Sorry but I at least quoted WA previously, for example in post #2047 to demonstrate you were wrong with the PESCO
That PESCO you think I’m am wrong.......PESCO is built into the frame work of the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Common Security and Defence Policy, and is mentioned in both the WA and PD was meant to begin in the transition period time frame of the WA. Do you really think once it has started in the transition period it would be dropped in the future relationship....come on who’s being naive
From the WA
PART FOUR TRANSITION
2. In the event that the Union and the United Kingdom reach an agreement governing their future relationship in the areas of the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Common Security and Defence Policy which becomes applicable during the transition period, Chapter 2 of Title V of the TEU and the acts adopted on the basis of those provisions shall cease to apply to the United Kingdom from the date of application of that agreement.
And the PD
104. The future relationship should benefit from research and industrial cooperation between the Parties' entities in specific European collaborative projects to facilitate interoperability and to promote joint effectiveness of Armed Forces. In this regard, while both Parties should preserve their respective strategic autonomy and freedom of action underpinned by their respective robust domestic defence industrial bases, the Parties agree to enable to the extent possible under the conditions of Union law:
a. the United Kingdom's collaboration in relevant existing and future projects of the European Defence Agency (EDA) through an Administrative Arrangement;
b. the participation of eligible United Kingdom entities in collaborative defence projects bringing together Union entities supported by the European Defence Fund (EDF); and
c. the United Kingdom's collaboration in projects in the framework of Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), where invited to participate on an exceptional basis by the Council of the European Union in PESCO format.
Or in 1925 after your caricature of the backstop exit mechanism
All the EU has to show during arbitration at the ECJ that it acted in good faith and best endeavours under EU law. How you could say they are not complying with the provision as the analysis suggests is impossible.
But hey, feel free continue enjoying the spoon fed unicorn balls shaped in legal words from guys like this Martin Howe if you think it makes you understand something on this matter.
I don’t know about you, but I would take the analysis on the legality of the WA from someone who is a Queen's Counsel in the field of intellectual property and EU law over a Journalist and his Twitter account
This paper gives an overview on the legalities on the WA”, seriously
Well if you think you are more qualified, please list your experiences dealing with EU law at the CJEU, least I don’t pretend to know more than a QC
the thing[ ]wants an international arbitration for a bill incurred under EU law
The whole intent of the referenda and invoking Article 50 was that we would be leaving the European Union and become a third nation under the laws of the EU, I know no international trade agreement that willing let’s the other party let their court system become the arbitrator instead of an independent arbitrator. It’s like if the EU/USA concluded a free trade agreement and the EU let the US Supreme Court become the arbitrator, would you do it......
It is also interesting to note that in conclusion the only solution for borders is “temporary agreements on zero tariffs and on regulatory recognition”. Temporary for how long ? What’s happening after ? What about the Irish border ? ….
Really the conclusion is based on no deal exit and that trying to fix the WA is like polishing a turd, you might get it nice and shiny but it’s still a peice of shit. Once we are out of the EU then Negotiations can happen on a level playing field.
Anyway, I didn’t try to persuade you or whatever,
I understood what you where trying to do, but because of the complexity of the situation I think you need to rely on more than a twitter account view point.
The UK-wide backstop secure tariff and quota free access to the SM with few string attached even before negotiations about future relationship begin.
A few strings attached
........more like we were just fitted with a straight jacket and the key thrown away
Truth is EU doesn’t want the backstop to be activated, just as it doesn’t want no deal, as simple as that. Even if you can demonstrate UK could be legally trapped in the backstop that doesn’t have much relevance because EU would want UK out of the backstop ASAP if it were to be activated.
If you really believe that I know of a bridge in Sydney Australia I can sell you!
What would EU seek in maintaining UK in the backstop against its will ( having a workable solution too, of course) anyway ? Wouldn’t this put the EU in an extremely bad light on the international scene ?
I don’t think the perception worries the EU too much as they are getting a lot of bully boy press from the Swiss situation
Leaving aside the nonsense, would it make the trick to extend the Transition Period to give confidence future relationship deal will be reached before backstop kicks in ? After all in the draft version of the WA the Transition Period ended in 20xx, so it must be rather flexible.
In my honest opinion no I just think you are prolonging the uncertainty as either way it dosnt mean anything different from the EU perspective just means more procrastination from the EU for the backstop to be invoked, as I have said numerous times if it came down to a choice of either revoking A50 or accepting the WA I’d vote revoke every day of the week and twice on Sunday. But a choice of the WA or no deal it’s no deal for me even if revoke was on the card