Opinion: Can the government breach the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement? I FT

"This is a remarkable development" - the FT's David Allen Green explains the legal issues behind this potential constitutional crisis in his guided tour of the law
See if you get the FT for free as a student (ft.com/schoolsarefree) or start a £1 trial: subs.ft.com/spa3_trial?segmen...
► Check out our Community tab for more stories or to suggest videos.
► Listen to our podcasts: www.ft.com/podcasts
► Follow us on Instagram: / financialtimes

[@GillianOCaoilte7334]

It's not the Irish border It's the British border imposed on the island of Ireland.

[@norrinradd3549]

It’s a border that the people of Ulster(who are historically different from the Irish, and if you don’t already know this, then read your own Irish book, The Book of the Dun Cow, and be educated) have constantly voted to keep, because they don’t want to be a part of Eire, and that’s their choice..... Because if you think that you have the right to decide for them, because lots of people in Eire want to do ornately, then the people of the main island are allowed to decide that Eire must rejoin the Union, because there’s more of us than you, and we are just going by your own rules.......... Now grow up, and get educated, because it’s not your choice........

[@GillianOCaoilte7334]

@@norrinradd3549 Ulster? You mean the Ulster that has 3 counties of the Republic..you know Monaghan,Cavan and Donegal. Ulster is an ancient province of Ireland it was before the planters came and it will be after they leave. Open a history book and educate yourself 🤦‍♀️

[@GillianOCaoilte7334]

@@norrinradd3549 Why would Ireland rejoin the union? After 800 years of brutal occupation and genocide. Cop yourself on. Nationalists are the majority in the six counties now...they even have more MPs elected to Westminister than unionists. Demographics and recent polls show a united Ireland is coming sooner than you think. Get over it 😂

[@norrinradd3549]

Gila O'Caoilte. And what happens, if the English decide, that all of the Irish and Ulstermen that live in England have to leave the big island??? Are you and everyone else, going to be giving up your land and housing, for everyone that will be coming back?????

[@GillianOCaoilte7334]

The english can decide whatever they want...no one cares. You're delusional 🤯

[@17garm]

If they ‘change’ the agreement, then there is no agreement any more. They can’t breach it, merely destroy it.

[@williampatrickfagan7590]

You could not make this stuff up. It would be rejected as a sub plot for Blackadder.

[@philipvjones397]

Indeed. The principal characters are too absurd to imagine. There's probably not a satirist alive who could do them justice.

[@edricaldones9639]

It's what you get when Baldrick is running the government.

[@williampatrickfagan7590]

@@edricaldones9639 Well said. One day someone will make a comedy out of all this. Certainly will not be an edge of seat thriller and suspense.

[@KonveZ]

It's illegal to use a legal name. . . . . . . . . google legal name fraud.

[@strawmanlogic4089]

Make no mistake we have been and are in a political war with the EU. We will win as we always do, despite our own people trying to destroy us from the inside.

[@perryod]

This is a fabulous attempt at explaining a fiendishly complex issue. (I'm not sure I've got all that's to be got from this video, because there's so much to it, but I can and will watch it through a few times more. Credit to the video editing and graphics people too who play no small part in what makes this such a great piece of work.) This is what I'd classify as public service broadcasting.

[@davidallengreen2871]

Thank you

[@Mikey374]

Roy Wiseman Of course the EU worded the WA in their favour and to support their interests. Wouldn’t you if you were them ? It’s Johnson’s government that cocked up by accepting it as is and they are now trying to backtrack out of it. It’s embarrassing

[@Mikey374]

Roy Wiseman You are right of course. We at least have the higher moral ground where we can trust fully everything Johnson government says and does. We know for a fact that that there’ll be no U turns down the line in any policy’s that they come up with.

[@theyredistortingyourrhthym8883]

All intentional

[@GenoAtkins]

Roy Wiseman what’s with all the ball licking? Freudian slip?

[@johnproton259]

Brilliant explanation. Thank you! 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏👏👏👏👏👏

[@garybarrett4881]

Imagine the uproar in the Tory Party if Spain suddenly and unilaterally decided to rewrite the section of the WA dealing with Gibraltar.

[@GH-oi2jf]

Gary Barrett - If one party rewrites an agreement, that doesn’t make a new agreement. Spain, as a member of the EU, doesn’t have that authority anyway. But, setting the EU aside for the sake of argument, the status of Gibraltar was settled by treaty between Great Britain and Spain a very long time ago. Gibraltar is one reason why the UK must be completely sovereign. The EU desires to consolidate the armed for es under Brussels control. If they are able to do that, with the UK being in the EU, they could just declare Gibraltar part of Spain and the UK could do nothing about it. The UK must be sovereign to defend its overseas territories.

[@garybarrett4881]

GH1618 “the armed for es” - what’s that? No idea what you mean

[@garybarrett4881]

GH1618 Well then, that older treaty you say predates the EU, makes it all the easier for Spain as they won’t need to involve the EU at all. They can rewrite the old treaty in a “limited and specific way” and its all ok, right? I mean that is the current UK government logic isn’t it? This insane law breaking idea only sounds good until other countries start turning the same logic on the centuries of other agreements that the UK has with other countries.

[@garybarrett4881]

Stephen Forward Ah. Might is right. And advocating to use nuclear weapons on one of your neighbors. What will you do when after unleashing them and killing a few million people, the wind then blows the fallout to another neighbouring country and kills some more there? What if the wind blows it back into your own country? Doesn’t sound like you’ve thought this through. Sorry, didn’t realise I was taking to an actual crazy.

[@brutallyhonest9140]

Are you English or favour the EU as a traitor?

[@LegassiGardensTV]

Brilliantly simplified and explained. A pivotal point in history...again:(

[@markc1601]

Brilliant thanks for simplifying this FT

[@ianl1052]

Agreed. I'll be sharing this.

[@Conservator.]

Brilliant is an understatement 😉

[@janein6491]

"I'm contemplating to rob a bank. Yes, this would break the law in a very specific and limited way." There are so many laws, look at all the books around here. And I only contemplate to break a single one. That´s a tiny tiny fraction of all the laws.

[@joeychaseable]

Because Ireland is apart of the UK. How can the UK get out of its self?

[@janein6491]

@@joeychaseable Nobody stipulated for the UK to break up.

[@janlievens6964]

BOJO been on the magic mushrooms again.

[@10wanderer]

No you have arsehole !. the EU are reinterpreting the agreement re Northern Island to force the UK to surrender to the EU requirements

[@marcmarc8524]

Peter Mcintosh. Prove it!

