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

Mr Zanna,

You claim that the article addresses “two completely unrelated matters”, the jurisdiction of the withdrawal agreement and how the ECJ exercises its jurisdiction. Far from being unrelated the two things are intimately connected so far as the future well-being of the UK is concerned: hence the timeliness of Dr Beck’s analysis. You might as well say that “a trust power and the way it’s exercised are two entirely different things.” Not to the beneficiary!

You describe Beck’s analysis of how the ECJ manipulates international law for its own political ends as a “red herring”. By no means. Beck’s analysis is either right or wrong, which is a matter of evidence: if right, it’s very far from being a red herring but on the contrary goes to the heart of the argument.

You ask what is the ”imperial entity” on behalf of which the ECJ is allegedly asserting this supremacy. Obviously, it is the European Union and its future transmogrifications. The article makes that very clear (among other things by describing the ECJ as a “court of integration”), though I must admit I’d have thought it self-evident.

Another red herring you claim to have caught is the comparison of the legal status of the UK under the withdrawal agreement with that of Japan and Canada under their respective free trade agreements. Beck’s is an a fortiori argument. He shows that, despite NOT being a mere “third country”, despite being, on the contrary, an intimate friend and erstwhile partner of “Europe”, and despite the fine talk from Brussels at earlier stages in the negotiations (that is, before the British government had disclosed the full extent of its weakness and incapacity), the deal we are being offered is far worse and incomparably more restricting than what mere strangers have negotiated with the EU.

Can anyone seriously dispute justice of Beck’s conclusion? “It is degrading for a sovereign nation to submit itself in bilateral treaties to the jurisdiction of the domestic court of the other side, [and] it is hardly realistic to assume the ECJ will ever be an impartial arbiter in disputes between the EU and other parties including former members.”

Your details

Cancel