Further comments on Stephen Barclay letter

A couple of correspondents have asked me to provide a more detailed response to  the Barclay letter.

In the main areas his letter confirms what I said about the draft Treaty. He agrees that as long as we are in so called transition the UK is “subject to existing and new rules as if we were members” and pays full budget contributions. I have  always pointed out we lose vote and voice so we are no longer full members with rights, but we would be entirely subject to EU laws, rules and budget requirements. That does not sound like leaving. We then need to negotiate our way out, which according to the government will entail locking us into yet  another EU Treaty to be determined. Its a very expensive invitation to more talks about leaving.

He confirms that the Northern Ireland Protocol  creates different government for Northern Ireland over customs, trade and the single market. Of course he is right if the rest of the UK accepted EU requirements and changes as Northern Ireland would have to we could avoid separation of conditions between NI and the rest of the UK. Again that does not sound like leaving.

He confirms that we will face full budget bills up to the unclear  end of transition and will have further obligations up to 2028. He says the further adjustments made up to 2028 might be downwards, but clearly they could  be upwards from an EU that is cash hungry and inventive on claims.

He suggests £35bn to £ 39 bn is a small sum. I beg to differ. He also concedes this is just an estimate . Given the vagueness of the headings I think it could well be a lot bigger. He concedes the EU has a big role in calculating and sending the  bill and adjudicating disputes.

He doesn’t disagree we have been short changed on the EIB by losing our share of accumulated  reserves.

He agrees we have to meet pension liabilitues and payments to Turkey, but says this is fair.

On individual Articles he usually argues continuing ECJ powers and related matters up to 2028 that I listed relate to matters that occur up to the end of transition. I object to this long tail, providing an enduring opportunity for the  EU to demand more cash or  legal observance because they say something started or occurred before we left. It gives them a lever which could be damaging to us

He agrees the ECJ continues to rule all the time  we are in so called transition. This would  be a binding  Treaty which would greatly reduce our capacity to govern ourselves. There is less disagreement than the general remarks of his letter might suggest. He places  a favourable construction on how the EU would behave if we signed.I think they might push the  clauses against us rather more.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

64 Comments

  1. Lifelogic
    Posted May 18, 2019 at 5:21 am | Permalink

    So why on earth is the government still trying to push this putrid deal through parliament? Indeed why did anyone at all support it in parliament (even at the third attempt)? It is hardly a finely balanced issue. What spineless foolish, lefty, anti-democratic traitors we have in power.

    Has May gone yet? What is she waiting for? She did not wait for the election to finish before she (quite wrongly I think) fired Gavin Williamson just before the local ones. Just go woman before you do any more harm.

    • Paul Cohen
      Posted May 18, 2019 at 5:42 am | Permalink

      It seems that servitude has become addictive.

      • Hope
        Posted May 18, 2019 at 8:26 am | Permalink

        JR, there are some excellent reader comments published in Conservative Woman. It demonstrates quite clearly to me there are many very intelligent people who know the horrors of Mayhabs Vassalage and Accession EU treaty. Mayhab will go if passed knowing the new EU servitude treaty binds her successor whoever that might be and whatever party that might be.

        Why has the 1922 committee not done anything with Mayhab since 29th March 2019, yet it took ten days to get rid of Thatcher deemed the best PM IN IN LIVING MEMORY? At what point will the leaver MPs actually do anything?

        Suggest all Tory associations withdraw support immediately. The parliamentary party are not just ignoring you they are insulting you for daring to speak out! Know your place serfs!

        • jane4brexit
          Posted May 18, 2019 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

          The articles and comments in TCW are excellent and all Conservative MPs would benefit from sitting down with a stiff drink and reading the “Toppling of Theresa: Day __” series and more. They would probably learn a lot, it is Day 44 today:
          https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/?s=The+toppling+of+theresa

        • Lifelogic
          Posted May 18, 2019 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

          Only to replace Thatcher with the truly appalling socialist idiot John (ERM) Major.

      • Fred H
        Posted May 18, 2019 at 8:38 am | Permalink

        Paul….. Barclay showing a hint of enjoying the corporal punishment metered out?

  2. Peter Wood
    Posted May 18, 2019 at 5:29 am | Permalink

    Good Moring,

    What a waste of time (expensive lawyer time!) drafting the full legal text of the May Bill, when it is not going to be approved. Management in government is sadly wanting in this administration.

