Britse politiek #62 Options trade Goes to Amsterdam

quote:

Op dinsdag 12 maart 2019 09:31 schreef TjjWester het volgende:
Moeten de lidstaten niet instemmen met dit gewijzigd akkoord? Het is fundamentele wijziging.

quote:

Op dinsdag 12 maart 2019 09:32 schreef trein2000 het volgende:
[..]

Volgens mij wel, maar waar zit hem het fundamentele volgens jou?

quote:

Op dinsdag 12 maart 2019 09:33 schreef TjjWester het volgende:
[..]

In de garantie dat de britten op elke gewenst moment kunnen kiezen om de backstop te verlaten en daarmee voor een harde brexit.

quote:

Op dinsdag 12 maart 2019 09:31 schreef TjjWester het volgende:
Moeten de lidstaten niet instemmen met dit gewijzigd akkoord? Het is fundamentele wijziging.

quote:

Op dinsdag 12 maart 2019 09:33 schreef TjjWester het volgende:
[..]

In de garantie dat de britten op elke gewenst moment kunnen kiezen om de backstop te verlaten en daarmee voor een harde brexit.

quote:

If the arbitration panel rules in accordance with Article 177(2) that the respondent has failed to comply with the arbitration panel ruling referred to in Article 173, at the request of the complainant it may impose a lump sum or penalty payment to be paid to the complainant. In determining the lump sum or penalty payment, the arbitration panel shall take into account the seriousness of the non-compliance and underlying breach of obligation, the duration of the non-compliance and underlying breach of obligation.

If, 1 month after the arbitration panel ruling referred to in paragraph 1, the respondent has failed to pay any lump sum or penalty payment imposed on it, or if, 6 months after the arbitration panel ruling referred to in Article 177(2), the respondent persists in not complying with the arbitration panel ruling referred to in Article 173, the complainant shall be entitled, upon notification to the respondent, to suspend obligations arising from: (a) any provision of this Agreement other than those contained in Part Two; or (b) parts of any other agreement between the Union and the United Kingdom under the conditions set out in that agreement.

quote:

Op dinsdag 12 maart 2019 00:19 schreef capricia het volgende:
Hier het officiële addendum/inlegvelletje:
https://ec.europa.eu/comm(...)-energy-community_en

quote:

Op dinsdag 12 maart 2019 09:55 schreef zoost het volgende:
[..]

Er staat eigenlijk niets nieuws in. Er wordt zelfs veelvuldig naar de WA verwezen, en er worden wat zaken benadrukt "we moeten echt ons best doen", maar dat is het dan ook. Ik kan mij niet voorstellen dat dit genoeg (230?) PM's over de streep gaat trekken.

twitter:

bbclaurak twitterde op dinsdag 12-03-2019 om 10:30:39 Cabinet source sounding pessimistic about tone of legal advice - 'probably won't be enough to get it over the line' reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 12 maart 2019 10:39 schreef trein2000 het volgende:
Hoe laat is die stemming vannacht?

quote:

Op dinsdag 12 maart 2019 10:42 schreef DustPuppy het volgende:
[..]

Vanavond om 8 uur onze tijd.

Alhoewel er nu stemmen opgaan om het 24 uur uit te stellen zodat de MPs de 'nieuwe' voorwaarden kunnen lezen.

twitter:

jonsnowC4 twitterde op dinsdag 12-03-2019 om 09:07:47 A Lawyer contact tells me that the legal world is aware that the Attorney General said NO last night to the validity of Mrs May's 'new EU deal'...he been told to go away and find a way to say YES: A cohort of lawyers has been summoned. reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 12 maart 2019 10:45 schreef trein2000 het volgende:

twitter:

jonsnowC4 twitterde op dinsdag 12-03-2019 om 09:07:47 A Lawyer contact tells me that the legal world is aware that the Attorney General said NO last night to the validity of Mrs May's 'new EU deal'...he been told to go away and find a way to say YES: A cohort of lawyers has been summoned. reageer retweet

Man man man

twitter:

Geoffrey_Cox twitterde op dinsdag 12-03-2019 om 10:03:10 @jonsnowC4 Bollocks reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 12 maart 2019 10:47 schreef zoost het volgende:
[..]

