Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

This article illustrates vividly the amount of prejudice and competence that some English lawyers display when they debate issues of international and EU law.
It would be honest to point out that before accepting the jurisdiction of the ECJ the government has, presumably for its own convenience, accepted the application of a body of EU laws for the duration of the withdrawal agreement (WA).
Without this premise the whole article reads like yet another pointless rant against the ECJ.
Art. 4 states that: “The […] provisions of Union law made applicable by this Agreement shall produce in respect of and in the United Kingdom the same legal effects as those which they produce within the Union and its Member States”.
The carve out in the jurisdiction of the arbitration panel follows from this fundamental principle. The questions of true interpretation and compliance with EU laws remain under the jurisdiction of the ECJ in order to ensure the uniform application (“the same legal effect”) of EU law during the transition.
The alternative would be to keep the UK under EU laws during the transition while giving it a separate and special jurisdiction for all matters of interpretation or compliance.
I hope Dr Beck will be kind enough to explain how such alternative would make any sense in general and for the other 27 states in particular.
Explanations based on “cherry-picking” or “exceptionalism” arguments are not accepted.

Your details

Cancel