    • James1
      Posted May 18, 2019 at 6:56 am | Permalink

      “Administration” is far too kind a word for the shambles that Mrs May is running. In earlier times it would probably have been referred to as a Fred Karno Circus. Hopefully the curtain is coming down shortly.

  3. Pominoz
    Posted May 18, 2019 at 5:29 am | Permalink

    Sir John,

    Thank you so much for your further thoughts on this matter which simply seem to confirm what a one-sided agreement it is. How on earth can the PM and Cabinet continue to preach that this is the right way forward. Why tie the Nation’s hands, and commit to such cost, when the alternative is to leave on WTO terms. The future relationship is to be negotiated quite separately whatever has happened to achieve actually leaving. What is the benefit to a sovereign UK of committing to pay billions to a failing Union.

    Quite clearly those currently in charge (but not for long) must have undisclosed reasons, perhaps future perceived personal benefits, not to put the UK and those that live there firmly to the fore. Mrs May must not be allowed to create further mayhem before she goes. Please make sure, along with your colleagues, that the WAB does not pass.

    Trust Friday afternoon went very well.

    • Stred
      Posted May 18, 2019 at 5:49 am | Permalink

      May and Clarke have probably promised the Brino bill to the car makers in 2017 in return for a promise to make some new models here.

      • Tom Weston
        Posted May 18, 2019 at 6:46 am | Permalink

        The car industry contributes 2% of GDP but the press makes it sound as though it is 20% or more.

        • Julie Dyson
          Posted May 18, 2019 at 7:50 am | Permalink

          Don’t they just! Indeed, the economy might very well collapse if they all end up having to pay 10% more for their Mercs.

          Yes, the economy is of concern to just about everybody, but it is not the be all and end all of this debate. It never was to most Leavers, and most Remoaners have been so tainted by Project Fear falsehoods that one could be forgiven for seeing all of their Twitter tantrums in this light.

          The issue is not whether our economy will suffer or grow, and to what extent. The issue is whether we can hold our heads up as a proud, independent, self-governing nation with control of our own money, borders, trade and laws. Even if we slip a few points of GDP for a while.

          This is what Nigel Farage understands, and what most of our politicians and media fail — or simply refuse — to understand.

          So be it.

          • Posted May 18, 2019 at 8:24 am | Permalink

            Very well said, Julie. You speak for many of us. But I don’t think politicians ”fail to understand”. They understand very well, but wish to manipulate.

            It’s been a clever ploy to take many people’s eyes off the ball by making them believe in the end that it’s all about trade. Very clever. Choreographed, one might say… Mm.

          • Fred H
            Posted May 18, 2019 at 8:45 am | Permalink

            Julie…I detect a willingness to accept a small amount of damage for a short period while we set about rebuilding? That is exactly what I hoped the nation could understand and vote for. This reluctance to see the gentle downward slide of most matters within the EU indicates an acceptance of servitude that others here have remarked about. Just recently a poll ( oh God yes another one) produced a view amongst people in Germany, France, Italy and Spain (the key ones) that the EU was likely to break up (I prefer crash!!) within the next 10 to 20 years. The way forward for them was collapse not success.

          • Kevin Lohse
            Posted May 18, 2019 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

            The Remain case is based solely on Marxist materialism with an unhealthy dose of misinterpretation of events. While one can understand the Left accepting the case, any true Conservative would reject it out of hand

    • J Bush
      Posted May 18, 2019 at 6:41 am | Permalink

      Good morning Pominoz

      You refer to ‘undisclosed reasons’. In doing so, you hit the nail firmly on the head.

      It is no wonder Blair tried so hard to remove Treason from the statute. Unfortunately for him (some lawyer!), because of the codicil which links this to another codified statute, all he was able to repeal was the death sentence, It is time to call out these politicians and civil servants who think treason is acceptable, because that is what their action is.

      • Posted May 18, 2019 at 8:35 am | Permalink

        It’s been said before, by someone who saw all this coming (though his wisdom and prescience were clouded by his ”rivers of blood” speech, taken out of context):

        ”All exertion of authority, whether the making or the enforcement of law, the taking of collective decisions of an executive (i.e. not legislable) character, the imposition and collection of taxes, the judgment of causes—in short, all duress brought to bear by the society upon the individual—proceeds from one source, and that source an internal and native one…..

