Written by Ben Habib MEP
This article was first published in BrexitCentral and we republish with their and the author’s kind permission.
~~~ *** ~~~
There is an understandable desire amongst many Brexiteers to accept Boris Johnson’s deal. Everyone is battle weary, but it is precisely at this point that Brexiteers must be resolute. This is no time for political expediency.The EU wants the UK to remain in its union. It has, for the last three years, waged a guerrilla war to subvert the result of the referendum. The only deal it was prepared to sign with Theresa May was one which delivered the UK into vassalage – a term coined by Johnson, even though he voted for it on its third presentation.
With the passing of the Benn Act, rightly named the Surrender Act by Johnson because it took No Deal off the table, there was no incentive for the EU to agree any genuine betterment to May’s deal – and, as you would expect, the changes that Johnson achieved were not a material betterment.Indeed, Northern Ireland, from at least a regulatory and trading perspective, would be left behind in the EU. The new Northern Ireland protocol would theoretically bring Northern Ireland into the UK’s new customs area but, in all practical aspects, leaves it within the EU’s Customs Union. The net effect would be that Northern Ireland would be subject to swathes of EU laws, including full regulatory alignment and with the European Court of Justice (ECJ) as its supreme court. There would be a border down the Irish Sea. This is envisaged to be a permanent arrangement, terminable only by a democratic vote, to be taken at four year intervals in Stormont or by some other method. Whilst this might be democratic, the divisions and acrimony these ongoing votes are likely to cause would be awful for the people of Northern Ireland. The UK would not be leaving the EU whole and intact.
There are no other substantive changes to May’s Withdrawal Agreement. Everything that was bad about it before remains bad: the up-front payment of £39 billion (which in all likelihood will now be more like £64 billion plus a contingent liability of up to €500 billion under the UK’s joint and several guarantee of the European Investment Bank), the UK being stuck in the Single Market and EU’s Customs Union, subject to all its existing and new laws through the transition period with no say and no veto and no ability to enter into new trade deals – for however long the transition might last – which in all likelihood would be until at least December 2022. And some of the provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement go on for years after the transition.
Some changes have been made to the Political Declaration which sets out the framework for the UK’s future relationship with the EU. Before going into these it is important to note that Article 184 of the Withdrawal Agreement commits both the UK and EU to use best endeavours to give effect to the terms of the Political Declaration. And because the Withdrawal Agreement is subject to EU law, it is the ECJ that would determine whether or not this best endeavours undertaking had been fulfilled.
The Political Declaration is not just a wish list – it has bite. Once we sign the Withdrawal Agreement we will no doubt sign up to a new Free Trade Agreement incorporating the terms of the Political Declaration. The negotiations leading to that Free Trade Agreement are bound to be protracted and that is why I am certain the transition period would not end before December 2022 (the extended date provided in the Withdrawal Agreement).
However, most provisions of the original Political Declaration have followed through into Johnson’s Political Declaration and these are deal breakers. I have set out some of these below but this is most certainly not an exhaustive list.
- The UK is bound to operate a regulatory “level playing field” with the EU (para 77 amongst others). This, together with Northern Ireland’s commitment to regulatory alignment, would neuter the UK’s ability to compete as an independent nation and would make establishing new trade deals problematic. The President of the USA was absolutely right when he cited this difficulty.
- The UK would be bound to align itself with EU state aid, competition, employment, environmental and tax laws, to name a few other obligations. These too serve to neuter the UK’s ability to freely govern itself.
- The UK would be obliged, to the extent possible, to cooperate with EU defence projects and military inter-operability (para 102). No sovereign state could agree to such commitments, which would be made under EU law and subject to ECJ supremacy. The fact that military cooperation features in what should purely be a trade deal informs you that the Political Declaration is about a great deal more than just trade.
- Of totemic importance, the UK would have to go on making available access to its territorial waters for EU member states’ fishing (para 73). British coastal communities have been terribly badly damaged by the over-fishing of our waters by these states and the practice has to be stopped.
- There are no stated termination provisions in the Political Declaration for these future arrangements which would be implemented as a treaty. In the absence of express termination provisions, terminating treaties must be undertaken in accordance with the Vienna Convention of 1969. The grounds for doing so pursuant to that convention are extremely narrow, potentially committing the UK to this new treaty in perpetuity.
The Prime Minister did well to get the EU to reopen the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration to allow some changes. But the changes made potentially sacrifice Northern Ireland, bind the UK into the orbit of the EU subject to a great many of its regulations and laws, commits our military and does not take back control of our territorial waters. It is not Brexit.
We in the Brexit Party cannot stand by while there is a risk of this treaty being signed. We have no desire to split the Leave vote but the Tories, under this deal, do not represent a Leave option. We shall fight on for Brexit through this election and beyond if needs be.