[@bantamlad4263]

@@10wanderer u sound triggered LMFAO

[@illgottengains1314]

fred PLAT hey Fred, do you think it’s legal for France’s navy to escort their unwanted immigrants across the channel? Countries break laws all the time so we don’t really care what the Leftist media choose to promote, they’re absolutely shameless in their EU simpery

[@janstaes2172]

@bucketsandshims the us congress needs to sign the trade agreement with the uk off. if this undermines the goodfriday agreement in any way, no one wil sign it ! this is bipartisan republican and democrat ! i hope the uk reconsiders, their reputation is not going to get better.

[@cormackeenan8175]

Now you know why I call the current crew the LavaTories, because there taking the U.K. down the shitter.

[@jonsid6628]

Now you know why people think you're a bit simple

[@bearfoot007]

Good one! Inspired, actually!

[@edricaldones9639]

Burning down the country on their way.

[@cormackeenan8175]

Jon Sid, not as many as you’d like to pretend judging by the thumbs up you’ve got.

[@jonsid6628]

@@cormackeenan8175 I'll do another one. "Borys Jensen am fikk." Trying hard to match your thumbs up from the intelligentsia.

[@julianshepherd2038]

I'm applying for a privateers license.

[@scarletharlot69]

Me too Jim Lad! Argh!!

[@davidbeakhust9797]

I heard a comedian say recently in another context: "When a woman says 'no', she means 'NO'; but when a man says "yes" he hasn't understood the question". This seems to apply to the WA.

[@adrianmartin7344]

UK: breaches international law and tries to get a backdoor into EU single market via NI EU: Ok then, no trade deal for you and custom checks on the Irish border UK: Wait, that's illegal!

[@smoosview6103]

You have made a fundamental mistake as to State Aid. The statement made in article 10 is: "The provisions of Union law listed in Appendix 5 to this Protocol shall be applied to the United Kingdom in respect of measures which affect that trade between North Ireland and the Union which is subject to this protocol". You can't just pluck part of a sentence and apply your position to it. Under law the entire statement must be taken in context.

[@KennyEvansUK]

It's heartening to know that Brexiteers had a good understanding of all the relevant legislation and pitfalls effecting the UK in the event of leaving the EU before they voted. I mean how else could you vote to leave without knowing that doing so could potentially destroy the country, including such events such as the break up of the union and a crushing long term currency devaluation that can only be cured by joining the Euro? We can see a microcosm of the way the country will implode when the haulage industry tries to navigate the chaotic mess that is the Smart Freight System (still not finalised) in a few months and the population try to deal with a lack of imported fresh produce not to mention the new higher prices. The entire EU haulage industry is based around a model that is about to fundamentally change and no one is even speaking to them. Building giant lorry parks just to put them somewhere seems to be the only visible sign at this stage.

[@fwcolb]

Possibly true. But going back to the beginning, UK economists warned that joining a trade cartel was not in the UK national interest. Political scientists were concerned about the survival of democracy on the continent. Those of us who did not want the Brave New World were ignored. And now when the British have opened their eyes, they can see the trap they allowed themselves to be conned into.

[@GazSChad]

Another prophecy of immanent doom😂😂😂. I hope they send you at least a packet of biscuits, out of the project fear budget for that lengthy post. You earned it👍

[@fwcolb]

@@GazSChad I agree. you probably meant imminent doom, (soon to come). But the "doom" was also immanent in the sense that it was built into the decision to join the EU in the first place. Europe for the most part relies on civil law adapted from Roman law, imposed from above. UK law for the most part is adapted from the common law, evolved from tribal law. European and British politicians and administrators may try to play the same symphony, but they play in different keys and tempos and with different instruments.

[@DW-dd4iw]

On the flip side, did remainers know what they were voting for? Example: an EU army...

[@KennyEvansUK]

@@fwcolb If they go down, we go down, tied to them or not.

[@bearfoot007]

This is a great example of having your cake and eating it! Clause 44 - Notwithstanding current agreements and international law, the following will apply ... as long as they don't break international law. Clause 45 - The things we said would only apply notwithstanding international law (ie if they don't break internatoinal law) don't need to conform to international or domestic law. So which is it? And how does the person who wrote this still have a job? It's like you hire someone to fix the brakes on your car. When you collect your car you ask, 'Did you fix the brakes?' and they say 'maybe we did .... maybe we didn't. Pay me anyway!' To truly illustrate the incompetence at play here, imagine Clause 41 - you better pay your taxes ... or you go to jail! Clause 44 - Notwithstanding clause 41 and other applicable clauses, any change to penalties for tax non-payment should be in accordance with international and domestic law (such as Clause 41) Clause 45 - You don't need to pay taxes if you don't want to and it doesn't matter what international law and clause 41 says! This is exactly how 'responsible' government operates ... lol!

[@bearfoot007]

@@roywiseman Did you type all of this out word for word ... or is it a copy and paste job?

[@hernanmunozratto5899]

Roy Wiseman whatever suits you better. Now please make up your mind and leave!!

[@Markus-zb5zd]

@@roywiseman the EU is responsible to it's members, not to the UK anymore. You want out? You also loose any good faith and the experienced negotiators.

[@morethanwords]

I signed a legally binding agreement but later I realised I hadn't read all the small print. So, I'm not going to follow the bits I don't like. So there!

[@chestnutsdrawing]

It’s like I’m going to fire you because you disagree with me

[@sirbarringtonwomblembe4098]

Shhhh! You'll let the Brexiteers know that if they stop repaying their loans, they will have breached the contract - therefore the contract is void, so they won't be liable for the debt!😂😂😂😂

[@Heresjohn]

You signed under the pretence there would be a deal, now you find they had no intention of having a deal unless you remained under their control. So yes you need an override, which just happens to be parliamentary law and clause 38 ;)

[@sirbarringtonwomblembe4098]

@@Heresjohn 100% Wrong. Any future 'deal' was never guaranteed. How could it be? Idiot. There is no such beast as ' ... parliamentary law ... '. There is just law, which either complies with International law, or it doesn't. You couldn't say that a woman is a 'bit' pregnant. And, what '.. clause 38 ..' ? Do you mean Section 38 of the Act? At least try to read/comprehend what you see in front of you.

[@Heresjohn]

Sir Barrington Womble MBE twat you try to be little someone with your it’s section 38 not clause 38 really well let’s see how a senior MP reads it apology accepted thank you Note below: My contribution to the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill debate, 8 January 2020 By JOHNREDWOOD | Published: JANUARY 9, 2020 John Redwood (Wokingham (Con): Clause 38 is welcome. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) for being one of the co-authors of that excellent piece of Government-proposed legislation. I also support the Minister in opposing various new clauses and amendments before us. No one said a deal was guaranteed but the WA was signed to allow a deal to be started under best endeavours, but a deal was not really started we got bogged down with again the EU instisting on fisheries and state aid before talking trade. Wonder if that’s like have to have WA before starting trade, wonder what would come up next. Tax Law well there is avoidance and evasion one legal one not, I see this the internal marketing bill as avoidance. Only reason you remainer idiots are making this fuss is the fact you want to be chained to the EU, guess what your still a minority. As for pregnant or not really pregnant it’s binary like a light switch, the analogy doesn’t work even close to working better rethink before engaging brain. International law is defined as a body of rules established by custom or treaty and recognized by nations as binding in their relations with one another. The way I see it the relationship between the EU and U.K. has been broken by best endeavours not being adhered too,

[@johnhobbes2268]

Wow, this is even worse than I though, good video.