        ”There is a name for appealing over the head of the Crown to an authority outside the realm, and that name is treason. The word may be disused, but the thing is not; and the penalties of praemunire, which those guilty of it formerly incurred, were not disproportionate to its seriousness.”

        Is ”treason” is too strong a word in today’s scenario?

        • Pominoz
          Posted May 18, 2019 at 11:12 am | Permalink

          Not at all, LJ. But be very careful. libertarian and a few others do not like the word, appropriate as it is.

  4. Ian wragg
    Posted May 18, 2019 at 5:33 am | Permalink

    Barclay has gone native. Unlimited money for the EU when every service back home is short. Like Haigh before him he is totally in thrall to Brussels.
    Shysters the lot of them.

    • Ian wragg
      Posted May 18, 2019 at 5:50 am | Permalink

      How come we only have 7% UK employees in Brussels but are liable for 25% of the pension bill.

      • jane4brexit
        Posted May 18, 2019 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

        I knew we had agreed to pay a greater percentage than for our own staff, but not that it was that much more…it is insane! The reason can only be because May and her negotiating team have agreed it, well so far anyway. Gerard Batten quotes the EU saying “It was clearly stated that, ‘the legal obligation to pay the pension of MEPs and Parliament staff falls on the European Union and not the Member States’.” in the article below.

        These pensions have already been paid for by British taxpayers via deductions from staff salaries into the EU Pension Fund and/or later by non-contributory amounts funded by us too, so instead perhaps we should be asking for 25% of the disbanded Pension Fund back. Instead as the WA stands we appear to be paying for them three times. First as the deductions and non-contributory funding mentioned, second with the Withdrawal £39 billion or more and then third by the extended payments until the 2060’s or whenever it is:
        https://gerardbattenmep.co.uk/2017/11/30/mep-pension-fund-why-the-eu-wants-our-50-billion-they-are-taking-the-british-tax-payers-for-mugs/

    • Stred
      Posted May 18, 2019 at 5:58 am | Permalink

      Barkley has gone Barkley and is banking his salary and a cushy job after the local constituency doesn’t want him around.

      • Melvin Cornwell
        Posted May 19, 2019 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

        Stred 5.58am
        Correct. The ‘Barclay Banker’ has betrayed his staunchly Leave constituents here in NE Cambs. The very moment May showed him a bit of ankle (and a fat pay rise, and a free limo), he abandoned his principles without a second glance. Next we know, he is all over the media advocating May’s toxic deal..!!
        We have had one attempt at deselection, and he got off on a technicality. He is umlikely to be lucky a second time… Perhaps we can tempt Stewart Jackson across as an Indie for the next GE… a man who stands by his principles and can’t be bought.

    • Alan Jutson
      Posted May 18, 2019 at 7:00 am | Permalink

      Ian

      Remember Barclay was Mrs May’s Fourth choice for Brexit Secretary.

      That is about all you need to know to make some sense of it all.

      • Fred H
        Posted May 18, 2019 at 8:47 am | Permalink

        Alan….more importantly the first 3 took a look at the job and jumped ship, still trying to wipe the dirt of their hands.

        • Fred H
          Posted May 18, 2019 at 10:29 am | Permalink

          ooops typo s/be off not of.

  5. Adam
    Posted May 18, 2019 at 5:38 am | Permalink

    The EU is a sticky mess of restrictions & expense. We need a clean break to enable us to decontaminate ourselves from the lingering stench of its stagnant incompetence.

    • jane4brexit
      Posted May 18, 2019 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

      The EU rot is contagious and goes deep, we can see that because Mrs. May and others now really seem to believe that instead of resigning, agreeing to talk about resigning at some future unnamed time and date just is as good. Sounds a bit like the WA…

  6. margaret
    Posted May 18, 2019 at 5:44 am | Permalink

    I don’t think being personally rude about any politician helps.The splitting from the EU and trying to take responsibility for lives and business against a backwash of persistent insult must not be easy.
    The longer a clean split is delayed, the more accepting the UK will become in dancing to the tune of the EU and the money which can be extrapolated during the process.

  7. Posted May 18, 2019 at 5:49 am | Permalink

    It confirms in my mind that whoever takes over from May must be prepared to start selling the Leave to WTO rules, offer of a FTA and Art 24 continuation of existing trade in the interim. I say this because it is the only logical course following your unravelling of the WA. Anything better than WTO rules is then in the hands of the EU. As they would be the greatest beneficiaries of a FTA they would be very stupid not to agree one.