I’ve read this before and it is worrying – but we know the EU regularly bend their own rules – so why shouldn’t we after signing this treaty? The bit about the Vienna Convention – well if it is illegal in international law to simply break treaties, so what. The Republics trapped in the USSR did it. If we have to so will we. Our fishing waters – I’m not sure how we will get them back but I am sure it will be possible somehow. The EU are destroying the ocean bed and depleting stocks. They are breaking their own and international laws.
Basically, things EU are saying now – they did not re-open May’s WA for instance, no deal is not off the table – The EU is frightened of Boris. That is a very good reason in my book for accepting it’s the best we can do at the moment.
You’ve gotta be kidding. Boris’ deal like May’s is designed to have us back in the EU in a decade either by the back door or the front – its a fudge. Thinking that we take his deal on the basis that the political establishment can ‘bend the rules’ to completely extricate ourselves is folly of huge proportions – more like the establishment will bend the rules to bounce us back in.
I fail to see the parallel of Britain fight to become independent and that of the satellite states of the USSR. Most of the Eastern European countries wanted to be in the EU whilst we want to be out.
Well Pauline, judging by the delight of the EU, the hugging and kissing when presented with Boris’s deal, it hardly looks as though they are frightened of him, rather that they are delighted with Betrayal Mark II.! The deal is not even offering crumbs of hope to a betrayed Nation; instead we are being given a bucket load of sewage. What on earth makes you think that the corrupt EU and a corrupt Parliament will ever behave honourably given their previous form? A Parliament full of Remainers will never be complicit in our escape, but will obfuscate into eternity and our EU decimated Fishing Industry will finally be annihilated during the transition period.
If Boris signs his Vassalage Treaty, there is then no mechanism in international law for the UK to leave this Treaty unilaterally and lawfully. If it unlawfully (in international law) abrogates the Treaty with the EU, Spain can then unilaterally abrogate the Treaty of Utrecht and seize Gibraltar, and they will have the support of the EU to do so. Ireland could also adopt its own interpretation of the legal situation of Northern Ireland, which is being carved out of the UK by the Vassalage Treaty, and you can bet your bottom dollar they too would have the support of the EU. So what next after that? When state actors unlawfully abrogate treaties, or ignore judgments of the International Court of Justice, the traditional way of resolving such situations has been war – except when one side is militarily vastly superior, in which case it can do what it wants. So the UK’s options at that point will be either continued vassalage or potentially a war of independence, which might restore the said independence, but possibly at the cost of the loss of some territory, like Gibraltar and Northern Ireland. Maybe also Scotland. The disintegrations of the USSR, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia unraveled in different ways. Slovenia, Croatia, etc. which had the constitutional right to secede from Yugoslavia did not fare so well. Czechoslovakia dissolved in a model and peaceful way. The USSR was in between. Which of these outcomes would the unlawful secession of the Vassal EU Territory of the United Kingdom from the EU most closely resemble?
Absolutely agree. Currently we have 100% of nothing in terms of leaving the EU dictatorship. Even if Johnson’s deal gives us 30% it has to be supported. Farage’s decision to field candidates in all constituencies appears to be more about hubris than a genuine desire to get us out from under the EU Jack boot. The Brexit Party may well go down in history as the Party that blocked Brexit by diluting the Leave vote. The GE is just one more battle. The war to have a cleaner break from the EU dictatorship commences during the transition period BUT only if we can take the first step offered by Johnson’s albeit less than perfect deal. Time to grow up Nigel. Are you a serious politician or a showman?
Either there is Brexit or No Brexit, In or Out, no halfway house, no compromise or fudge like this deal. This deal is not Brexit, nowhere near it.
Johnson is the new Ted Heath, remember what Heath told the nation in the 1970’s:
‘No essential loss of sovereignty…’
This is history repeating itself by the Conservatives.When the truth does come out in 5 years, you will feel utterly betrayed.
Don’t let Johnson do a Ted Heath on you.
Lets look at this deal:
1.Taking No Deal of the table (now backtracking),
2. Misleading the DUP at their own conference about no border in the Irish sea.
3. Stating fishing rights return under his deal, when they do not.
4.Misleading NI businesses claiming they could trade freely to the mainland (they can’t, a customs declaration has to be done).
5.Annexing NI to the EU and breaking the GFA in the process.
6.Reinstating the Brexit wrecker Tory MPs.
7. More cooperation to EU defence (and UK military deployed on EU operations).
8. Continued free movement for another 3 years.
.
Johnson and his Party did/will do those very things if this deal goes through.
Under your 30% logic, would you buy a 30% built car or house? After all, technically, they are indeed a car or house the fact neither are actually functioning does not matter right? Of course you wouldn’t, and the same should apply to Johnson’s treaty (which is 95% of Mays deal).