[@2ebarman]

@stuart beesley I have heard a lot of rumors about EU allegedly threatening to starve the people in Northern Ireland. I have asked where those talks originate and yet I have not had an answer I can understand. So I call this a lie and propaganda at this point. But it turned out the WA allowed trade barriers between this or that and the UK is only just now discovering it infringes on its sovereignty, ... Uk signed and ratified the damn thing almost a year ago. But I admit I don't fully understand what is going on there.

[@julianshepherd2038]

@stuart beesley would any sane country with a half decent reputation stand up and say they were going to break international law that they passed and registered less than a year ago? Makes us look like Venezuela.

[@julianshepherd2038]

@@2ebarman what are you gibbering about. NI exports its agricultural goods mostly to Eire for processing and marketing to uk and European Union. You couldn't starve NI even if the UK didnt assist. Rumours you made up, ya loon.

[@2ebarman]

@@julianshepherd2038 I called those rumors a lie and propaganda. Don't be so emotional :)

[@johnhobbes2268]

@@2ebarman In many cases the populists accuse others of things they themselves were saying. Priti Partel suggested to use food shortages to pressure the Irish into submission.

[@richardcope8102]

Thanks for your public information Vid. I found it to be very helpful.

[@stephenconway2468]

Yet, the Japan deal has even harsher state aid restrictions than the EU was asking for. So is this really the issue with the EU?

[@AaronOkeanos]

Frost is not very happy to explain this to Barnier. Frost denies what Barnier wants, but what Barnier wants is less restrictive than what Japan now wants from the UK.

[@amplify3735]

@Richard Grover yes sir!

[@stephenconway2468]

@Richard Grover You talk about fish, when that is yet another issue. The one here is state aid. Ok, as regards fish, the UK is mandated by a separate international treaty to discuss how it will give (yes - give) fishing rights to it's neighbours for the excess fish that it does not catch and especially to those who have traditionally fished in those waters. This is not an EU law, this is an international law. Now, as you can expect a No Deal will mean a lot of excess fish in British waters. The EU by the rather specific way it framed the question is actually following that treaty. It put forward that the catch ratios should be the same as now and the method of determining the total catch size be based on same scientific method. These are the items for debate. The UK must negotiate - unless it wants to break that UN treaty. Do you want to break yet another internationally signed agreement? The UK could propose a tougher or different set of catch measurement. It could propose a larger share of the catch. It has not put forward anything. As a direct result, according to existing food regulations, the surplus of fish will increase and according to UN treaty, the UK must discuss this on a bilateral basis with the same interested countries. Now - do you see why this is a red herring as well?

[@stephenconway2468]

@Richard Grover " the U.k. have said no more foreign fishing in our waters again. no more rules .no more money. full stop." - then the UK will have to also back away from a UN treaty. Can you do that please? It will also mean that specific British trawlers which fish in UK for different catches will have to re-fit.

[@davefreeman9661]

@Richard Grover I never knew Grover had a first name. I loved you on Sesame Street. What happened man?

[@mweskamppp]

When UK then next time tries to lecture China over hongkong, you will hear some homeric laughter from Beijing and from the UN too.

[@davidhuff5676]

Absolutely. Trust and respect are hard won, once it's gone it's gone.

[@jayc342009]

This is a completely different situation...wtf are you remoaners smoking?

[@1agentflick]

To be quite honest, neither the CCP or the U.N. will be laughing anytime soon as they are in crisis due to the U.S. sorting them out

[@Dannydantimpat]

It was such a big mistake to partition Ireland . Westminster at that time didn’t anticipate all of the problems that having a border in the island of Ireland would create for both Ireland and Britain . 100 years from now and as the people will look back at this period , they will wonder about this present government and how did they got it all so so wrong.

[@oisnowy5368]

The UK partitioned Ireland in the previous century... around 1922 or so. Perfidious Albion.

[@derekmulready1523]

When in the History of the Empire did England do anything for the benefit of it's defeated subject Countries. 🇮🇪🇪🇺🙄

[@Dannydantimpat]

@@derekmulready1523 England / Westminster won some battles in the countries they invaded and occupied but as the present day proves they could never conquer or break the spirit of resistance of the peoples of these lands . 🇮🇪🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿

[@cjgoth3487]

Given the Tories are usually dead set against state aid, it is a bit puzzling why they are making such a fuss about it. UNLESS, they are planning on export subsidies to counteract tariffs on exported goods, in particular agricultural products, in the event of No Deal. Of course, export subsidies for the purpose of tariff nullification are illegal under WTO rules, but since when did the Tories know anything about the WTO.

[@hus390]

Tories are flexible on State Aid and they have the better view here. The EU's view of "State Aid" is something no other Federations or a country share. In the US, states and cities are free to help industries and businesses that operates in their jurisdictions. It's just outrageous that a government need to go through Brussels loop, to subsides building a fence around a commercial, to protect it from wolves (that's a true case). It's just extreme and stupid.

[@Heresjohn]

CJ Goth seem to talking out your bottom guess your not British. There a difference between WTO state aid and allowing the EU to oversee a sovereign states, state aid. The problem is the EU want control over the U.K. that’s the bottom line. The U.K. has no intention of allowing that, what country in the world would. ?

[@stephenconway2468]

@@Heresjohn The bottom line is that you are incorrect. There are clear and very well defined rules on state aid. Indeed, the UK has just agreed to a harsher regime on the same with the Japanese.

[@Heresjohn]

Stephen Conway your incorrect we are currently under EU state aid rules , when we finally leave end of year EU state aid rules don’t apply there are a set of WTO state aid rules that could apply. So where in the Japanese agreement have you read we will be adopting Japanese state aid rules. Think about what you are saying before saying it. Give you a clue if we now go to India and get a deal who state aid rules apply India or japan? There are WTO state aid rules you can read, Guessing your a remainer clutching at left press, I have looked quite a bit to find details on this latest trade deal not a lot out there. Ps what I said earlier is the EU are trying to get us to apply there state aid rules after we have left then talk trade deal. Why would we I’d also guess the ECJ over see infringements hmm thought we were leaving

[@Heresjohn]

There also a difference between nullification of tariffs (WTO) and helping out company’s with state aid.

[@user-xd9yo3le7o]

What hasn't been mentioned is that the UK government does have a genuine problem concerning state aid in Northern Ireland. That is because the provinces economy is highly dependent on state subsidy... why is it only coming into focus now. Johnson and co brushing issues under the carpet I think.