    The great benefit of a WTO rules declaration and dismissal of the WA is that it clears the slate for the UK. We start afresh as a sovereign nation with a freedom to trade as we wish. All our problems are in our hands. This is what a new leader must sell. Any conservative member of the HoC who fails to get behind this after next Fridays EU election results is beyond redemption and should lose the whip. Your new leader will need to be firm to brutal in dealing with dissent.

    • Posted May 18, 2019 at 8:43 am | Permalink

      Yes indeed, Agricola. But that ”dealing with dissent” would have to include dissent from civil servants, perhaps more difficult for any career politician.
      It struck me that the new Brexit Party’s people are drawn from real life, who would bring man-management skills to the job. Aren’t they the sort of people we want in our government?

      • Mark
        Posted May 18, 2019 at 11:07 am | Permalink

        They need to find several hundred willing to stand for Parliament who have the necessary abilities and probity – now relatively rare qualities amongst MPs, with exceptions such as our host.

      • mancunius
        Posted May 18, 2019 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

        L.J., They are also the sort of people we need in our civil service, to replace all those malformed by the Gleichschaltung of left-oriented management, H&S and diversity courses that take increasing amounts of working time in the public sector

    • John Hatfield
      Posted May 18, 2019 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

      What are the odds that the new leader will be another Remainer? Odds on I would say.

  8. Nigl
    Posted May 18, 2019 at 5:54 am | Permalink

    Fast and loose with our money, naive re behaviour, just ask the Bank of England about the recent lies and once again highlights Mays dissembling on about almost everything.

    We voted for and deserve better.

    Ps I hope the book signing went well.

  9. Posted May 18, 2019 at 5:54 am | Permalink

    It confirms in my mind that whoever takes over from May must be prepared to start selling the Leave to WTO rules, offer of a FTA and Art 24 continuation of existing trade in the interim. I say this because it is the only logical course following your unravelling of the WA. Anything better than WTO rules is then in the hands of the EU. As they would be the greatest beneficiaries of a FTA they would be very stupid not to agree one.

    The great benefit of a WTO rules declaration and dismissal of the WA is that it clears the slate for the UK. We start afresh as a sovereign nation with a freedom to trade as we wish. All our problems are in our hands. This is what a new leader must sell. Any conservative member of the HoC who fails to get behind this after next Fridays EU election results is beyond redemption and should lose the whip. Your new leader will need to be firm to brutal in dealing with dissent.
    PS
    Captcha is in it’s mindless computer phase yet again.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted May 18, 2019 at 6:55 am | Permalink

      It has been repeatedly pointed out that contrary to Theresa May’s claims there has in fact been one proposal which won majority support in the Commons, and that was the so-called “Brady amendment” under which the Irish backstop would be replaced by “alternative arrangements”:

      https://ukandeu.ac.uk/fact-figures/what-is-the-brady-amendment/

      The reaction from the CBI was distinctly cool:

      https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-no-deal-business-planning-pound-sterling-economy-cbi-warning-a8753636.html

      ““This is another deeply frustrating day for British business,” said CBI director general Carolyn Fairbairn.

      She added that the Brady amendment, which calls for the Irish backstop to be removed from the Brexit deal, “feels like a throw-of-the-dice”.

      “It won’t be worth the paper it is written on if it cannot be negotiated with the EU,” she said. “Any renegotiation must happen quickly – succeed or fail fast.””

      • Hope
        Posted May 18, 2019 at 8:33 am | Permalink

        Great to read your comments again Dennis. Cogent, factual and to the heart of the issue.

        As you pointed out she is a liar and dishonest. She is not going to change at this stage of her life. You would think nineteen twenty two committee would realise by now. Undoubtedly relying that once the EU elections are gone Brexit Party will go quietly.

      • John McHugh
        Posted May 18, 2019 at 10:00 am | Permalink

        The CBI? It is the voice of big, business, the beneficiaries of the Eu protection racket

  10. Oggy
    Posted May 18, 2019 at 6:05 am | Permalink

    The EU have never liked us, they only want our money. They have been asset stripping this country for 40 years, our fish being one example. Why some people want to stay in this hideous club is a mystery to many.
    This WA treaty is just another example of the EU trying to extort money from us. The future relationship yet to be arranged also relies on ‘good faith’, but the EU doesn’t do ‘good faith’.
    You can be certain if this WA was approved the EU would continue to screw money out of us while insisting the French have our fish, Spain gets Gibraltar and Eire gets NI before we are ‘allowed’ out. Who in their right mind could approve such a deal.

