Security – partnership but not participation

Mrs May’s speech on security cooperation last Saturday was given in Munich, famous for the meeting between Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler in 1938 where an agreement was signed which Mr Chamberlain, on his return to the UK, would lead to “peace in our time”.

His hopes were sadly shaken a year later. Mrs May did not come away with any agreement, She was not expecting to. Instead, she went to Munich to deliver a speech which, like that by Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, earlier in the week, was good on mood music and aspiration but not at all satisfactory when it comes to detail.

Michel Barnier had stated that upon Brexit, we will no longer be part of Europol or the European Defence Agency. He did not mention the European Arrest Warrant, but it is not unreasonable to assume that we would be excluded from this too. At this point, virtually everyone who voted for Brexit should have been giving three loud cheers. Mrs May, in her speech, however, seemed to be saying what a disaster this would be. “Let’s be clear about what would happen if the means of this cooperation were abolished. Extradition under the European Arrest Warrant would cease. Extradition outside the European Arrest Warrant can cost four times as much and take three times as long. It would mean an end to the significant exchange of data and engagement through Europol.”

Fine, for as far as the EAW is concerned, as we have pointed out many times on this website, its convenience is outweighed by its serious flaws – flaws which have caused great grief to a number of UK citizens,  For example, Edmond Arapi was subject to an Italian EAW in 2004, being convicted in absentia of a murder in Genoa, even though he had never visited Genoa in his life and was working in a café in Staffordshire on the day of the murder. Andrew Symeou, a UK citizen, was extradited to Greece, denied bail and incarcerated for 11 months on charges of “fatal bodily harm” thanks to the signature of a Greek magistrate that no UK judge could overturn despite the evidence against him being obtained under duress. Mr Symeou published an account of his ordeal in a book called Extradited. He pointed out that unless, like him, you suffer from a miscarriage of justice, you are unlikely to appreciate just how flawed the EAW is.

Then, although we may be ejected from Europol, we would still be members of Interpol. If the EU is keen to cooperate with us on matters relating to criminal justice, which it would be foolish not to do, there are other models available which would enable us to maintain our independence.

Mrs May was right to highlight the need for close security cooperation between the UK and the EU after Brexit but we should be seeking to distance ourselves from the EU’s confrontational stance towards Russia. As Peter Hitchens put is, “Russia is no more of a threat to the UK than the Klingons”

Unfortunately, Mrs May has not freed herself from the widespread misapprehension that today’s Russia is merely the former Soviet Union under another name. She referred to “Russia’s hostile actions.” The reality is that blame for the current hostility between Russia and the EU lies as much, if not more, with Brussels than with Moscow. True, NATO must shoulder some of the blame for rapidly extending its reach to the boundaries of Belorus and Russia, but until 2009, it appeared that Russia was not that worried and might even have been considering joining NATO itself. It was the EU’s meddling in Ukraine, working behind the scenes to oust the pro-Russian but democratically elected Viktor Yanukovich, which has been the principal factor behind the deterioration in relationships between Russia and the West in recent years. Free from any vested interest in seeing Ukraine join an organisation which we have just voted to leave, we have the opportunity to re-set our own relationship with Russia rather than having to toe the EU’s expansionist, provocative line. It is surely wrong to seek to maintain enmity with a nation with whom we share a common European culture when it is possible to be friends.

Mrs May proposed that an new UK-EU treaty should be signed covering cooperation in defence and security issues. Will the EU play ball? Without a separate deal, it will take up to three years after Brexit for Britain – as a “third country” – to receive EU approval for data to be freely exchanged, so says the Independent. It will not be us who will be the biggest losers if the EU sticks rigidly to its rules about “third countries”, but then, if it is prepared to make an exception for security issues, this then poses the question, why not for trade?

