Rolling coverage of the day’s political developments as they happen, including the publication of the government’s Brexit white paper

Brexiters are particularly angry about one passage in the white paper from the European court of justice. It’s paragraph 42 on page 93.

Where the UK and the EU had agreed to retain a common rulebook, it is possible that a dispute could relate to whether these rules had been interpreted correctly. The UK recognises that only the CJEU can bind the EU on the interpretation of EU law, and therefore in these instances, there should be the option for a referral to the CJEU for an interpretation, either by mutual consent from the Joint Committee, or from the arbitration panel. The CJEU would only have a role in relation to the interpretation of those EU rules to which the UK had agreed to adhere as a matter of international law. The Joint Committee or arbitration panel would have to resolve the dispute in a way that was consistent with this interpretation. This would respect the principle that the court of one party cannot resolve disputes between the two.

Martin Howe QC @lawyers4britain warns that this section of the UK’s dispute resolution proposals in the White Paper would effectively give the ECJ binding jurisdiction over the UK, in essentially the same way as the EU-Moldova Association Agreement does at present pic.twitter.com/nrhX6XwLBs

This, on UK courts “paying due regard” to the ECJ, has a smaller scope than EU law (because only applying to the “common rule book”) but has I think *exactly the same legal effect* as section 3(1) of the ECA 1972. Relevant ECJ case law will be followed *exactly* as it is now. pic.twitter.com/GMn0UJ5s05

All the claims about ECJ rulings no longer having “direct effect” in were complete legal bullshit. They never had “direct effect” (that concept applies to legislation, not ECJ case law) but will have the same “so persuasive as to be in effect binding” effect ECJ case law has now.

<

p class=”block-time published-time”>

This is from ITV’s political editor Robert Peston.

Today’s reaction from well-placed Brussels official to central element of @theresa_may’s Brexit white paper is as forcefully critical as that of @Jacob_Rees_Mogg and the True Brexiters. pic.twitter.com/NRdSxx1FPG

Continue reading…

Read More Raab toughens stance on Brexit ‘divorce bill’, says UK may not pay £39bn if trade talks stall – Politics live

Facebook Comments