    Well it looks like Mrs Mays chances of getting it approved are receding every day and if Emily Thornberry is to be believed Labour will vote against it, ensuring it’s rightful place in the dustbin.

    I hope when (if) Mrs May resigns the Tories choose a PM with a backbone who will tell the EU to ‘go forth and multiply’, just like the EU said to TM on that TV documentary.

    • michael mcgrath
      Posted May 18, 2019 at 9:33 am | Permalink

      OGGY, I note your comment about Emily Thornberry saying that Labour would vote against the WA. However, in the TV interview which I saw, she actually said that they would not vote for the WA, so leaving open the abstention decision, and final victory for our temporary PM. I wonder what price could be extracted for such help?

      • Oggy
        Posted May 18, 2019 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

        Hi Michael, well that sounds about right !
        All the huffing and puffing done by opposition/remainer MP’s to have a final say on the deal then only to abstain is just taking the mickey.

      • Julie Dyson
        Posted May 18, 2019 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

        “… so leaving open the abstention decision…”

        I honestly can’t see this happening, Michael, as there are more Remain (sorry, ‘Confirmatory Referendum’) MPs in Labour than there are in the Tories. Even if whipped, I just don’t see enough of them allowing the WA to pass by simply abstaining.

        More to the point, I sincerely doubt many of their supporters would be very forgiving.

      • mancunius
        Posted May 18, 2019 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

        Whatever the price, May will offer it, and we shall end up paying for it.

  11. Bryan Harris
    Posted May 18, 2019 at 6:14 am | Permalink

    How on earth can the minister continue justifying this agreement – What has happened to the Tory soul?

    Is there something else going on behind the international scene that is forcing this attitude on him and this government?
    Are we perhaps, about to be invaded by aliens, who just might leave us alone if we can show how hopeless we are, how we self-harm, and are therefore not worth anything s slaves?

    Or are there global strategies at play, whereby the PM is a mere puppet?

    • Fred H
      Posted May 18, 2019 at 8:57 am | Permalink

      Bryan….I suspect USA, Russia and China have got together viewing the EU as a possible future threat. Rather like the situation portrayed by Big Brother in 1984, it is beneficial for the regimes to understand one another, who needs a new player? So, they look at the EU and come to the conclusion that it must follow NATO and the UN, ineffective wool over the eyes. The sticking point is the UK who just might trigger real action from the EU. Divide and rule comes into effect. Work on getting UK out of the talking shop will ensure EU never amounts to any level of threat. We are nearly there, but luckily for us ( not them) we can indeed go forth and prosper.
      A bit tongue in cheek, but you never know!

  12. Denis Cooper
    Posted May 18, 2019 at 6:33 am | Permalink

    In principle any non-EU country could conclude a treaty with the EU and its member states under which it would not actually become a new member state of the EU – so it would not be an “accession” treaty like that for Croatia described here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Accession_2011

    – but even though it continued to be a “third country” as far as the EU was concerned it agreed to automatically accept some or most or all EU laws.

    It is conceivable that in some cases the third country would positively seek and welcome such an arrangement, just as in the past those ruling a weak country may have seen it as a positive development for it to be officially recognised as a protectorate of a more powerful country, despite the constraints imposed on their policy making.

    The rubbish withdrawal treaty negotiated by Theresa May would move the UK in the opposite direction, from being a member state of the EU to being a third country in its eyes but still subject to swathes of its laws potentially in perpetuity.

    And the main reason why she has proposed such an unfavourable, the Chinese might even have said “unequal”*, treaty is the same reason why she has failed to get a majority of MPs to approve it, and that is because she settled on the cunning plan of going along with Leo Varadkar building a mountain out of a molehill on the Irish border as a pretext for giving the CBI and other business lobby groups much of what they were demanding:

    http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2019/04/01/an-april-1-story-with-a-twist/#comment-1009125

    “I noted that those business groups warmly welcomed the Chequers plan and said Parliament should get firmly behind it, and I noted that Theresa May went and made a speech to the CBI about her wonderful deal even before she told MPs about it; so that is my conclusion, that even before we acquired Oliver Letwin as an alternative unofficial Prime Minister we already had Carolyn Fairbairn of the CBI quietly fulfilling that role.”