All in all, the impression given by Mrs May’s speech is that she fails to see that in these issues, she has the whip hand and can use it to ensure that we achieve a full and complete break with the EU, replacing  participation in its agencies with a partnership which can still keep Europe secure. We just hope that as the negotiations proceed, in this area as well as in other key Brexit issues, her MPs will continue to give her a few gentle prods to ensure we do indeed achieve a proper Brexit in these key areas.

Photo by EU2017EE

Mrs May – trying to face both ways

Like the Roman god Janus, Our Prime Minister, it seems, is trying to face both ways at once. On the one hand, she has been kicking out against the unacceptable terms which the EU  has set for any transitional agreement while on the other, she seems keen to capitulate on important areas such as criminal justice.

Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator recently stated that agreement on a Brexit transition was “not a given” and with good reason. Theresa May, having read the EU’s terms has fought back, insisting that we must have greater freedom than the EU wants to allow us after Brexit.  She apparently intends to oppose the EU’s terms for citizen’s rights and any thought of us being a passive recipient of EU law but with no say in its formulation. The terms are so harsh, as we have stated, that it would have been unacceptable for Mrs May to have rolled over. Already there is much backbench disquiet over the EU’s proposals. Hopefully all MPs will have read the document produced by the European Commission dated 7th February and in particular, the chilling words in the first paragraph of Page 5:- “For the purposes of the Treaties, during the transition period, the parliament of the United Kingdom shall not be considered to be a national parliament.

Of course, Mrs May presides over a split cabinet. Our friends in Fishing for Leave recently commented on the struggles which Michael Gove has faced merely for wanting the UK to take control of its fishing policy after Brexit. That such a battle even needed to be fought is a cause for concern.

Recalcitrant cabinet members cannot, however, take the blame for Mrs May’s proposed speech in Munich next Saturday where she will give a speech including a  declaration that the UK will continue to participate in the European Arrest Warrant as well as retaining its Europol membership.  Mind you, like much of Mrs May’s Brexit strategy, this may well amount to wishful thinking as it’s not up to us whether we remain participants in these two schemes. Last November, Michel Barnier said that we would be ejected from Europol as it was only open to EU member states. Our ejection was the “logical consequence of the sovereign choice made by the British.” Unlike our team. M. Barnier is not known for changing his stance on key issues, so Mrs May’s speech next Saturday may turn out to be  empty rhetoric.

Indeed, we hope it is so for otherwise, she will face yet more fully-deserved criticism from her MPs. Jacob Rees-Mogg, first off the mark as usual, has reiterated his long-standing opposition to any further UK involvement with this flawed scheme. Regular visitors to this website will be in no doubt about the Campaign for an Indepndent Britain’s opposition to any ongoing participation in the EAW, Europol or the EU Gendarmerie – and we will continue to campaign on this issue if we are not pre-empted by M. Barnier rendering our efforts unnecessary. We fail to understand why Mrs May, Amber Rudd or anyone else wants to keep us locked into our current unsatisfactory relationship with the deeply flawed inquisitorial criminal justice systems of most EU member states.

On a different note, readers will be familiar with our reporting of the pathetic behaviour of the remoaners. It  seems that a small minority of them have touched a new low. At least six major backers of the Leave campaign have received identical death threats. The wording is quite chilling:- “You have stoked the fires of Brexit and led us to this moment. You can no longer be tolerated. We are coming for you. We are going to kill you.” The group sending these letters calls itself “the Real 48 per cent” and has also targeted Cabinet minister Andrea Leadsom.

We would be the first to point out that the vast majority of remain voters, including most of those who sincerely believe that we should remain in the EU, would not remotely condone this sort of intimidation. Indeed, this shadowy group’s title is misleading in the extreme. They only speak for a minute fraction of the 48% of voters who supported remain.  The reality is that most voters on both sides of the debate actually care very little about Brexit any more.  As one writer put it, most people just wish that, as an issue, it would just go away.

So indeed would we, but not until we have achieved full independence – and this includes freedom from the EAW and Europol, full control over who fishes in our Exclusive Economic Zone and a relationship with the EU which is far looser and completely free of the subservience of the proposed transitional agreement.

