The government proposes that once a rule is included in the agreement, a second type of integration should still take place: the integration of Parliament into the British legal order. The government proposes that Parliament should be able to oppose the inclusion of a rule, but unlike the Joint Committee, this would lead the United Kingdom to violate its international obligations and would therefore amount to the United Kingdom acting illegally. The withdrawal agreement was quickly approved by the British cabinet, although some junior ministers resigned. In accordance with British law and constitutional requirements, Parliament`s approval was required to ratify the patrol agreement. It was approved at the European Council on 25 November. 2018 European Parliament approval is also needed. The uniform interpretation and application of the agreements between the UK and the EU would be carried out in the UK by the British courts and in the EU by EU courts, taking due account of EU jurisprudence in areas where the UK would continue to apply a `set of rules`. On 14 November, the British government cabinet approved the draft withdrawal agreement between EU and UK negotiators. The decision was followed the next day by the resignations of several MPs. We check the first reactions in the blogosphere. Sandbu argues that May wins in more ways than one.

Firstly, the inclusion of a temporary customs union for the whole country in the legally binding withdrawal agreement is a real concession. Second, and underestimated according to Sandbu, the temporary agreements in the withdrawal agreement seem to hardly make the difference between those in which May will try to end the future sustainable trade relationship. As it maintains the smooth functioning of goods trade between the UK and the EU, Mr Sandbu argues that May`s proposals for the Chequers White Paper must move towards a sustainable customs union, with a credible commitment to define a wide range of EU rules on the production and trade of goods, including those linked to equal competitive conditions. to stay aligned. Once this is done, the EU will not only have good reasons to accept it, but there will be little difference between the temporary all-British backstop and the new sustainable relationship: one can integrate almost perfectly with the other. The IEA recommends a new Anglo-Irish backstop agreement to maintain open borders; the removal of tariffs and quotas for all products that the UK does not produce, including foodstuffs that cannot be grown here; and that free movement from the EU is replaced by a global system that “recognizes the economic and social benefits and costs of immigration”. In the past, Michel Barnier has suggested that the EFTA model could work for the UK. One of the main advantages of a “two-pillar” structure, in which different institutions interpret and apply the agreement for each party, is that this approach ensures that only EU institutions link the EU to a certain interpretation of EU law. In the past, the ECJ has rejected proposals for agreements that would bind the EU to the interpretation of these rules by another court. The authors of the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) believe that the resignations have shown that, despite the fictitious agreement of the British cabinet, May has not received all her support and that she will continue to be pressured to change her most controversial aspects. The political statement on future relations was quite broad. Threats by British MPs to vote against the deal have put May under pressure during the negotiations, but the EIU maintains for now its view that a majority will ultimately vote for her.

Download PDF