Sir John Redwood is the author of this Open Letter.
This Open Letter was published yesterday in Sir John Redwood’s Diary and we re-publish it because he repeatedly told readers that this letter was available for reproduction and republication.
Letter to the Attorney General about the legal impact of signing the wrongly named Withdrawal Treaty
Dear Geoffrey
Let me have another go at getting a reply from you concerning the way the Withdrawal Agreement stops us leaving the EU. Would you kindly confirm
1 If we sign this Treaty we will be locked into the EU and have to obey all its rules and pay all the bills it sends us for a period of at least 21 months, and probably for 45 months if we have not surrendered further to reach an exit agreement at the 21 month stage. This would mean remaining in the EU for at least 5 years from the decision to leave and probably for 7 years. The EU would be able to legislate and spend against UK interests during this period, whilst we would have no vote or voice in the matter.
2 In order to “leave” in your terms at the 5 to 7 year stage the UK will need to stay in the customs union and accept all single market rules and laws, unless the EU relented over the alleged Irish border issue. 3 years on and the EU has given no ground on the made up border issue, so why would they over the next two years? Isn’t the most likely outcome we would remain in the single market and customs union contrary to the government promise leaving meant leaving them in its referendum literature ?
3 After the 45 month period fully in the EU, the UK still would face financial obligations under the Withdrawal Treaty. The bills will be decided by the EU and we will have to pay them. Any attempt to query them would be adjudicated by the EU’s own court! The longer we stay in the more the future bills are likely to be. The £39 bn figure is likely to be a considerable underestimate.
4 The Treaty creates a category of super citizen in the UK. EU nationals living in the UK when we “leave” the EU will have their access to benefits guaranteed in a way the rest of us do not for their entire lifetimes. So we will not be taking back control of our benefit system.
I am also concerned about a number of Articles in the draft Treaty that expressly extend EU powers and jurisdiction for a further 4 to 8 years beyond our departure date after the 21 to 45 month delay.
Article 5 reintroduces the powers of the European Court and enforces “sincere co-operation ” on us as they do not want us impeding their plans for economic, monetary and political union.
Article 31 imposes social security co-ordination on us.
Article 39 gives special protection to EU citizens currently living in the UK from changes to social security for the whole of their lives, protection which the rest of us do not enjoy.
Article 51 applies parts of the VAT regime for an additional 5 years after the long transition envisaged in the Treaty
Articles 92-3 imposes the EU state aids regime on the UK for 4 years beyond transition
Article 95 imposes binding decisions by EU quangos and bodies for 4 years beyond transition
Article 99 requires us to pay for access to records to handle issues over indirect tax where the EU keeps powers for 4 years beyond transition
Article 127 applies the whole panoply of EU law throughout transition, including the right to legislate any way they wish against our interests and enforce it on us via the ECJ
Article 130 prevents us taking back control of our fish any time soon. Doubtless more of our fishing rights would be given away trying to get an exit deal.
Article 135 allows them to send extra bills up to the end of 2028
Article 140 imposes on us financial liabilities up to December 2020 and carry over into 2021
Articles 144 and 150 prevent us getting back accumulated reserves and profits from our European Investment Fund and EIB shareholdings
Article 143 imposes adverse conditions on us over pension and loan liabilities of the Union
Article 155 requires to make continuing payments to Turkey under an EU programme after we have left
Article 158 gives the European Court continuing power for 8 years after transition
Article 164 makes a Joint Committee an effective legislator and government over us
Article 174 requires any arbitration to be governed by ECJ judgements on the application of law in disputes
The Protocol on Northern Ireland will require us to stay in the Customs Union with regulatory and legal alignment with the single market, or split off a separate place called UK (NI) which will be governed differently to the rest of the UK on an island of Ireland basis.
There is much more I could object to. This is no Treaty to take back control, no Treaty for a newly independent nation. It does not quantify the financial liabilities, which are open ended and could be much larger than the low field £39bn Treasury estimate. We have little power to abate the bills and no power to abort the bills. It would probably result even in failure to take back control of our fishing grounds.
Mrs May needs to go back to the EU and explain why the UK people and Parliament have opposed this Treaty, and ask them to think again if they want an agreement before we leave. She needs to make it clear we now intend to leave without signing the Withdrawal Agreement prior to the European Parliamentary elections.
Yours
John Redwood
(Viv is ill so there won’t be the usual “YOUR DAILY BREXIT BETRAYAL” column today)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_local_elections
Treason May’s ‘deal’ is actually Merkel’s ‘deal’.
https://independencedaily.co.uk/a-german-brexit-a-scandal-of-subversive-statecraft/
Hence the reason May is so desperate to keep it alive and force it through Wasteminster.
One should not forget that May effectively ‘signed’ the deal before she had Parliament’s agreement, so sure she was of getting it through Wasteminster.
It’s certainly not any kind of “withdrawal agreement”. You can’t really call it a ‘deal’ either.
It’s a treaty, that essentially is a ‘renegotiation’ of our present terms of membership of the EU.
The only way we are actually going to leave is if we just ‘leave’ without agreeing this wretched ‘agreement’. Once we have left, with a friendly handshake and best wishes, then we’ll see how quickly the EU start becoming more sensible with regards to trade deals.
Sorry Stuart can’t agree with the “friendly” bit that’s where May went wrong initially even mentioning that word to a gang of cut throats.