The European Arrest Warrant – an expert’s opinion

We have frequently emphasized the importance of ending our participation in the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) if Brexit is truly to mean Brexit.

Jonathan Fisher QC produced this comprehensive summary of  the EAW in 2014, when Parliament was debating whether to opt back in to 35 criminal justice measures contained with in the Lisbon Treaty after obtaining an opt-out four years earlier.

As readers will know, Theresa May, then Home Secretary, led the ultimately successful campaign for us to opt in. However, Brexit provides us with welcome opportunity to reconsider this ill-advised decision.

The issue may be taken out of our hands as the EU has already suggested that we may not be able to be part of Europol on Brexit and our exclusion may stretch to include the EAW  as well.

We cannot, however, take this for granted so it is in our interest to continue to campaign against the EAW and this means informing ourselves as best we can about this iniquitous scheme. Mr Fisher’s document is a very useful resource in this regard. In particular, it has pointed out how it conflicts with our historic liberties under Common Law. For instance, “the EAW does not sit happily with the fundamental principles which underpin Habeas Corpus.

As Archbishop Desmond Tutu pointed out on the BBC “Today” programme” on 16th February 2006, Habeas Corpus is such an incredible part of freedom”  Unshackling ourselves from the EU will therefore be compromised if the freedom-threatening European Arrest Warrant is allowed further to menace UK citizens on independence. 

A Brexit that will work for nobody

“Brexit means Brexit,” Theresa May famously said on a number of occasions last year, “And I intend it to work for everybody.”  With the half-way point between the referendum vote and Brexit day looming next month, current pronouncements from the Government suggest that on the contrary, we could end up with a Brexit that works for no one.

Our fishermen have good reason to be worried. Unless the Fisheries Regulation 1380/2013 is exempted from the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill – and there is no sign that this is the Government’s plan – we will end up leaving the Common Fisheries Policy only to revert to what is in effect a shadow CFP, including all the access arrangements which would continue to give away our nation’s resource to the EU. Last week, when asked about fisheries, the Prime Minister said,

“When we leave the European Union, we will be leaving the common fisheries policy. As part of the agreement that we need to enter into for the implementation period, obviously that and other issues will be part of that agreement.”.

While this “implementation period” may exist only in Mrs May’s imagination, she should instead have given an unequivocal statement that upon Brexit, we will not only immediately take full control of our Exclusive Economic Zone, but will not be running it on a quota basis.

At least as far as fisheries is concerned, there is hope that ultimately it will be Michael Gove who determines post-Brexit policy. He has shown himself sympathetic to the plight of our fishermen and his mention of John Ashworth in person during a fringe meeting at the Tory Party Conference is a recognition that the fishing community is running a well-organised campaign that not going to take no for an answer.

Another area of concern is the reluctance of this government to disentangle ourselves from the EU’s military machine. Our friends in Veterans for Britain  were understandably critical of the Government’s recent  “future partnership” paper on defence, which would limit our independence. They also do not want to see is tied in to PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation) a key factor in the EU’s military ambitions to create a defence union. It appears from an earlier briefing put out by VfB that many MPs are still in the dark about the very limited military autonomy with which government ministers plan to allow us. This is unacceptable. As an independent country, our political objectives will inevitably diverge from those of the EU. We will no longer be interested in its empire building in the Balkans or among the former soviet republics. Our defence policy must be disentangled from that of the EU before we leave. If Mrs May is planning a reshuffle, as is widely being rumoured, the appointment of a genuine Brexiteer to  replace the most unsatisfactory Micharl Fallon as Defence Secretary would be a very good move.

We also need to make a clean break with the EU on criminal justice matters.  Torquil Dick-Erikson has raised the issue of the European Arrest Warrant on this website before. We agree with him that it is totally unacceptable for the Government to keep us as a signatory to the EAW and to be a member of Europol. More than that, Torquil has pointed out that the Government has also declared its willingness to allow “special intervention units” from the EU to set foot on British soil, and under a smokescreen of “ensuring security.”