[@Markus-zb5zd]

Yeah but the already receive state aid under EU regulations... The status quo can be upheld

[@user-xd9yo3le7o]

@@Markus-zb5zd I think I've got a clearer picture of what Johnson is saying now. He's pandering to the base.

[@Markus-zb5zd]

@@user-xd9yo3le7o that and he's also testing the waters. Nationally and internationally. And it seems the international answers are about as predicted. Preventing nearly all FTAs, posing potential sanctions on the UK and isolation.

[@hus390]

@@Markus-zb5zd The EU's view of "State Aid" is something no other Federations or a country share. In the US, states and cities are free to help industries and businesses that operates in their jurisdictions. It's just outrageous that a government need to go through Brussels loop, to subsides building a fence around a commercial, to protect it from wolves (that's a true case). It's just extreme and stupid.

[@smplfyi]

The best video of the week period!

[@chezzzie3994]

Very informative video, thank you

[@tomtom2806]

Brilliant analysis!

[@philipcorr8225]

You forgot illegally prorogueing parliament and lying to the Queen

[@Thaitanium73]

That's because Parliament wasn't 'illegally' prorogued, and you have no idea of the dialogue between the Queen and Privy Council.

[@TorianTammas]

@@Thaitanium73 It was illegally prorueged. the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom which, on 24 September, ruled unanimously in R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland that the prorogation was both justiciable and unlawful; consequently, the Order in Council ordering prorogation was quashed, and the prorogation was deemed "null and of no [legal] effect".

[@strawmanlogic4089]

@@TorianTammas They ruled it was unlawful and not illegal. Get it right. It's not the same.

[@bikerslow2598]

@@strawmanlogic4089 both should cause you outrage.

[@fwcolb]

What a load of old cobblers. The "advice" to the Queen is merely formal. There is no conversation. No opportunity to lie. The Lord President (Rees-Mogg) advised the Queen on behalf of the Privy Council and she gave Her assent. No debate because the Queen does not make the decision. She merely assents. Learn something about UK Constitutional customs before accusing the Prime Minister of lying. The same custom is followed in Canada where the Governor-General has formal constitutional power to refuse assent but the custom is not to do so. In Canada also the decision is made by the Government of the Day, not the representative of the Monarch. The UK Supreme Court decision was based on inventing a new feature of the UK Constitution, that the judiciary has a role in determining the propriety of the advice given to the Monarch by the Privy Council. The Justices of the UKSC pulled a rabbit out of a hat that had hitherto no such animal. This is called "legislating from the Bench" because there is a statute and the statute is silent about reasons for prorogation. In effect, the UKSC amended the relevant legislation by asserting that it has power unknown to the UK Constitution. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%E2%80%93Byng_affair

[@kirstenbax5641]

Excellent explanation. Thanks

[@curtinj98]

A nice, clear explanation for us not in the legal profession. If someone can point the relevant ministers this way...

[@triciacol]

Voiceover By Allen Green a pleasure to listen to.

[@biggles258]

Excellent video, many thanks.

[@Jonpoo1]

Great video. Thanks.

[@sylvieshultz5192]

great explanation. finally! thanks

[@Trolligarch]

Is it just me or does David Allen Green have a really soothing narrator's voice - almost like ASMR.

[@josephinewinter]

and you have a great name sir!

[@rehurekj]

3: 10 the article 10- doesnt it mean when one considers the placement of the commas in the sentence( ... this Protocol shall apply to the UK, including ... agricultural products in NI, in respect of measures which affects that trade between NI and EU which is subject to this Protocol) that the annex 5 provisions( regarding the state aid as i understand it) apply to the rest of UK only in respect to trade between NI and EU( thus they apply only to the state aid for NI entities or GB ones that are trading& doing business with NI and exporting to/ importing from NI) instead of to the UK as a whole as you mentioned? I am not native English speaker nor I am lawyer or diplomat but as i said if it was up to me to analyse the sentence then looking at it and even just from the placements of the commas alone i would automatically understand it as those provisions are limited to NI and to UK entities only if they are dealing with NI and not to whole UK and the part between commas is just specifying and pointing out all those measures shall also apply to the agricultural production of NI.

[@rehurekj]

@Jan Schlossar yes I understand the sentence in similar way. Its just in the vid he talks the article 10 applies to whole UK and Im just unsure if its really the case based on my understanding of whats written( which may be quite possibly wrong considering English isnt my 1st language)

[@davidallengreen2871]

@@rehurekj Listen to the wording I use carefully, you will hear I anticipate your very point

[@rehurekj]

@Jan Schlossar Sure but where's the fun in Brexit if one cant speculate about all the drama of the current season, criticise the main cast( awful actors, a bit too clownish for my taste, i prefer the previous lead even if her acting was a tad robotic) and guessing who'll be breaking up with whom and why and when and if its for real or just make them jealous( was UK right and EU did cheat on her when they were supposed to be on break or not?). Or wondering what spectacle they gonna stage for the season finale, I got gut feeling it will be pretty big as this was announced to be their last season but who knows anymore when it comes to Brexit( they always come up with some unexpected plot twists just when you start to think the show lost its BoJo). After all its not always the case that every subsequent season of the show is genuinely more surprising and over the top than the previous one. Most of others would get pretty boring and predictable well before their 4 or 5th season.

[@dny9394]

Jiri Rehurek: Legal Documents in the UK don't have commas as a rule.

[@rehurekj]

@@dny9394 well I did read too they are often omitted but the fact is this particular legal document clearly contains bunch of them so the rule if there is any such rule( as i sad Im no legal expert) doesnt apply here.

[@didierlemoine6771]

Happy to see the end of UK and see freedom for everyone !

[@mickgreer2146]

Once again another great video, keep 'em coming.

[@Jonathantuba]

Thanks for a clear explanation of what all this is about

[@vpindoriya]

You’ve done an excellent job in explaining what the government has done? Any insights into why? State aid rules and support to business presumably has taken Centre stage during the Covid-19 Pandemic. Are the government’s hands tied in this respect? Is that prompting this change in posture? Or has Boris always wanted a No-Deal Brexit...

[@j0hnc00]

The state aid rules do have plenty of exceptions, for health reasons, economic damage, and national security - they can be ignored. Although broadly government can't support zombie companies as Cummings want to in funneling infinite support to his personal favourite "elevator-pitch" startups that have no hope of competing in the real world

[@olmostgudinaf8100]

@Andrew H _"There is no such thing as a ‘no deal’. There is ALWAYS WTO."_ I won't even grace the stupidity of that comment with a response but mark my words. *The same people* who are now hammering the WTO into your head as your ultimate saviour will, in just a few months, make the WTO into yet another "enemy" and will make you hate it just as much as they made you hate the EU. Remember that when the time comes. It's not like it has not happened already. Cast your mind back to last October, when Johnson presented his Withdrawal Agreement as the ultimate victory and the best deal ever (in direct contrast to the "worst deal ever" Theresa May signed, even though the two were nearly identical, except the Irish Protocol). A year has not passed and *the same people* who told you it was a "victory" are now telling you how bad it is.

