossing of the River Rhône as only four of the original 22 arches, which date from approximately 1345AD, are still extant. When the river flooded, the arches tended to collapse and by the 17th century, the authorities gave up their attempts to repair the damaged masonry, leaving its four surviving arches as a bridge to nowhere.

David Davis is now engaged in a hard sell, trying to convince MPs and the general public that his proposed transitional deal is a stepping stone to full severance from the EU. He called it a  “bridge to the future.” If this deal is agreed by our parliament and the EU, nothing could be a less accurate description. Like the Pont St Bénézet in Avignon, it is a bridge to nowhere.

Those Tory MPs making a statement on these lines (and there have been some recently who have use somewhat different terminology to say the same thing) have been denounced as “swivel-eyed” by Claire Perry, the energy minister. The uncomfortable reality is that from what we know of the terms of this deal, it is nothing less than an unmitigated disaster.

We can start with the words of the Brexit secretary himself. Here is his speech. He talks about “strictly time limited implementation period,” yet not only did Mr Davis not specifically mention 21 months but already, rumours are circulating that it may be extended to last for three years.

And during this period, for all Mr Davis’ evasive language and hard-selling, yes, Jacob Rees-Mogg is correct, we would be a vassal state of the EU with no representation yet forced to accept all its laws. Our friends in Fishing for Leave have analysed both Davis’ speech and the EU’s terms for the implementation (aka transitional) period. You can read the analysis of the speech here and a summary of the Commission’s recommendations to the EU council about the terms and conditions for the transitional arrangements here.

The European Council has now (today 29th January) published an annex to its guidelines of 29th April 2017 which covers the transition period. You can read the document here and an analysis of it here. “Vassal State” sums it up well. In case anyone is in any doubt, Clause 13 insists that during the transition period, “The Union acquis should apply to and in the United Kingdom as if it were a Member State. Any changes to the Union acquis should automatically apply to and in the United Kingdom during the transition period.” We’ve got to accept the whole caboodle and we don’t have any say in what may come our way. Davis assured the Select Committee that it takes a long time for new EU laws to pass through the system so it was unlikely that anything which was still only in the pipeline on Brexit Day would actually get through onto our statute books at the end of the transitional period. This is wishful thinking, The Common Fisheries Policy was rushed through in three months in order to be in force when the UK joined in 1973.

The Council document also denies us the right to sign any trade deals during the transition period without the EU’s permission. Clause 16 states:- “During the transition period, the United Kingdom may not become bound by international agreements entered into in its own capacity in the fields of competence of Union law, unless authorised to do so by the Union

The Council document interestingly did not repeat the Commission’s refusal for us to piggyback on any deals which it has signed with third countries. Clause 14 of the Commission document was  unequivocal: “It is also recalled that as from the date of its withdrawal from the Union the United Kingdom will no longer benefit from the agreements concluded by the Union, or by Member States acting on its behalf, or by the Union and its Member States acting jointly.” In other words, we would have to agree not to ask the countries in question if they still wished to keep the same trading arrangements with the UK. We would essentially be under “WTO rules” with the rest of the world. Is its absence a “concession?”

Whatever, we would be stuck in the EU’s customs Union. As we have mentioned countless times before, if we are in the Single Market, there is NO NEED to be in the Customs Union. The two are NOT joined at the hip. “Davis, come here, you bad boy. Your punishment is 100 lines; write out the following until the message sinks in:- we do not need to be in the EU’s customs union after Brexit. “

Add to this an insistence that the ECJ will have an ongoing role in the UK’s affairs (Clause 10 of the Council document) and a continuation of free movement of people (Clause 16). The Council document only briefly mentions the EU budget (Clause 17) but the Commission’s insistence on a payment into the EU’s coffers which is little different from our current payments as a member state appears to be implied.

Naturally, during this transition period, we will be subject to the Common Fisheries Policy (see Clause 21 of the Council Document) which is a disaster. Indeed, if it is extended beyond the current 21-month period, there will be very little left of our fishing industry, which would be catastrophic given that Fishing for Leave’s proposals would have turned the UK into a world leader in fisheries management and would have revived our coastal communities.

What is more, any concessions made to the EU in any transitional deal cannot easily be revoked when it is replaced by a long-term arrangement. Because this “transition” is part of a new treaty AFTER Article 50 terminates the current relationship, and because we will have agreed to replicate and adopt all EU laws, we will create a “continuity of rights” under Article 30 and Article 70 of the Vienna Convention. As this new transition treaty will not terminate with a clinical Article 50 clause where “the treaties (& obligations) cease to apply”, the EU will have grounds to argue that because we undid Article 50 and re-adopted the entire Acquis with no clear exit clause that their rights and obligations established under the transition treaty should continue past 21 months.

The EU may be eventually proved wrong to argue so, but protracted litigation on what is a grey area of international treaty law could tie this country in knots and quickly erode the minuscule resistance within the British establishment to concede to any EU demands.

To say therefore that this transitional arrangement is unacceptable, even if by some miracle a new deal could be signed in 21 months with no continuity, is hardly the language of “swivel-eyed loons.” It is merely stating what over 17 million people voted for in June 2016 – in other words, we must leave the European Union. Adopting the transitional terms on the basis of the Commission and Council documents would be like having a dance on Pont St Bénézet in Avignon – once the fun is over, your only choice is to walk off the bridge at exactly the same place where you walked on. In other words, we would not be out of the EU in any meaningful sense of the term – not in 2019, not in 2021, maybe not ever. It is a complete surrender – the worst of all worlds. The sooner the likes of Claire Perry, David Davis and indeed Theresa May realise this, the better.  If they don’t, their party will face the wrath of voters all too soon and could find itself in the middle of its worst crisis since the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. Thankfully one MP has realised this. His colleagues need to  wake up quickly. It really is that serious.

 

Photo by Dano