Brexit. Why do Brits want Out of the EU?

Seems, signing a treaty is just a joke for you.

Johnson won on the promise of ratifying the Brexit plan, which was voted upon in a democratic process, in a sovereign nation, was it not?

A change there would break international law most think (including a minister, who told such officially in Parliament)

True?

What did "most think" about the arranged assassination of Libya's loved leader, by the UK/US coalition invasion? Or doesn't the "international law" stretch to invading on false pretenses?

I didn't know that this was part of Brexit. Your source for it?

Once the EMP was transformed into the UfM, the European Commission engaged in a number of new bilateral agreements with the Southern Mediterranean states, and it did so also with Libya, starting in late 2010. EU-Libya negotiations for a Framework Agreement were progressing, when the “Arab Spring” brought them to a sudden end. The EU-Libya Migration Cooperation Agenda that had been signed on 5 October 2010 by Commissioners Mälstrom and Füle and the Libyan authorities an EU-Libya Migration Cooperation Agenda was therefore suspended on 22 February 2011.



As the violence continued and began to spread in Libya, the EU’s reaction led to calls for intervention, in line with the two UN resolutions, once Gaddafi announced in words and in actions his willingness to stop popular revolts by a bloodbath. The EU also participated in the March 2011 London Conference on Libya that worked on how to implement those UN resolutions.

This really proves that you have no idea what you are talking about!

Ireland's taoiseach, Micheal Martin, has said that Brexit has been and will continue to be bad for Ireland, Britain and the EU.

Announcing a range of business supports for Irish businesses, Mr Martin said the government is aware of the risks to vulnerable sectors.

"The government will ensure it has done its own preparations in the ports and airports," Mr Martin added.

"Even with a (trade) agreement there will be substantial challenges for supply chains and trade flows and checks.

"The protocol in Northern Ireland will apply.

"It is important that meaningful negotiations can only proceed on the basis of mutual trust."

Sir Kim Darroch, the UK’s representative in Washington between 2016 and 2019, said a move to violate the agreement with the EU was “unacceptable”.

“You really can’t unilaterally rewrite an international agreement,” he told BBC Newsnight. “We just don’t do that. First of all I think that it risks the Good Friday Agreement peace settlement in Northern Ireland, if you end up having to impose some sort of hard border.

“Second I think it blows the chance of a UK-EU free trade deal. Michel Barnier has already made that clear and the Irish government has made it clear.”

He added: “Third, I think it potentially also puts a UK-US free trade deal as risk.”

Ministers will be given powers to “disapply” elements of the Northern Ireland Brexit arrangements in the internal market bill, in a move that legal experts say is an “eye-watering” breach of international law.

The bill, published on Wednesday [full text at link below], seeks to give powers to ministers to unilaterally decide how to apply the Northern Ireland protocol in relation to checks on goods going from Northern Ireland to Great Britain.

It also unpicks article 10 of the protocol in relation to state aid and states that it will “not be interpreted in accordance with case law of the European court” or “in accordance with any legislative act of the EU”.

This is a contradiction of the section of the protocol that is underpinned by the “direct effect” of EU law, which would enable any individual or company to rely on EU law in a local court, and which was signed off by Boris Johnson in January.

Legal academics pointed to paragraphs 42, 43, and 45 of the internal market bill as a blunt rewriting of the protocol.

“This is a remarkable piece of legislation and it expressly contravenes our international legal obligations to a point that the legislation itself says this is the intention, as did Brandon Lewis [the Northern Ireland secretary] yesterday,” said Catherine Barnard, a professor of European law at Cambridge University, who added the bill was “really eye-watering” in its explicitness.

Steve Peers, a professor of law at the University of Essex, said: “It is an obvious breach of international law. You could argue that it is not a breach because it hasn’t happened yet, but they are certainly giving themselves powers to breach.”

Paragraph 42 of the bill is unambiguously headed “Power to disapply or modify export declarations and other exit procedures”. It says a minister has the unilateral power to decide what checks will apply on goods going from Northern Ireland to Britain, and not the EU in conjunction with the UK.

“A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make provision about the application of exit procedures to goods, or a description of goods, when moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain,” it states.

It goes on to say that the minister will be able to take into account “the need for Northern Ireland goods to enjoy unfettered access to the rest of the United Kingdom”.