[@dominictemple]

@Andrew H Did you even watch the video? All this whataboutism is entirely besides the point, the agreement was done in order to prevent problems on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, it was written into law as part of the leaving the EU agreement. Even putting aside the fact that screwing with this puts the peaceful and open status of the Irish border into question, going back on a deal like this makes the UK untrustworthy internationally at the same time that we need to negotiate with other countries, and negotiate from a position of weakness. Why is this a hard concept to understand>

[@dominictemple]

@Andrew HAgain, I have to ask, did you watch the video? And you completely ignored my entire point about trustworthiness, but hey, you're nearly as disingenuous as Johnson, so good for you.

[@dominictemple]

​@Andrew H What are you jibbering on about? The treaty that he's going against is the "Leaving the EU" treaty, this has nothing to do about remaining, it's about sticking to an agreement that we agreed upon. This new bill breaks that treaty and violates the law that was put in place by it, neither of your last two statements have anything to do with the subject at hand. Sweet jesus, you make Johnson look like an honest and plain spoken man of integrity and that takes some doing.

[@ptb2008]

8:10 that is incorrect. The Gina Miller case confirmed that Parliament decides.

[@thomasgerber1472]

Parliament can terminate a treaty, thats not in doubt, but they cannot unilaterally change the rules of an otherwise binding treaty.

[@berndhoffmann7703]

@@thomasgerber1472 Question: When UK terminates WA - does that mean the transition period kind of is void and being back in EU?

[@thomasgerber1472]

@@berndhoffmann7703 no,no wa needed. But someone has to decide on farages mep pension and other things.

[@thomasgerber1472]

@Paymon Knight again, they can cancel the whole wa act if they wish so, but if they unilaterally change parts of it they violate the contractual rights of the other side. This has nothing to do with parliament sovereignity, parliamant has no right to change a two party treaty with a foreign entity.

[@robtaylor791]

@@thomasgerber1472 I doubt that Garage is actually due a mep pension, given that he's never actually done any work there.

[@clivehallam5339]

Good explanation but somewhat irrelevant as the Internal Market Bill was clearly not designed to become law but rather to destroy the EU's entire negotiating position. It successfully did that the moment the EU didn't immediately walk away from the talks after the most blatant provocation imaginable. It's now served its purpose and can be scrapped or better still.. allowed to be blocked by the House of Lords... giving Boris the added benefit of being able to portray them once again as "enemies of the people".

[@petrus3370]

Michael@ All clear ? Illegal. Domestic and International law. No one, no person, no party is above the law.

[@strofikornego9408]

Dominic Cummings is above the law.

[@dream_emulator]

"Oven ready" is the new red bus.

[@acegarcia3719]

The Lord's is usually seen as a waste of space and not fit for purpose but this could be one of those few times were the so-called upper chamber check on power blocks the commons due to it not being apart of the Tory manifesto and a possible future hinderence for the country.

[@RichardMKruse]

Absolutely correct, right up to the "but."

[@lscully8400]

What would you have the government do then, because if do nothing, they can not stop the EU from putting charges on goods going from N.Ireland to the main land and vise versa and would start the breaking up of the UK, which is what the EU wants.

[@Markus-zb5zd]

Sorry, that's what the UK parliament agreed upon.

[@patchso]

Resign.

[@grossherman3841]

I should think the UK government is trying to put pressure on the EU to come to a reasonable agreement over Brexit. It should not be forgotten that an agreement can be cancelled if one party or the other fails to honor any part of that agreement, the EU has indeed failed to honor its commitment, it has openly stated that our sovereign fishing grounds must be open to the EU fishing fleet. This is not reasonable any more than it would be reasonable for Britain to insist it farms massive tracts of EU land and brings the profit home to the UK. Maybe my argument is a little stretched but in principal it’s the same. Aa Churchill famously said “You cannot negotiate with a tiger when your head is in its mouth”

[@billymania11]

That was a pretty fancy explanation that failed miserably. The issue is that the UK cannot allow the EU to interfere with internal issues affecting the integrity of the UK. It's as simple as that. At the end of the day, you cannot allow an existential threat to lie unaddressed. You must deal with it. Naturally, nobody expects the EU to help the UK resolve this issue satisfactorily.

[@TorianTammas]

This is the Johnson praised withdrawal agreement, every Tory sitting Today in Parliament agreed to it, Johnson signed it on the 24th of January.

[@mididoctors]

@@roywiseman then your argument is the government didn't know what it was doing .

[@waltereaton6404]

This stratagem has allowed the uk to remain in the European free market under false pretences. Johnson always intended to renage on the deal

[@windyworm]

Amazing that 36 people (so far) would have a problem hearing a factual description of the article 10 issue.

[@adezentje5230]

And the integraty of the friday agreement.

[@magnusschlosser5927]

One has to admit that Boris Johnson has the format of someone from the time when the British rose to a world power and someone who was playing a major role in achieving that. He really has the format and the moral of a typical pirate.

[@magnusschlosser5927]

@DistriktA luckily, Johnson has much less power to misuse.

[@Heresjohn]

Strange when you listen to a remain interpretation and then you listen to a leave interpretation. FT seems to miss some of the facts. No mention of sovereignty, no mention of a recent GM court case. Personally I think this will get through the government and lords although lords will try and add amendments, but parliament is sovereign so guess what the outcome will be. As thought the WA treaty required a U.K. law to get enshrined into U.K. law. Nothing stopping that being removed ?

[@magnusschlosser5927]

Yes, and one country will ever make a negotiation with you since everyone now knows how respectful for that contract you will be in the end.

[@TorianTammas]

John Dicks - I sell you my car we make a treaty and I change the treaty so that only I am allowed to drive the car, but you can still wash it, pay for petrol and insurance. This is how every international treaty works you just change it without any agreement from the other side.

[@magnusschlosser5927]

@@TorianTammas Show some real examples and not just this parabola.

[@Heresjohn]

Magnus is this why we just signed a trade deal with japan? The car example, actually my view is, I buy a car from you as a main dealer on the understanding you will discount my service, I’m then later told you decide when it is serviced and want it serviced every week. Unreasonable behaviour! This is what I think Boris is worried about. This is the problem the WA was about getting to a trade deal and was about both sides acting reasonably , we don’t think your talks are reasonable endeavours, ie our waters your fish? Really, you controlling our state aid. Therefore the WA was sold under false pretences. In my book no deal no WA. Any sovereign national would agree. I’d would add I don’t know why Boris has done this now personally I’d of accepted no deal and then waited to see if the EU tried to interfere with goods and state aid in NI, then I would of create the internal market policy in U.K. law which does override international law.