En de reactie

twitter:

Geoffrey_Cox twitterde op dinsdag 12-03-2019 om 10:03:10 @:jonsnowC4 Bollocks reageer retweet

quote:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The Government and the EU have announced a package of measures relating to the Northern Ireland backstop in the EU Withdrawal Agreement. The measures were intended to address concerns - shared by the Attorney General - that the backstop would endure indefinitely, unless and until replaced by a subsequent agreement with the EU.

2. In our opinion these measures:

a. do not allow the UK to terminate the backstop in the event that negotiations over its future relationship with the EU cannot be brought to a satisfactory conclusion, and

b. do not provide the UK with a right to terminate the backstop at a time of its choosing, or indeed at any time, without the agreement of the EU.

3. The furthest they go is to reiterate the possibility that the backstop might be suspended in extreme circumstances of bad faith on the part of the EU which are highly unlikely to be demonstrated. This was already apparent from the Withdrawal Agreement, and had been acknowledged in the Attorney General's previous legal advice.

4. Looking at the measures individually:

a. The joint EU-UK instrument relating to the Withdrawal Agreement reduces the risk that the UK could be deliberately, and in bad faith, held in the backstop indefinitely.
That was only ever a very limited risk. The far greater risk of being held in the backstop indefinitely as a result of the failure of good faith negotiations remains unmitigated.

b. The UK's unilateral declaration goes beyond the joint instrument only in suggesting that the UK might seek to disapply the backstop as a whole if negotiations had failed because of bad faith on the part of the EU. It does not suggest that there are any circumstances other than proven bad faith in which the backstop might be disapplied. Whether or not the UK's understanding of the Withdrawal Agreement is correct will be a matter for the Court of Justice of the EU, which is likely to be sceptical not least because the UK's declaration goes beyond the terms of the joint instrument.

c. The joint EU-UK statement supplementing the Political Declaration has no effect whatsoever on the Withdrawal Agreement but merely explains certain of the parties' aspirations for the future negotiations and the future relationship.

5. Taken as a whole, these measures do not come close to meeting the ERG’s test of clearly worded, "treaty level" provisions which unambiguously override the stipulation of the Withdrawal Agreement that the backstop shall remain unless and until the UK and the EU agree otherwise.

6. It is crystal clear that the measures do not alter the fundamental legal effect of the backstop, as previously and correctly explained by the Attorney General. The backstop will endure indefinitely, unless and until superseded by another agreement, save in the extreme and unlikely event that in future negotiationsthe EU actsin bad faith in rejecting the UK's demands.

Bron: People's Vote Campaign - Outcome of Negotiations on the EU - UK Withdrawal Agreement PDF

quote:

Op dinsdag 12 maart 2019 10:54 schreef DustPuppy het volgende:
Advocaten van de People's Vote campaign hebben het document bestudeerd. Dit is hun conclusie:[..]

quote:

Op dinsdag 12 maart 2019 10:50 schreef trein2000 het volgende:
[..]

Ah het is dus waar.
Op deze manier reageren in zijn functie

twitter:

bbclaurak twitterde op dinsdag 12-03-2019 om 11:12:22 Cox has written his legal advice letter and presented it to Cabinet - hear likely to run another 45 mins reageer retweet

twitter:

bbclaurak twitterde op dinsdag 12-03-2019 om 11:13:53 Olly Robbins has just left Cabinet reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 12 maart 2019 11:26 schreef trein2000 het volgende:
onderminister(?) van brexit is opgestapt

twitter:

bbclaurak twitterde op dinsdag 12-03-2019 om 11:13:53 Olly Robbins has just left Cabinet reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 12 maart 2019 11:27 schreef DustPuppy het volgende:
[..]

Nee, dat betekent dat hij uit de vergadering is gestapt volgens mij.