Trump got it right “she didn’t go in hard enough” – too right she didn’t, she had capitulated as soon as she started. -probably deliberately so, as this article suggested.
It should be remembered “grass roots” are rebel street fighters engaged in a war with an enemy who gives no quarter, we are fightingA for our sovereignty , our birthright and our political life.
Treasona May = THE worst prime minister and so-called negotiator in the long history of once Great Britain…the sooner she is history, the better, by far, for the indigenous people of our under siege country.
Super citizens indeed!
Thats anyone from an EU country already here or on their way plus their relatives and even those offspring not born yet. I don’t think anyone voted leave to protect the rights of EU nationals above the rights of British people.
This is obviously the EU’s very first offer, and they expected it to be rejected, and is the first offer we should have rejected within a month of sending the Art 50 letter. Mrs May is hanging on as long as possible to get us back in, just to avoid this crap. And that is what it is .
And the longer it takes for Mrs May to reach agreement with the EU. The more of our money can be poured back into Grants, bribes and subsidiesWhich we gaveout longbefore the EU.
It should be remembered that this is at least the third time the EU has done this. The EU is a civil service governed entity and therefore has the steps choreographed and already on file.. We the UK only have unearned arrogance.
The annoying arroganceof our government in even showing us, is blinding. And shows us what they, Mrs May, and our civil servants think of us.We still have not even passed Stage 1..
,
I do hope Viv makes a good recovery. Health must come first.
There is no doubt that the Withdrawal Agreement is a betrayal of Brexit and a humiliation of the British people. This is not an negotiated agreement it is a capitulation, surrender and treason.
If that is seen and understood (not very difficult) what then does it say about those who have eventually voted to accept it on its THIRD vote? There may be excuses given and weasel words to confuse but the reality is that ALL those who have voted for this Treaty are either fickle and thick at best or deceitful and treacherous at worse.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/03/why-resentfully-i-would-vote-for-mays-deal.html
It really will not wash! John Redwood’s letter has to be circulated. He, and many others, have given us all the ammunition we need. To package this letter in a Leaflet will open peoples eyes.
And the fact that our Gov’t Newspapers, MPs, MEP,s,, TPTB, Anybody seems to have got away with, is not reasoning that it was the first offer.and meant to be rejected instantly.
I know ’cause it’s exactly what I would do.
And done what I would have done sent the dimmest person I could find, one with surly blank peasant face, to negotiate without any powers., but a nice chap..But all this is only first phase. It’s pitiful UKIP hasnt noticed, I first pointed it out in 2016. This shows the pitiful calibre of our side from UKIP to Mrs May.
Also as I recall, the first thing Mrs May agreed to was that the laws governing the process of Art 50 were thase of the EU.
I agree that it needs to be circulated but we face a cabal of uninformed remainers who will either discard it without reading, simply too thick to understand it or indoctrinated beyond the point of no return.
It makes me rather sick to hear of people complaining about certain inadequacies in the UKIP Website. For God’s sake – our blo-dy country is at stake!!!
Ask yourselves what YOU are contributing.
To coin a phrase – (and by doing so risking general derision)
“Ask not what UKIP can do for you – ask what YOU can do for UKIP”
Mealy mouthed complainers will not save this country from the “hell” of the EU.
Men such as Gerard Batten, who ‘put their money where their mouth is’ are the ones who might just save our United Kingdom – Men of the calibre of Sir John Redwood, who daily risk the scorn of cowardly, negative ‘progressives’ and work-shy ‘students’ – who give NOTHING and take everything they can lay their hands on.
So – you want clarification of ‘this’, ‘that’
Just do ONE thing – read the UKIP Manifesto!
“This leader, that leader, he said, she said, if’s, but’s maybe’s – totally irrelevant.
As my favourite Duke once said “Get your finger out…”.
I was a supporter of Farage soon after I heard him pontificating and defending UKIP’s stance.
Then he was ‘in’ the leadership, then he was ‘out’ of leadership – then in, out, shake it all about – THEN he finally left and profited socially via his early support of President Trump.
A bit of a ‘Jack-in-the-box’ don’t you think?
Every branch of our sick media is trying to pull us down to their own cowardly level – every self-centred, expense bending Politician ( and there are hundreds of those who have been exposed) is dithering and conspiring just to protect their own over-blown salaries. But the real true-Brits of this country are those who keep faith in our great ability to continue to speak the truth – to maintain their belief in our inherent power of self preservation and basic British ‘common sense’ fast being eroded and weakened by opportunistic, takers, not givers – who are currently debasing our great country.
Have faith and believe – WE CAN and MUST leave this mish-mash of selfish European Uncivil Servants.
This time may NEVER come again – “Once more unto the breach dear friends – Once more!” Now – if your are a real Brit, the full meaning of that ‘charge’ will make full sense to you. God speed!
The website, as the public face of UKIP, is important. Also reading between the lines in other material in the public domain, the whole approach to the necessary systems to manage memberships and suchlike, is both amateurish and insecure.
This is not an uncommon problem but we are entitled to expect better. As ever it is difficult to get organisations to accept the need for change.
As for GB I believe that he has done a good job but the decision to co-opt TR (and others) should not have been taken before analysis of the likely outcome and management approval. Maybe a “dry run” of media appearances could be organised to address any weaknesses before going live?