[@Heresjohn]

I also read else where Barnier threatening to block our food exports, is this really an action off a friendly nation. This is really about the EU thinking they can control the U.K. after exit. Do believe we should walk, if the EU then start blocking exports etc, think manufactures like the German car industry had better start making rubber dinghies instead because they won’t be imported here.

[@unclefish]

A very good summary.

[@tomtomtomtom8092]

The withdraw agreement should never have been signed because it runs against clauses within the Belfast agreement to ensure northern Ireland remains a full member of the UK. The people of northern Ireland are the only one's with the right to make changes to that status via a referendum vote. Instead we find the EU threatening to force Ireland (an EU member and signatory to the Belfast agreement) to break it's commitments to the UK over a trade agreement. How can the EU have the nerve to say that peace in Ireland is their only concern. They are complete hypocrites.

[@pony_OwO]

northern ireland had a majority of votes for remaining in the EU so if anything forcing us to leave would be breaking the GFA

[@jonnydougs]

Baloney....the issue is national sovereignty. The EU is asserting it has the ability to control trade and commerce between to regions of the sovereign nation of the UK thru the “backstop” and Irish Protocol putting customs and trade regulations between Northern Ireland and the island of Great Britain in UK territorial waters. This is clearly a violation of international law even if the prime minister signed an agreement to do so. Parliment can and has overridden this concept in Article 38. Analogy.... it would be the eqivilent of China having the right to regulate trade and commerce between Dijon and Bordeaux in France. Clearly ludicrous a notion. Article 38 of the Withdrawl Act...reassert and maintains its sovereign rights to control and regulate all issues within its territory. Major blunder on Barnier and his dealers part. The remainer attorney at the F T is blowin smoke.

[@GiambattistaRossi]

and so what? the breach remains

[@Martin-cc5xn]

@J Market exactly, this is more of an FT opinion piece, not exactly known for balanced reporting on all things Brexit.

[@Markus-zb5zd]

No... The UK agreed to it So it's the UK deciding. The Problem is the reputation of the UK if they breach the agreement

[@onlybugwit]

@@Markus-zb5zd The UK have a reputation?? but what for?

[@Markus-zb5zd]

@@onlybugwit well before this the UK could be trusted to uphold agreements they passed.

[@berndceranick5397]

This might bring up discussions again on introducing a written constitution. There must be a set of basic rules which limits powers of the parliament with regard matters of paramount interest.

[@davidbeakhust9797]

@Mario the Netherlands (for example) is a Constitutional Monarchy rather like ours. It DOES have a written constitution (de grondwet), as do other constitutional monarchies. The important distinction is NOT that no parliament can bind another. It is that in countries with written constitutions, if you DO want to change a CONSTITIONAL provision, a bigger hurdle needs to be jumped than needs to be jumped by an ordinary law. To that "Specific and limited extent" (the phrase of the decade, I suggest), it does rein in the powers of parliament to make laws that (a) conflict with that constitution or (b) perhaps quite reasonably require powers to update the constitution. The way (b) is achieved in the Netherlands, I believe (though I am no expert) is that something like a 2/3 majority in parliament is needed AND the change has to pass with that margin in two parliaments with a General Election in between. Some countries prefer a referendum (but referendums can sweep up the passions of a nation at one moment into permanent change that could undermine the rule of law itself). The United States also has a more severe test to make Constitutional Amendments. So "bind" - no. To introduce a bit of friction and reflection time, why not?

[@AuntyEsther]

It's not the powers of Parliament that is the biggest problem. It's the clown in charge who is making up policy - don't forget he unlawfully pro-rogued Parliament and also only allowed days for the WA to go through Parliament. Parliament has been kept out of negotiations - the UK negotiations, particularly those with the US, have been kept firmly behind closed doors and not with any scrutiny from Parliament.

[@davidbeakhust9797]

@@AuntyEsther A written constitution should limit the powers of a government to conclude treaties using the royal prerogative, without even announcing a text before it is signed. It need not necessarily ask for an amendable resolution, but at least subject the signing of deals to a negative procedure. Also, the EU parliament is (I believe) kept informed of negotiations (by right) but our MPs are kept in the dark.

[@davidbeakhust9797]

@Hauke HolstI agree that all that "unwritten Constitution nonsense" is indeed that -- nonsense. However, what about the Bill of Rights under William and Mary (Formalising the "declaration of Right" that was not a statute?) In the sense that it mostly just sets the Monarch subordinate to parliament only for most things, not all, it is not much good as a constitution, but it was a start. Pity we did not finish the job! This may nonetheless be the basis of claims for being a "constitutional" Monarchy. Although only an "ordinary Act", not a separate Constitutional Act (with different rules) it does curtail the powers of the Monarch. William and Mary were invited by parliament and had to agree to this act to become King and Queen. But my point was I think unchanged. We need a constitution that entrenches powers and limitations to powers - of parliament - and subject to a more onerous procedure to change, as in Monarchies like the Netherlands, or Federal Republics such as Germany.

[@starryk79]

That was really helpful to understand in which way the law will be broken by this bill.

[@DatNguyen-hf6cz]

Very good and funny videos bring a great sense of entertainment!

[@Danster82]

So boris and co want to be able to give all the contracts to their own mates and business's rather than fairly tendered to all business....?

[@Danster82]

@Mark White well that's ok then, let aim for the lowest common denominator.

[@batty1205]

finally a explanation on what is going on instead of some one going all around the houses to dodge the questions i have never know a gov be so evasive when they are being asked a question

[@catstevens5890]

Yes they can and they must to safeguard the uk union. We have sovereign law rights to protect the uk against threats from foreign powers.

[@waitingmp]

Why did Johnson sign it then?

[@trevtall1094]

This isn't the first time the UK or others brake international law

[@JogBird]

UK still think its a colonial power

[@svxntt]

It is.....

[@tabb5818]

It is ya numskull

[@drumrk9090902]

what does that even mean? who is the UK trying to dominate? If anything the EU is the new colonial model, be it colonisation via political means rather than force, although the EU army is coming!. Shame people refuse to admit this !

[@dnmurphy48]

Stupid and ignorant comment and nothing to do with the issue.

[@Al_Ellisande]

​​ @dnmurphy48 It's entirely relevant. The UK thinks it is more than it is because bluff and bluster á la de Pfeffel Johnson, who is trying to replicate Churchill. The UK is in no place to be telling the world's largest single market what to do. It is no longer a world power. Frankfurt, Paris and Berlin will be fine without London - the world of finance has moved on too. You're nobody on the global stage anymore, especially now that your government has signalled its willing and enthusiastic intention to breach international law. Trust is gone. But Johnson isn't even the main culprit here, nor is Gove - both of whom are journalists with expert knowledge in weilding the reins of public opinion. The main culprit is Johnson's chief advisor - you know he who went on a long drive to test his eyesight and was circled by his defenders in government?

