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

@ Martin Maloney
The article tries to address two completely unrelated matters. One is the jurisdiction of the arbitration clause, the other is how the ECJ exercises its jurisdiction.
I was more interested in the first topic and I think I explained with sufficient clarity that the arguments made by the author lack of substance for whoever has a sufficient grasp of the context.
Unlike the author says, the WA is not a free trade agreement and it is a red herring to compare the legal status of the UK under the WA with that of Japan and Canada under the respective FTA.
The suggested parallel really reveals a big crack in the logic edifice of Dr. Beck's criticism.
Under the WA the UK will be a state in which part of the body of the EU laws will continue to apply. This, to avoid the so called "cliff edge" that the absence of a transitional deal would imply.
The UK will not be a third country comparable to Canada or Japan, which are not exiting EU members and where last time I checked no EU laws apply.
The consideration on the imperial nature of the ECJ's jurisdiction seem equally questionable.
I could limit myself to ask the basic question of what would be the imperial entity on behalf of which the ECJ is trying to assert its supremacy.
Or I could point out to another red herring contained in this passage "First, the ECJ has ensured the supremacy of EU law over potentially conflicting international law by transposing large chunks of international law and then asserting its own jurisdiction" (yes, you read well, it suggests that the ECJ transposes international law, being unclear from where and how, and then asserts its jurisdiction).
But do these arguments really carry any authority?

Your details

Cancel