TobyFenwick

TobyFenwick

77p

585 comments posted · 2 followers · following 0

24 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - WATCH: "A number of de... · 0 replies · +1 points

"And conclude" - well, they did conclude it with the UK Government which has been spectacularly unable to get it throught the HoC. If the wording meant what you imply, then the departing state could set out anything it wanted, and the EU would have to comply- and you'll appreciate how ridiculous that is.

"Taking account of" is about the weakest obligation in international law imaginable, and in this case WA + PD more than covers it.

You keep repeating that the EU is obliged not to hurt trade or people - but without explaining where this obligation that they're not meeting comes from. If in fact the EU were not meeting its obligations, then the Government would sue (where?) and win.

The fact that the UK Government hasn't filed suit tells you that your analysis is wrong on all counts, I'm afraid.

24 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - WATCH: "A number of de... · 3 replies · +1 points

>The EU has breached its own treaty by not making a deal that the UK could except.

Er, no. Art 50(2) says "In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union."

All the EU is obliged to do is negotiate an exit agreement, which they have done.

26 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - May's new Brexit hell.... · 1 reply · +1 points

Interesting, thank you. The big difference of course was that in 1993 neither the Czechs or the Slovaks sought continuing Czechoslovak legla personality as the successor state, so both countries started life afresh; prettty clearly this is not what is happening with the UK leaving the EU.

I don't buy the argument that the imposition of MFN tariffs is unfair, here, however; it was always the predictable default 24 months after sending the Art 50 notification.

26 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - May's new Brexit hell.... · 6 replies · +1 points

I've missed your earlier example - when in WTO (or GATT, even) history where something like Brexit has occurred?

26 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - May's new Brexit hell.... · 0 replies · +1 points

It isn't EU membership... and if that's the exam question...

26 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - May's new Brexit hell.... · 11 replies · +1 points

Except as has been pointed out repeatedly, this is not what Art 24 does.

Where has anything similar to Brexit happened in WTO law before?

Indeed, far from "The EU is forcing its tariffs on the UK business suddenly and unfairly", in treating the UK on MFN terms for WTO members without a trade deal with the EU, the EU would be acting exactly as the law demands, (so thus not unfairly) and given that this has been the default since 29 March 2017, it can hardly be described as a sudden surprise.

26 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - May's new Brexit hell.... · 5 replies · +1 points

If by "leaving the EU", you mean a scenario in which the UK was no longer an EU Member State, then there is probably a HoC majority for an exit that includes Single Market membership (covering services as well as goods) and membership of the Customs Union; with a rolling 10-year notice-to-quit period, this probably also neatly resolves the need for a backstop in NI.

Such a Brexit would likely satsify few on here, but you could probably get it through the Commons.

26 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - May's new Brexit hell.... · 13 replies · +1 points

And your basis in WTO law for this happy outcome is?

29 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - WATCH: Has Cooper's am... · 0 replies · +1 points

Actually, it is both CU and SM.

35 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - David Snoxell: The Int... · 0 replies · +1 points

The headline of this piece is wrong - the International Criminal Court is not involved, as Mr. Snoxell makes clear - it is solely the International Court of Justice, the supreme judicial body of the UN.

As this is an advisory opinion, the UK could ignore it, but it would be well advised not to.