It does not specify what the checks are, but this is reminiscent of Johnson’s promise during the election campaign that there would be no checks on goods crossing the Irish Sea.

Paragraph 42 gives the government powers to disregard article 10 of the protocol that defines the state aid rules, all underpinned by EU law because of Northern Ireland’s special status in the single market after Brexit.

“Article 10 not to be interpreted – (i) in accordance with case law of the European court; (ii) in accordance with any legislative act of the EU, including regulations, directives and decisions,” the bill states.

Paragraph 43 bars any authority other than the secretary of state from notifying Brussels of any state aid rules that could have included the devolved administration in Stormont, while paragraph 45 “ringfences them from judicial reviews”, said Barnard.

She said that while she was surprised by the bluntness of the bill, it had to be explicit to avoid legal challenge, as British courts could rely on EU law to overturn decisions made by ministers empowered by the bill if it became an act.

The government also published its plans for state aid post Brexit confirming it would follow World Trade Organization rules rather than EU rules from 1 January.

Known as the Brexit "divorce deal", the withdrawal agreement, which includes a section - or protocol - on Northern Ireland, is now an international treaty.

And Article 4 of the agreement says the provisions of the treaty take legal precedence over anything in the UK's domestic law.

So if any of the proposals in the Internal Market Bill that contradict the withdrawal agreement actually become law, it would breach the government's international obligations.

And that is what the Northern Ireland Secretary, Brandon Lewis, referred to when he spoke about breaking international law in a "very specific and limited way".

Breaking the law, though, is still breaking the law.

What was agreed on Northern Ireland?
The overall aim of the Northern Ireland protocol was to avoid the return of a "hard" land border between Northern Ireland, in the UK, and the Republic of Ireland, in the EU.

All sides agreed they did not want the return of border checks - or other physical infrastructure - which could become a target.
[...]
One of the solutions in the treaty [Northern Ireland protocol] was to keep Northern Ireland in the EU single market for goods, unlike the rest of the United Kingdom.

It promised to maintain unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods to the rest of the UK but also introduced new bureaucracy for trade across the Irish Sea.

So what's the problem?
The way these measures are implemented on the ground is still being negotiated by UK and EU officials - who meet in a joint committee.

But if they cannot reach agreement by the end of the transition period, on 31 December 2020, and there is no free-trade deal, that is where parts of this new legislation could come in.

For example, the protocol states companies moving goods from Northern Ireland to Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) would have to fill out export declaration forms.

But the Internal Market Bill would give ministers the right to overrule or ignore this part of EU customs law.

Another part of the protocol says the UK has to follow EU rules on state aid - the financial support governments give to businesses - for goods related to Northern Ireland.

But the Internal Market Bill would give ministers power to interpret what that means and says this should not be done in accordance with the case law of the European Court of Justice.

Again, that puts the UK in breach of the international treaty it signed last year.

And the text of the bill appears to make this explicit.

"Certain provisions," it says, would take effect "notwithstanding inconsistency or incompatibility" with international or other domestic law.

The government says it is just seeking to clarify the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol, to avoid disruption.

But the EU says it is trying to change parts of a recently agreed international treaty unilaterally.

And there may be more proposed powers to come.

The protocol also says the joint committee is supposed to determine which goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland are "at risk" of being exported to the EU and should therefore have tariffs - taxes on imports - imposed on them.
[...]
If there is no agreement between the two sides, then the default position is tariffs would have to be paid on all goods.

But the UK has plans, which could be introduced in a finance bill later this year, to allow UK ministers to make unilateral decisions on which goods are "at risk".

For the moment, though, the attention is on the Internal Market Bill.

And it is worth remembering it has not yet become law.

Downing Street points to isolated precedents for governments breaking international law.

But none of them is directly comparable with the proposals in this bill.

"This is unique," said Lorand Bartels, an international law expert at the University of Cambridge.

"I cannot think of any other legislation that expressly states that it permits violating a treaty."

According to L'Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques collecte, produit, analyse et diffuse des informations sur l'économie et la société françaises, there are 8,8 million poor people in France today, or in other words, 14% of France’s entire population.

EU; the organisation that keeps on giving!

My take is that it is a Mafia style franchise Ponzi scheme which will collapse under the weight of its own hubris.