[@demox4435]

Britain can't have brexit unless they talk about the Irish issue. They only way the can solve the issue is if they agree to not put up hard borders in Ireland. If they do, there will be war. In my opinion brexit would work and could be at least possible for all involved parties, but only if Britain is willing to let go of Northern Ireland. The only way this will work is with a united Ireland. But nobody in parliament wants that, so it's not getting the discussion it needs, so the negotiations lead no where. But to me it's not a big surprise that the government doesn't care about the law. The occupation of Northern Ireland is illegal and has always been illegal. But they don't care.

[@telectronix1368]

Essentially......the Leave camp never had a workable plan and still don't.

[@patchso]

Genuinely curious. How is NI being part of the UK illegal? Or are you just expressing your opinion that it's wrong?

[@patchso]

Like you say, brexit could work fairly easily if not for NI. Also the consensus seems to be that it's only a matter of time (5-10 years) before NI votes to re-unite with the Republic. So why don't brexiters just have a long transition period and wait until the NI problem just 'goes away'? Too long I guess.

[@telectronix1368]

@@patchso Weeellll, no, 'brexit' still doesn't work in terms of a positive change but it doesn't even work on a basic, practical level due to the UK's particular circumstances. And......ALL OF THESE ISSUES WERE PRESENT during the years of UKiP griping, the referendum campaigning and the years since the vote. And, STILL, the Leave camp cannof come up with a workable solution.

[@norm1143]

@@patchso it's a good question. in 1922 Britian separate the north east from the rest of Ireland and claimed it as part of the UK . Before this happened Ireland was always one country no north south devide. Was it legal of course not, Britain had no right doing this . Hey it's a long time ago but what trouble it's caused to so many people. We all hope and pray this Brexit doesn't restart the old troubles.

[@bradleypeyton6500]

Amazing content

[@markshirley01]

This is going to go down in history next to the Suez crisis. Its becoming intriguing. I wonder who is dreaming up theses ideas.

[@achbanilacran2061]

Cumings. It's cumings. Cuming all over the rule of law, while making money. Miiiiiiiiilllliiiiions of pounds. We are paying for that, of course. We, the ones that go to. Work from 9 to 7

[@ike212111]

My guess: it'll be approved, the Supreme won't discuss it (it's not a Constitutional Crisis). Off we go.

[@GiambattistaRossi]

who cares about the supreme court

[@ike212111]

First step done, no signs of the rebellion described by the FT, not at all.

[@GiambattistaRossi]

@@ike212111 no no sign of rebellion.... better you go out with zero credibility

[@Sean_Coyne]

FFS, learn to say "three". Forty free, forty free, forty free. Did my head in.

[@waitingmp]

He has a speach impediment. He can't "learn" it.

[@95winston]

Can you do a video on the state aid rules in the UK - JAPAN trade deal please

[@patchso]

I must be missing something here. "The provisions of this bill override international and domestic law. But if this bill becomes law, then won't there be a 'law that can override the law'. Does that even make sense? I'm more confused than when I started.

[@biocapsule7311]

Yes, it is senseless but it doesn't have to make sense. It's like programming because a program follow it's programming logic strictly. If you throw a line of gibberish into the program, it doesn't have to make sense to kill the program just as dead.

[@drumrk9090902]

What does the UK get from the withdrawal agreement? can anyone summarise what the benefit is to the UK? why don’t we use withdraw from it, would this not be better than breaching it?

[@mygoodness3850]

It's a sort of pre-text for a free trade agreement; it's understood the govt. would like to have some form of relationship with the EU (European Union) post Brexit, but the UK and EU would need to know where they stand once the UK has formally and legally divorced with the EU. So the the benefit is, it opens up dialogue between the UK and EU for a free trade agreement which is 100% in the UK's best interest and her peoples interest (and the EU's), as the EU is and always will be our biggest trading partner.

[@mateeq2579]

@@mygoodness3850 but if we're not getting that trade deal WA is no good to us right? I mean we'd have saved time leaving no deal in January, wouldn't we?

[@drumrk9090902]

​@@mygoodness3850 So with not trade deal, which is looking likely, where does that leave the WA?

[@huskytail]

Ask your government and parliament, who negotiated and voted for it. How did they sell it to the UK?

[@TheRikuideFurame]

That requires both the UK and the EU to agree to it. I'll add to My Goodness' post about benefits and point out that the WA helps to ensure necessary regulatory alignment re the Irish/Northern Irish border. It's something that Brexiteers ignore, but it's clear the US won't. I would be curious to hear your solution to the border issue assuming it doesn't undermine the UK's future negotiating position.

[@youcantsay7929]

Remoaner Gina Miller had a court case last year that stated Parliament was sovereign and could over rule even international law...so short answer YES

[@jeremymerrifield219]

@Billy Billy But breaking international law brings with it a few problems lads. Trade sanctions, taking away rights of UK citizens in the EU and fines to name 3

[@jonsid6628]

@@jeremymerrifield219 Sanctions - possibly but pyrrhic. Removing citizens rights - unlikely without breaking their own charter. Fines - err....are you serious? They (the EU) can try to sue through the UK courts which will raise three questions: Was the agreement legally binding - generally the use of the word agreement suggests not. Will breaking this agreement actually damage the "Good Friday Agreements" or will any possible damage be as a result of the EU's own rules? If there is a conflict of Law here (which I think is the case) which law takes precedence and which law has the greater effect? I dont know the answers but I suspect when the EU cools down from having its trump card nullified it will actually negotiate seriously. I also think Barnier will step down to write his memoirs.

[@jeremymerrifield219]

@@jonsid6628 they were only suggestions off the top of my head. You must ask yourself, " is any of this really worth it economically and socially to the people of the UK "?

[@jeremymerrifield219]

@@jonsid6628 our wonderful government has already admitted what they are doing is illegal. And as for Barnier stepping down, that is immaterial.

[@jeremymerrifield219]

@@Grauenwolf because they are ignorant

[@markdempsey8790]

Does this only apply to the Withdrawal agreement? Could it be used in say a UK US trade deal? Just wondering is the UK watering down its own laes to make trade deals easier even though it might not be compatible with its own laws an regulations

[@markdempsey8790]

@@roywiseman thats not what i asked, so why post it.

[@markdempsey8790]

@@roywiseman no your trying to justify breaking a legal agreement. Copy snd paste somewhere else, you will find a like mind somewhere else. Thanks

[@markdempsey8790]

@@roywiseman where is the evidence that the EU has broken the agreement oh yes, that came from the people who are going to break international law and national law, by having parliament agree to let them. Also yes you are justifying an illegal act. The withdrawal agreement has processes that can be used if there is a material breach of the agreement, why didn't the UK gov us that, the EU certainly are going to. Spin what every you like, the UK gov is acting illegally. Is that the future that was voted for? Look at the bill again. It allows the government to break national and international law, with no oversight, that should not in any advance country be allowed.