In these three areas – fishing, defence and criminal justice, Brexit must be as “hard” as possible and the Government’s shortcomings will be highlighted over and over again on this website until there is a change of heart. This is not the Brexit we voted for.  As last year’s Vote.Leave slogan said so graphically, it was all about “taking back control”. If our fishing grounds are shared with the EU, our defence is bound up with that of the EU and EU judges still have the power to haul us off to any one of 27 member countries on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations, we are not in control at all.

What is more, these issues must not be swept under the carpet while all the media focus being on trade talks – or rather, the lack of trade talks. Thankfully, as far as trade is concerned, a number of senior figures from industry, supported by a small but growing number of MPs are expressing their concern that the “No deal is better than a bad deal” mantra is unrealistic and dangerous. Leaving the EU without a deal would be a calamity for our economy, even though one recent opinion poll suggested that as many as 74% of voters would prefer this to a supposed “bad deal”. Do they realise that planes would be unable to fly? That the M20 in Kent would be turned into a lorry park overnight?

Of course, it is possible that the Government is engaging in brinkmanship to try to twist the EU’s arm and get it to start trade talks before the three contentious issues of the Irish border, the “divorce bill” and the rights of EU citizens have been agreed, but it is a high-risk strategy and one that looks unlikely to succeed. It is based on a long-standing failure to perceive that the EU is first and foremost a political project, not a trading bloc.

This mistaken perception of the EU’s nature suggests that the transitional arrangement mentioned recently by Mrs May (where we would be able to trade seamlessly with the EU after Brexit in return for being subject to most of the EU’s rules and policed by the European Court of Justice) is mercifully a non-starter.  It is an unsatisfactory pick-and-mix deal which violates the EU’s political integrity while being an extremely bad arrangement for the UK. It remains a mystery why the EEA/EFTA option is still being ruled out of court by all senior government figures when something far worse is being publicly advocated instead.

While no sane person would disagree with the statement by David Davis that Brexit is “the most complex peacetime operation in our history”, it is now nearly 14 months since the referendum vote and we do not yet have any indication that the Government has come up with a strategy which will deliver a satisfactory break with the EU.  Thanks to David Cameron’s ban on allowing the Civil Service to work on any Brexit plan before the  referendum, the Government and Whitehall have found themselves on a sharp learning curve, but some campaigners, such as John Ashworth have been active for 20 years or more and have considerable knowledge their specialist subjects. Why are their recommendations not being adopted? Why, after all this time, is the government still seemingly confused about the difference between the Customs Union and customs clearance agreements? Why has the defence integration continued since the Brexit vote without any consultation with the military, who actually understand the issues?

It does not help when anyone who dares to stick their heads above the parapet and suggest that we are heading for a disaster is labelled a “traitor” – as was the case with Philip Hammond last week. Of course, Mr Hammond supported remain during the referendum and some ardent Brexiteers refuse to believe that anyone who did not campaign for Brexit can possibly be genuinely committed to making it happen, in spite of our own soundings which suggested that most MPs, whatever side they took in the referendum campaign, have accepted the result and will not seek to be obstructive over Brexit. More worryingly, a veteran leave supporter like Christopher Booker, whose pro-Brexit credentials are impeccable, has been tarred with the same brush for expressing concern about the direction of Brexit talks. What is the point in saying things are looking good when there is every evidence that they are not?

There are two very big worries which force concerned Brexiteers like Mr Booker – and indeed, your author – to stick to their guns. The first is that a calamitous Brexit would be grist to the mill of the hard-core remainiacs who have never accepted the result of last year’s referendum. A spike in unemployment and inflation coupled with possible food shortages would lead to calls for us to start negotiations to re-join the EU, even though we would lose our opt-outs on the €uro and Schengen along with the Fontainebleau rebate won for us by Mrs Thatcher. This would be a disaster.

