Written By Bryan Gould
For the Polly Toynbees of this world, the battle continues, though quite what victory might look like for them is not clear. We can only assume that, having done all they could, as the exit process took place, to predict Brexit doom, they are now pulling out the stops to try to ensure that their predictions are validated and justified.
Now that the UK is no longer a member of the EU, they have changed their focus. They now profess to see a myriad of obstacles standing in the way of a sensible and mutually beneficial trading arrangement between the EU and a newly independent UK. So, both British remainers and EU leaders to some extent, prepare to “cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war”.
What they do not seem to have grasped is that the bargaining position of the parties has changed fundamentally in light of the British departure. The UK and the EU are both now sovereign entities; whatever the obligations that might have been owed by one to another in an earlier relationship are now consigned to history.
The UK is fully able and entitled to approach negotiations on a new trade deal, unencumbered by any concern for customs unions and single markets or any other EU preoccupation. And the EU, as would be the case in a negotiation with any other sovereign country, has no power to insist that acceptance of the rules enjoined by either or both a single market and a customs union, is the pre-condition of a trade agreement.
The extent to which such preoccupations are implicit in the EU negotiating position is a matter for the parties to decide once the negotiations are under way, but they cannot be treated ab initio as an immutable feature of the negotiating landscape, as some seem to favour. The UK is no longer subject to the obligations of EU membership – that was the whole point of Brexit.
It would be a major departure from normal practice if a trading partner were required by the EU, as part of the deal, to comply with EU domestic laws – not only existing laws but laws made in the future as well – that would dictate to that trading partner what it could or could not do in matters of its own domestic economic and industrial policy.
If any such an ambition lurks in the EU negotiating position, then the EU should get over themselves. They no longer hold the trump cards; the UK is no longer subject to their jurisdiction. The EU have no choice but to enter the negotiations as anyone else would do – seeking the best possible and most beneficial trade outcomes for themselves, and using such cards as they hold in order to secure that outcome.
They are, in other words, in no different a situation from that of the UK. Like the EU, the British have no power to lay down compliance with their domestic laws as the pre-condition of a trade deal. The extent to which the British might comply with any specific EU preferences is a matter for negotiations yet to be held.
There is one other sense in which the situation has changed fundamentally. The British are no longer demandeurs or supplicants. They enter the negotiations like any other negotiator, and like the EU, eager to protect and further their own interests and to arrive at a deal that suits all parties.
There seems to be no reason why negotiations entered into on this basis should not produce an outcome that is acceptable to everyone.
Bryan Gould writes : “the EU should get over themselves. They no longer hold the trump cards; the UK is no longer subject to their jurisdiction.”….
But our Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently got Theresa May’s misnamed Withdrawal Agreement through the House of Commons. Only the Protocol on Northern Ireland is significantly changed in his so-called New Withdrawal Treaty.
It is plain as a pikestaff that the law of the European Union overrules British law in this new Withdrawal Treaty (Article 4). And the Court of Justice of the EU resolves any disputes over the interpretation and/or application of the Treaty (Article 174). EU law binds future British Parliaments, and compels British judges to strike down laws passed by the British Parliament, if the Court of Justice of the EU finds those laws at variance with the Treaty (Articles 4, 87 & 89).
So the New Withdrawal Treaty, signed by Boris Johnson, has ensured that Britain will still be subject to the jurisdiction of the European Union.
In order to make our negotiating position clearer I have written a petition and would like as much support as possible from all your readers. I have pointed out that the EU has intentionally screwed the UK for all it can get even planning this before we joined! So, please sign and give me your support. Many thanks.
I just signed the petition “Parliament: No More Money for the EU!” and wanted to see if you could help by adding your name and circulating this petition as widely as possible.
Our goal is to reach 100,000 signatures and we need more support. You can read more and sign the petition here:
http://chng.it/2YHjDDMjwv
Regards and Thanks!
