-
"prevent the UK being pursued for years in the ECJ" in other words.... cherry picking.
The EJC mediates trade AND the citizen rights agreement. This all came up years ago, the EU said no to a separate court and it would mean the same, under another name.
Whatever flavour they put on it, or law they change, they can't just sneakily try to work around prevention of goods dumping in Ireland over the NI border.
And that means playing chicken with Ireland over an actual hard border and the optics and practicality of that are....not good. "Oh Ireland if you do it YOU break the GFA" 🙄
Though renaming/rewriting may be an easier sell to the "sovereignty" crowd,this is just a way to make yourself look untrustworthy as hell.
Now I have to say I honestly don't understand the intricacies of the legality of this. Perhaps it needs done, in a hush hush way the EU can trust enough to look the other way.
But doing it like this, wow, and now Biden is firing warning shots.
You are reading a single comment by @JWestland and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
JWestland
My point wasn't clear. The amendments to UK law would normally breach art 27 of the VLCT but in the case of the Withdrawal agreement it could be argued that the VLCT does not apply to treaties involving the EU.
The UK has already left the EU. The Withdrawal agreement contains a number of legal traps which give the ECJ authority after December. I think the amendments are an attempt to prevent UK judges continuing to follow the development of the Factortame case, and to prevent the UK being pursued for years in the ECJ.
The Factortame case and its development in UK law are the reverse example of how long it will take the UK to extricate itself from EU law. It took years to establish the limits of EU law in the UK and it will take years to remove.