Secondly, it would lead to unprecedented political upheaval. Less than a year ago, some Conservatives were convinced not just that Jeremy Corbyn was unelectable but that the Labour Party was in its death throes. Last June’s election was a rude awakening for the Tories, proving their optimism to be very wide of the mark. The mood at the Party conference was apparently very sombre indeed.

There is good reason for this, as today’s young people in particular are far more likely to support Labour than the Tories, suggesting that far from Corbyn being unelectable, he is likely to become Prime Minister in 2022, bringing with him a team of MPs who are in the main, even more reluctant Brexiteers than the Tories. The best way  – indeed, probably the only way – of avoiding this is for the Tories to deliver a successful Brexit. Analysis of voter intentions suggest that the most popular reason why voters opted for the Conservatives last June was a conviction that they would deliver on Brexit. To betray the voters’ trust  would not just hand over the keys of No. 10 Downing Street to Jeremy Corbyn in 2022; it would produce the biggest crisis in the Conservative Party since the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846.

As  Anthony Scholefield, a CIB Committee member, pointed out in his 2011 critique of Cameronism, “Too ‘nice’ to be Tories – how the modernisers have damaged the Conservative party“,  attempts by the Tory leadership since 2005 to reach out to urban touchy-feely politically correct types have served rather to alienate many traditional supporters. As I argued a few years ago, there are plenty of people who genuinely want to vote for what Mrs May famously called a “nasty” party. I was wrong in predicting that Cameron wouldn’t win the 2015 election, but he only won it because he was forced to give in to the mounting pressure within his party to hold a referendum on our membership of the EU. It was the EU issue which also saved Mrs May’s bacon two years later. Given that a good few Tory voters (and indeed activists) still remain most uncomfortable about this move to the supposed centre ground since Cameron became leader, I believe that nothing else can save the Conservatives from calamity in 2022 except a smooth, well-managed and complete Brexit that will enable our businesses to keep trading while at the same time revitalising our fishing industry and freeing us from the clutches of the EU’s military and the EAW.

To put it another way, the Tories have a long list of EU-related sins for which they need to repent collectively, going back to the deceit of Edward Heath in the 1970s. This is their one and only opportunity to make atonement. They created the mess; it is poetic justice that they are being saddled with the task of getting us out of it. If they succeed, the country can move on after over 40 years in our unhappy relationship with Brussels and the party need never again “bang on about Europe”.  If they fail, our country may well end up marking the centenary of the resignation in 1922 of David Lloyd George, the last ever Liberal Prime Minister,  with the resignation of the last ever Conservative Premier. It really is as serious as that

 

Government future position paper – cross-border civil and judicial cooperation framework

This Government Position paper, like some others which have been published,  is annoying vague on detail and repeats the silly phrase “deep and special” which has featured in some of the earlier papers.  It is a rather soppy and meaningless phrase which seeks to gloss over the fact that 15 months ago, we voted to leave because we wanted a looser relationship with the EU – it was far too “deep”.

It is self-evident that some form of cooperation with the EU on legal matters will be essential. Civil law (as opposed to criminal) includes, among other things, trade disputes, family issues and cases of insolvency and in today’s world, differing parties may well reside in different countries.

The document reiterates the point which the government has made on a number of previous occasions – we will be leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice as it derives its authority from the EU treaties which will no longer apply after Brexit. Fair enough, but what follows is basically a wish list, which points out that as the UK has signed up to a number of international agreements on civil judicial cooperation but nonetheless reverts to the oft-repeated hope that as we are starting from “an unprecedented position of close integration”, coming up with a deal shouldn’t be too hard. All the same, the authors of the document are sufficiently aware of the complexities of securing a new arrangement to suggest that  the UK “would benefit from an interim period that allowed for a smooth and orderly move from our current relationship to our future partnership.”