Jeremy
It is admirable that a view held to, cannot be changed in an individual, if that individual is certain that he or she is right ! – Care should be taken however, if the ‘organisation’ holding such a view that has been defeated Nationally, takes actions that subverts the National decision. – That would be anti-democratic, but would also be subversive to the Nation’s good, and might have to receive legal correction and discipline. – This should be a warning to the wise, delivered in good time !
As for the negotiations with the EU. – We are now at an end of our membership of the EU, so it is fatuous for them to even try to dictate how the negotiations ‘will proceed’! – If they are unable to grasp this fact, them why wait till the end of this year ? – Mutual benefits will be lost to the EU’s stupidity, and we are going to be too busy to keep this nonsense ticking over for no good purpose ! – We should leave the EU to talk to themselves, and without any further ‘financial adjustments’ on our part !
Absolutely spot-on Mike !
First things first, welcome back Viv and all the team I was beginning to think conspiracy theories were at play. I agree with all of the above and believe WTO would be the least disruptive and easier to manage right now. All deals could be negotiated at leisure afterwards. Watch the EU come running to the negotiating table.
I’ve been wondering how long it would take for Boris Johnson to show his true colours: have a look.
“Delingpole: We Won the Battle but Lost the War – Boris Unleashes Green Hell on Post-Brexit Britain”
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/02/06/delingpole-boris-unleashes-green-hell-on-post-brexit-britain/
Peter Hitchens’ take on Bojo’s election victory
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/01/goodbye-to-the-european-union
I have just got home and have not had time to read Bryan Gould’s article above. But from the comments on it he seems to be saying that the UK government is free to do whatever it wants over Brexit. But Boris Johnson has signed the Withdrawal Agreement & Political Declaration. The Withdrawal Agreement takes the process of withdrawal out of Boris Johnson’s hands and gives control of that process to a Joint Committee that overrules the British government (Article 166 clause 2). And meets in private (Annex Vlll clause 10). That private Committee is at work now, as the Withdrawal Agreement is now in force. The Political Declaration commits Britain to “deep regulatory and customs cooperation” (paragraph 21). In other words Britain will not be leaving the EU Customs Union, and that’s just the start. The Withdrawal Agreement & Political Declaration ensure that Britain will be a captive colony of the EU. Boris Johnson has succeeded where Theresa May failed.
Ralph, how about this scenario? Given that we are not to know who is on the Joint Committee (JC), where and when they meet or what their decisions are, and presumably any matter referenced to the ECJ as final arbiter if required also secret, are we being governed now and since 1Feb 2020 by the JC and possibly the ECJ?
The only visible evidence of the workings of the JC is, and will be, what BoJo’s “decisions”are. He appears to be wobbling all over the place on previous pledges, promises great ideas and so on, is he already just the ball in a big EU pinball machine?
Further Dom seems to be losing out continuously to Carrie, is he just being tolerated as in “keep your enemies closer”? Given the reported hostlity of Dom to Farage this may also be a bonus in putting “Farage back in his box”.
What are the chances of a Tory leadership challenge after say July and a proper remainer installed in No 10, job done Tory party saved (at least for nearly 5 years a long time in politics), extension after extension, alignment everywhere and like the iceberg most of it unseen, and then re-absorption.
It was a gamble giving Johnson the power, but it seemed we had not much choice , but I’m wondering now if the shock of a naked Marxist government would have been preferable.
I think we have been conned, none more so than Farage.
Jim, clause 2 of Article 166 in the New Withdrawal Treaty says that the decisions of the Joint Committee “are binding” on the Union and the UK. So since 1st February the Joint Committee which is run by the Court of Justice (Article 174) is quietly governing the UK. We are now discreetly ruled by the JC & CJEU. As usual our elected leaders pass off the decisions of unelected bureaucrats as their own. So Boris Johnson has now backed HS2, which is part of the pipedream Jacques Delors had in Brussels back in 1993 of a Trans European Railway Network (TERM).
“There seems to be no reason why negotiations entered into on this basis…”
We might persuade Boris of that but I think trying to get the EU to accept it is simply not possible. Better we leave on WTO and let them stew whilst we look to source necessary imports elsewhere. Only then will they come to the negotiating table without their ridiculous demands.