Clearly delusional, I think I’ve pointed this out you about 3 times now.
Trapped, not leaving, trapped unless the Eu let us leave.
“… the legal risk remains unchanged that if through no such demonstrable failure of either party, but simply because of intractable differences, [a negotiating deadlock] does arise, the United Kingdom would have, at least while the fundamental circumstances remained the same, no internationally lawful means of exiting the Protocol’s arrangements, save by agreement.”
Article 62 cannot be invoked where the circumstance that arises – the indefinite or extended application of the backstop – has been foreseen by the withdrawal agreement. Accordingly, it can offer no assistance. The argument that it could be invoked if negotiations broke down and the backstop pertained indefinitely is hopeless. It is not even arguable. Nor is the idea that the UK could somehow adopt its own interpretation, or laws, to get around the problem. The withdrawal agreement is an international obligation which trumps domestic law.”
He also pointed out that the UK could not act unilaterally since the matter would have to come before the arbitral tribunal established under the Withdrawal Agreement.
And on 17 March, Lord Anderson’s counsel team produced another opinion on this Vienna Convention argument, which concluded that:
There is no scope for an argument that a breakdown in negotiations could amount to a fundamental change of circumstances, not least because this is not only foreseeable but has been foreseen by the UK and is provided for in the Protocol.”
In a busy week for Lawyers for Britain, Chairman Martin Howe QC was a member of the ‘Star Chamber’ group of lawyers tasked by the ERG and the DUP to advise them about the outcome of the negotiations between Attorney General Geoffrey Cox and the EU to try to avoid the UK being trapped in […]
lawyersforbritain.org