One detail worthy of note is the statement in Paragraph 22 that “we will seek to continue to participate in the Lugano Convention that, by virtue of our membership of the EU, forms the basis for the UK’s civil judicial cooperation with Norway, Iceland and Switzerland.” The Lugano Convention, however, states that courts from contracting parties to the Convention should take into consideration judgements made by the European Court of Justice. Taking something into consideration isn’t the same as being bound by it, but even so, there does seem to be some ambiguity here given how keen the Government has been to emphasise that Brexit will bring the ECJ’s authority to an end in the country.

What is more, the paper is keen to talk of similarity when it is the differences between UK and continental legal systems which are more of greater significance. The differences are more noteworthy when it comes to criminal justice but even so, the foundations of all UK law are  different from most of those on the Continent. Even as an EU member state, the UK is a popular choice for international civil disputes because of the clarity of its legal system. London is as important a centre for legal services as for financial, as this article makes clear. The Government’s Position Paper cites the Queen Mary  Study which states that:-

  • 30%  of international contracts are governed by English Law – second place Swiss with 9%
  • 40% of international arbitrations are in London – 7% in New York.

The rest of the world believes that English Law is superior to Civil (European, Code Napoleon jurisdictions) Law, but the British Government is not prepared to back English Law (the Common Law: the law of India, the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Hong Kong, etc.) which is preferred internationally because English Law provides certainty.

Even some French and German multinationals prefer to make their  contracts subject to English law (even when contacting with parties in their own country) because English Law provides certainty.

If the the British Government allows European Law to override English law, then London will cease  to be the number one destination for international arbitrations, which will also result in ancillary job losses (e.g. , insurance (Lloyds and, P and I Clubs), finance, legal, scientific and expert services).

The British Government needs to realise that it is English Law which is largely responsible for the primacy of the City of London, because the world believes that contracts made in the U.K. will be fairly enforced, and should not allow European Law to subvert English Law.

We can but hope that the significant role played by our capital city will continue after Brexit. Unfortunately, the Govenrment paper has offered us much reassurance on this subject nor offered many clues on how we will cooperate with the EU on cross-border civil issues.

The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill: (1) Why we need it

The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which is being debated in Parliament this week, prepares the way for us to abrogate the 1972 Accession Treaty by which we joined what has become the EU and repeal the European Communities Act 1972 which gave the Treaty its force in British law. If there are no delays, we will cease to be a member state of the EU on 29th March 2019.

The campaign to regain our sovereignty has lasted for many years and it is encouraging that Parliament will finally be preparing the way whereby this is to happen. After over 45 years as a member of the European project, however, we are currently in a position whereby many items of legislation on our statute books originated in Brussels and what is more, derive their authority from the EU treaties to which we have been a signatory.

In this regard, the wording or Paragraph 3 of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which the UK Government invoked last March is particularly important:-

The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

Note the phrase “The Treaties  shall cease to apply.” This means that the current basis for any EU-derived legislation being included in UK law disappears on Brexit Day in March 2019. In other words, if the Government doesn’t take action, a considerable number of laws completely lose their authority.

For the benefit of anyone who has never studied any EU legislative document, you may like to click on this link, which does admittedly take you to one of the most pointless of all regulations, but at least it is short, so you won’t have to plough through pages of technical detail.

It begins by saying:-

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Right from the start, the document makes clear that it derives its authority from the EU treaties, which will cease to apply to the UK once we leave the EU. Therefore this regulation’s authority also ceases for us.

Just to confirm this point, Article 3 of this regulation says:-

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union

and then the Regulation concludes with these words:-

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States

So to underline the point, we will no longer be a Member State, so it will no longer apply.

The disappearance of this particular Regulation, complete with its picture of a cuddly toy sheep, from our statute books wouldn’t create any anxiety for HM Government or the team of Civil Servants in the Department for Exiting the European Union. There are, however, many far more important pieces of EU legislation which, if they lost their authority overnight without anything else being put in their place, would cause chaos.