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unequal_treaty

    • NickC
      Posted May 18, 2019 at 10:19 am | Permalink

      Denis Cooper, The EU can define membership how it likes – their club, their rules. However the EU does not get to define or appropriate English words. Nor is the word “member” the exclusive property of the EU. If the UK (or Croatia) has to quack like a member, look like a member, obey like a member, and pay like a member, the UK is (effectively) a member.

      Whether the EU – or Steve Barclay, or Denis Cooper – defines the UK as a member (or not a member) is neither important nor relevant. The real issue is whether signing the WA treaty constitutes Leave (or leaving). The answer is clearly a resounding NO for anyone who has read the draft WA: for example Art 6 puts the EU and the UK into a “single customs territory”.

      And that is why voting for the WA (Bill) is wrong. The people were given the choice whether to remain in the EU or to leave the EU. For good or ill, we chose Leave. And Leave we must – fully and completely, and without re-joining the next day.

      Since the practical effect of the WA treaty is re-joining – becoming a member again – the next day; and given the EU Referendum Act 2015, what both campaigns said, what the PM said, and what the government promised, anything less is deceit and bad faith. As well as ruining our democracy.

      • Julie Dyson
        Posted May 18, 2019 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

        Hear, hear.

  13. ChrisS
    Posted May 18, 2019 at 7:01 am | Permalink

    “I think they might push the clauses against us rather more”.

    Absolutely right ! Everything we have seen up to now makes this a near-certainty.

    I would like to refer you to the post I submitted last evening after returning from your excellent lecture and book launch. It would be much more appropriate here :

    In a documentary available on BBC iPlayer, Barnier’s top aid tells Verhofstadt’s team that:

    He then goes on to speak about the problems around getting the final deal through Parliament. He says

    It clearly demonstrates that May was completely wrong saying that her deal “is the best deal possible”.

  14. ChrisS
    Posted May 18, 2019 at 7:02 am | Permalink

    Revised version a crucial para was missed out :

    “I think they might push the clauses against us rather more”.

    Absolutely right ! Everything we have seen up to now makes this a near-certainty.

    I would like to refer you to the post I submitted last evening after returning from your excellent lecture and book launch. It would be much more appropriate here :

    In a documentary available on BBC iPlayer, Barnier’s top aid tells Verhofstadt’s team that:

    “in Citizen’s Rights, the financial settlement and Ireland we got the maximum we could get. A lot more, in fact than we hoped to get.”

    He then goes on to speak about the problems around getting the final deal through Parliament. He says

    It clearly demonstrates that May was completely wrong saying that her deal “is the best deal possible”.

    • John Hatfield
      Posted May 18, 2019 at 10:02 pm | Permalink

      It was the best possible deal for May and her Establishment bosses. Not for those who pay the EU bills.

  15. George Brooks
    Posted May 18, 2019 at 7:06 am | Permalink

    It is impossible to imagine how anyone could vote for the WA not even an out and out remainer as we end up in a far worse position than we are as a member.

    A letter from Lord Spicer in Friday’s Daily Telegraph goes a long way to explain how we got into this terrible mess. One can see now that Theresa May is totally and utterly incapable of taking a decision. That is possibly one of the worst traits that we should have in a leader.

    Two current examples are the Chinese involvement in 5G and a date for her departure. Our Security Service and the appropriate Ministers can say ‘Thank you’ but ‘NO thank you’ to the Chinses and the 1922 Committee can decide the date she goes.

    How about 7th June?

    • Alan Jutson
      Posted May 18, 2019 at 8:36 am | Permalink

      George

      Why wait until June.

      I see some press reports this morning are suggesting she will try and push through a huge amount of legislation, on a whole range of topics she sup[ports before she goes.

      She must be stopped now before she does any more damage.

  16. tina
    Posted May 18, 2019 at 8:18 am | Permalink

    I wonder if you could possibly answer a question that i’m not getting any answers on anywhere else. Apologies if I am on the wrong track but if my understanding is correct then I don’t understand why this isn’t being discussed.
    My understanding is that the GFA is an international treaty between the UK/IRE – we know that international law trumps sovereign law so my question is this…
    Q if the above is correct then surely the only way to actually ‘break’ the GFA is to supercede it with another International treaty (UK/EU (with EU acting on behalf of IRE as a member state) that changes/allows deviation from it – if no deal is done then surely neither UK nor EU could legislate individually to anything that ‘breaks’ the GFA because GFA would trump their sovereign laws made.
    So isn’t the answer to the Irish Border to leave with no deal so that the GFA remains the ‘highest’ legal treaty that needs to be honoured rather than a new deal that supercedes it?