There are only three choices on this election menu:
1. Associate EU Membership by stealth.
2. Remain
3. Really leaving the EU
You won’t find option #3 BTW on the Conservative Party menu…..but you will find they offer option #1….
Absolutely right. Johnson might as well be Heath reincarnated.
Of course most of us would prefer to have a clean break. The current Parliament and our traitorous Civil Servants have betrayed the people. All parties unanimously agreed to give the people a referendum, all parties agreed to honour the result of the referendum, all parties and a majority of MPs have lied and betrayed the people. But we are where we are. The GE is just another battle. It is not even the beginning of the end of the war to wrench back democracy from the EU dictatorship. There will be a transition period if Johnson’s deal takes us out of the EU on 31st January. There will be many more battles in the next two years before this war is won or lost. This is not the time for hubris and showmanship. It is the time for realpolitik. We do not hold the high ground and if we attempt to go to war to regain democracy at this stage we will lose. No question about it. So all Brexiteers should be making peace with Johnson whilst preparing for war. If NF doesn’t understand these facts he is not fit to lead Brexiteers in any party. He has done more than most to bring us this close to Brexit but he should understand that he doesn’t have the right to pursue a strategy which could take away all the gains he has achieved. Nigel, it’s time to grow up. We all admire what you have achieved to date but if you dilute the Leave vote by pushing ahead with your current proposal to contest all or most seats at the upcoming GE you will be rightly condemned by all true democrats. We may even begin to wonder whether you are a Remain Fifth Columnist. It’s all about perception Nigel and currently many perceive you as an obstacle to our winning the war against that bunch of dictators in Brussels.
“The EU is frightened of Boris.” I don’t think they are frightened of him or he of them. They all have very similar goals. ‘The project’. In simple terms, they are mates, Something is rotten and if we don’t escape their clutches well be in a hell of a state, Denmark included.
Oh and Jeffery Epstein didn’t commit suicide.
Is it permissible to share Ben Habib’s article?
No, not from this site. You would have to ask BrexitCentral for permission to re-publish.
Whilst I greatly appreciate the time and effort Nigel Farage is spending on his quest for a clean Brexit by traveling the country to promote The Brexit Party, is it not equally as important for men such as Mr Habib to be heard – and others who are equally as able, of which we have many?
The general and current voting public are notorious for having extremely short attention spans – and constantly seek ‘new’ slants on even the most vital of subjects – more especially these days in regard to politics and the decisions made by the current untrustworthy clowns we have had in Parliament.
Nigel is a good orator – and has a ready wit, but we also require a more diverse and more detailed and encompassing warning to the voters of our country, so that they can see that behind Nigel is a team of supremely competent and wise men and women who are lending their support in his, and our, quest for independence and freedom from the yoke of the EU.
Should anyone have personal acces to Mr Farage, I beg them to implore Mr Farage to give the public the opportunity to hear others within the Party who can eloquently, and as eloquently as himself, put our case for a clean break, and who can explain the many dangers to our country in remaining within this failing Organisation. Also, while this is not entirely in the hands of the EU, we simply cannot suffer the influx of a quarter of a million immigrants per year forever – this uncontrollable ‘invasion’ must be ended – and soon. We have a finite amount of space, a dreadful shortage of reasonably affordable housing. Our Education system, mainly in the case of early schooling, is at breaking point. And of course we must end the regular misuse of our Health Service which clearly requires a complete, root and branch, overhaul.
I am rambling! But we must give the public a more colourful and greater vision of how successful we WILL be once we strike out and grasp this last opportunity we may ever have, to ride on a flood tide to independent success in the greater world. We are more able than any other Nation to influence politics and trade into the twenty-first’ and twenty-second century – but we need courage and total commitment to do so.
Ben here’s some detail on ‘territorial waters’ from “Will Manifestos Deliver on the Acid Test of Brexit” Nov 6.
This is massive. Thousands of future jobs for people who don’t want to be bankers, livelihoods, all around the coasts of Britain depend on this small detail. If we get our fishing back, all of it, it would be politically impossible to later return to what we hope will soon become the bad old days of the EU.
The UK joined the CFP in 1973, just before fishing limits were extended to 200nm or the mid-line in 1976.
Therefore, the UK has an EEZ out to 200nm or the med-line, but, due to subcontracting control to Brussels under the CFP have been denied the ability to exercise control over these waters – the UK has only exercised sovereign control over the waters within our territorial sea out to 12nm
This peculiar word choice – why not simply say all waters – means the words were deliberately and intentionally chosen. At that time alarm bells rang that the upper echelons of Conservative high command had no intention of properly taking back control of British fishing – proven by the subsequent performance of the May government.