For instance, the EU’s Bathing Water Directive 2006/7/EC which deals with the quality of bathing water. Readers may like to study this page of the DEFRA website which tells Councils what they must do to inform bathers at beaches and lakes about the quality of the water in which they will be swimming. If there is no regulation in force to replace the one which the EU has foisted on us, there is an enormous potential for serious problems to ensue. To take an extreme example, someone could pour hundreds of gallons of a highly toxic substance into a lake used for bathing and if the local council failed to put up a notice about it, there would be no mechanism to prosecute it. The legal basis for a court case would have vanished on 29th March 2019.

What the EU (Withdrawal) Bill will do is to “repatriate” EU legislation. In other words, it will remain on our statute books but in an amended form so that its authority will derive not from the EU treaties, which no longer apply, but from our Westminster Parliament.

It may upset some Brexit supporters that we still will be stuck with this legacy of our EU membership, but it was the approach adopted by several newly-independent states in the past as the only way of ensuring life carried on normally after independence. For instance, in 1922, the Irish Free State adopted all laws bequeathed to it by the Westminster Parliament to be effective in the newly-independent country and enforced by its institutions. The alternative would have been an impossible legal vacuum.  India did likewise when the British Raj came to an end in 1947.

While it may go against the grain still to be reliant on laws bequeathed by the authority you have just shaken off, as an independent country you will be in a position to revise or repeal them at a later date if you don’t like them. Even though there is more time to prepare for Brexit than the very hasty British withdrawal from India, however, negotiating independence will be a massive undertaking. As far as the mechanisms for day-to-day administration of the UK are concerned, it is therefore best to let sleeping dogs lie during the period immediately after independence.  The EU (Withdrawal) Bill seeks to do just that. Some EU legislation is actually very sensible. An independent UK would probably have passed a very similar act to the Bathing Water Directive. It is therefore likely that this piece of EU-inspired legislation will continue as UK law more or less unaltered for the foreseeable future.

On the other hand, some EU laws do not suit the UK and would better be replaced by new domestic legislation. Take the Landfill Directive which was brought in because Denmark and Holland, two small flat countries, had run out of holes in which to bury their domestic waste.  The UK, with its quarrying industry, does not suffer from this problem, but the requirement to comply with this directive has resulted in the erection of smelly incinerators.  In due course, we can rid ourselves of unhelpful legislation like this.

Likewise, the Interoperability Directives,  which set the rules for the registration of newly-built railway rolling stock, are unnecessarily complicated for well over 95% of the trains running in the UK because they were designed to make it easy for trains to cross international borders. Given the UK’s island location, the Eurostar services, car, coach and lorry shuttles through the Channel tunnel, international freight trains and the handful of through Belfast-Dublin passenger trains (Currently eight in each direction on weekdays and five on Sundays) are the only rail services ever likely to cross international boundaries. We could replace it with something much simpler for the benefit of most UK domestic rail operators.

At the end of the day, however, if it takes a couple of years before Parliament has the time to look at replacing these less-than-ideal pieces of legislation with something better, the sky is not going to fall in if we still abide by them post-Brexit. What really matters is that on 29th March 2019, we don’t wake up to a huge legal vacuum where areas of our life as a nation are completely unregulated because the EU treaties no longer have any force.

This, then, is the rationale behind the EU (Withdrawal) Bill. In the next article, I will address an obvious concern that sharp-eyed readers may have spotted. Taking again our “Cuddly Toy Sheep” Regulation 1462/2006 as an example, it clearly cannot be transferred onto the UK  statue books verbatim. It is no longer a Regulation deriving its power from the EU treaties so any reference to the Commission or to Council Regulations and other EU legislation will need to be re-worded. Then there is the phrase “Member States”. This again will need to be changed in the “repatriated” version or it won’t make any sense.  You would think that it ought to be a simple job using certain formulae to make the necessary corrections in regulation after regulation without altering the provisions of the original EU law beyond limiting its scope to the UK, but in reality life isn’t quite that simple…………………