    Reply EU law trumps Irish and UK law all the time both are in the EU or if we signed the Withdrawal Treaty

    • tina
      Posted May 18, 2019 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

      Thanks for reply but that is my point. IF we sign the WA then that is an international treaty and would supercede the GFA but if we do NOT sign a WA and simply leave without a deal then the GFA remains the international treaty and neither UK nor EU could legislate to do anything that breaks that treaty without breaking said international law could it?

      • NickC
        Posted May 19, 2019 at 9:55 am | Permalink

        Tina, An interesting point. Another reason to reject the WA and leave without a withdrawal agreement.

      • Fuddy Duddy
        Posted May 19, 2019 at 11:30 am | Permalink

        Sorry, JR has no idea so no reply.

  17. Prigger
    Posted May 18, 2019 at 8:37 am | Permalink

    I viewed him on TV on BBC Parliament, a Committee of some kind. Very well educated and intelligent. But he was fencing on issues. Bifurcating and giving logical answer to his choice of branch leaving the whole and, the other branch dangling unanswered. Sounded like a typical Remainer preying on game. A loser

  18. Mark
    Posted May 18, 2019 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    The closest analogy I can make for the WA is that it is remaining in the EU on Article 7 punishment terms, with no vote and the right of the EU to impose on us as it wishes.

    Article 7
    3. Where a determination under paragraph 2 has been made, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide to suspend certain of the rights deriving from the application of the Treaties to the Member State in question, including the voting rights of the representative of the government of that Member State in the Council. In doing
    so, the Council shall take into account the possible consequences of such a suspension on the rights and obligations of natural and legal persons. The obligations of the Member State in question under the Treaties shall in any case continue to be binding on that State.

    There is no limitation on the rights they can suspend, while requiring that we fulfil obligations.

  19. BR
    Posted May 18, 2019 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    The key point about these so-called ‘liabilities’ is that we shouldn’t be paying anything after we leave.

    There is nothing in Article 50 that says that there is an ongoing obligation on the leaving member State beyond the point of departure. Have they ever set out which law(s) do they believe they are following in telling us that we are ‘liable in international law’ for these sums? I have never seen anything beyond vague assurances amounting to ‘trust me, I’m a lawyer’.

    The nature of a club/organisation is that when a member leaves, they adjust their budget/expenditure accordingly. This is weak to non-existent negotiating by the UK representatives.

    WTO looks better and better every day.

  20. BillMayes
    Posted May 18, 2019 at 11:18 am | Permalink

    What can Mrs May and her europhile Cabinet be “on”? What are they drinking or smoking or taking? The way they all strongly believe in the wretched “Withdrawal Agreement” suggests they are in their own little world suffering hallucinations. Are they taking LSD instead of TEA? And I do not mean the good old Pounds Shillings and Pence. Know what I mean, Stevie?

  21. mancunius
    Posted May 18, 2019 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

    “He places a favourable construction on how the EU would behave if we signed.”
    With what objective justification? They would behave as they have done so far – compound with our stupid and devious political leaders and civil servants to construct another treaty injurious to our future.

    Such a panglossian pretence of EU benevolence by Tory ministers who know differently is one of the reasons why nobody will vote Tory next week.

  22. Melvin Cornwell
    Posted May 19, 2019 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

    John Hatfield
    Posted May 18, 2019 at 1:35 pm | Permalink
    **What are the odds that the new leader will be another Remainer? Odds on I would say.**

    I’m afraid things have gone way too far already. Simply replacing May will not address the many other deeply unpleasant issues within the government. It is infinitely easier to remove them completely than faff around trying to segregate the few honest MPs. We need a GE pronto… if MPs want a ‘confirmatory vote’, let them back their judgement and call that GE. The voters will soon ‘confirm’ where we are all at…
    Fact is, the Tories are completely unelectable now, and everyone knows it. Except them, it seems. And if they ever pass May’s rotten deal, they will not find themselves in govermment again for decades.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

*
*

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, He graduated from Magdalen College Oxford, has a DPhil and is a fellow of All Souls College. A businessman by background, he has been a director of NM Rothschild merchant bank and chairman of a quoted industrial PLC.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page