[@markdempsey8790]

@@roywiseman oversight: systems or actions to control an activity and make sure that it is done correctly and legally. Grow up. If anything the EU have treated the UK better than it deserves. Throwing is toys about because it cant get its way. Thats all Brexit is. The UK is irrelevant in the world these days. Its just an island of the coast of Europe, has a big financial centre, thats about it. Low income, and poverty in a number of regions. This will be exasperated by Brexit due to the loss of 40 plus trade agreements the UK is party as a member of the EU, in addition to the likelihood of no trade agreement. The EU countries OWE the UK nothing. It is under no obligation to give it anything. It has broken no laws. The UK is. Lol your insults are hmmm not very good😔 but i would have expected much else.

[@markdempsey8790]

@@roywiseman Germany, France, Sapin, all the countries in Europe are irrelevant on the world stage on their own. Together they are not. EU is the biggest free trading block in the world and the UK left. Still trying to hold on to all the benefits with every finger nail but that ship has sail. I have doubts about how grown up you are given how you try to insult me for apparently using words you think dont belong in a message, but anyways thats a reflection on you and not me. How you express yourself in the last message, hmmm... well. Also, been patriotic doesn't mean that you have defend the stupid mistakes of those who have been elected to represent your country or those who voted for something based on lies. What country are you from?

[@brettwilliams5594]

Looking forward to this and also 'Trumpian policy' adding to the Oxford dictionary.

[@jayh9529]

Are we still in Burger King then

[@wastagesneddon]

Home of the Whopper

[@Markus-zb5zd]

Actually the US might put up sanctions that prevent BK to deal in the UK anymore.

[@jonsid6628]

The EU "state aid" rules are broken daily by every nation in the EU. A simple example is the French state's penchant for purchasing only French produced vehicles for ALL state requirements. This is strictly against the EU competition laws yet a blind eye is turned. The simple truth is the EU is as corrupt and selective on their own rules as it wants to be.

[@xDarkSpotx]

it needs to be approved by EU , which I would guess anyone can veto my country just had approval of EU to help national airline - nothing wrong with that, if its approved and agreed by all I guess the other option was to let them go down and eventually have problems and having to bail them anyway, for much more money

[@jonsid6628]

@@xDarkSpotx That's pretty much what I said. Thanks anyway.

[@TheBarbarella76]

State aid is not illegal. It just needs to comply with certain rules and must be agreed. The issue is also not state aid or breaches of it. The issue is that teh UK EU aims to adopt a law setting out that it will breach the withdrawl agreement which was just concluded.

[@conors4430]

Jon Sid but this issue isn’t specifically about the EU, this is the United Kingdom breaking a treaty and international law, it so happens the treaty is with the EU, but what it signals to the rest of the world is, the United Kingdom doesn’t fulfil its end of the deal. Even after brexit happens and the UK start shopping around for trade deals, countries are going to think twice because you already shown what you are willing to go back on after your agreement

[@annoyingbstard9407]

Jon Sid Quite so. This will lead nowhere as the EU is fully aware that state aid rules are broken so frequently to render the relevant laws meaningless. In any event this was never a treaty and thus international law simply doesn't apply. All they can do is blow and bluster and claim "Britain will never be trusted again" which beyond schoolboy rhetoric is an empty statement.

[@johncapo2843]

one can always break the law as long as you are ready for the lashing afterwards

[@josephinewinter]

the bit that gets me is, they've passed a bill giving themselves the power to break domestic law it says? They've made a domestic law to make breaking the domestic law illegal? Weird!

[@epincion]

A large number of commentators must be English because they have no understanding of the special constitutional status of NI in the UK Union. Ask yourself do you seriously think the EU and US would be taking such a stand if NI were merely like Scotland or Wales? The explanation of why the UK is were it is now is necessarily long and I hope you have the honesty to read it. The legal status of NI in the UK union is quite different to that of Scotland and Wales. In 1920 the Government of Ireland Act set down the new status of the then SI and NI post the partition of Ireland in 1919. Both were to be self governing with their own Parliament and yet both where to be part of the 'indivisible island of Ireland that will one day be reunited'. The self governing status of either part was compared to that of Dominion status then recently granted to Australia and Canada. Important was the fact that the future status of either SI or NI could only be decided by the residents of that nation in a binding referendum called by their own Parliament and there is no requirement for permission from Westminster. Very different to the anemic self rule given to Wales and Scotland 5 decades later. The Act was explicit that there would never be a border between the two parts and there never has been such, even during the Troubles. SI soon became fully independent initially as a Commonwealth country and then as a Republic and it's relationship to the UK was enshrined in the Anglo Irish accord. In NI the then Protestant majority fearing the higher Catholic birthrate attempted to extirpate the Irish language and culture by banning it and taking away the civil rights of Catholics (e.g. banning them from tertiary education and from joining the police, parts of which became a tool of the state repression of Catholics). The FPTP constituencies for the NI Parliament were heavily gerrymandered to ensure a permanent Protestant hegemony despite a growing Catholic population. This led to a civil war (the Troubles) that was eventually ended by international mediation led by the USA which resulted in the Belfast Agreement which built on and updated the 1920 Act setting up a NI Assembly elected on PR and mandating power sharing between Protestants and Catholics. The GFA also reaffirmed the fact that NI is both part of the UK and at the same time part of the indivisible island of Ireland. Most graphically seen in the fact that both London and Dublin have a formal oversight role and all persons born in NI are automatically citizens of both the UK and the ROI. The GFA was confirmed by a massive majority in referendums held in both NI and the ROI. The special status of NI was set down in UK law (the Government of NI Act), in EU treaty law, and in international law with the UN as an international treaty deposited at the International Court at the Hague. The only party to refuse to sign the GFA was the DUP which has a carefully constructed political mythology about NI not having a special status in the UK union. Its bollocks and the DUP know it. The 2016 Brexit referendum cannot apply in NI because the status of NI cannot be changed without the consent of the residents of NI in a referendum called by the NI Assembly and any way NI voted Remain in 2016 so there can be no pretence of consent. By happenstance after the snap 2017 GE, the DUP had the whip hand over the Tories in Westminster and so attempted to force a hard border across Ireland as a deliberate attempt to break the GFA. The reason is that the DUP acted is there is now a small Catholic majority in NI which within 5-10 yrs will be a large majority and in an assembly elected on PR that means the end of Protestant rule. The NI assembly election had taken place 4 months before the snap GE and to their horror the DUP had ended up a minority (28 of 90 seats) and having to share power in the NI Executive with Sinn Fein (27 seats) Hence the DUP shut down the NI Assembly for over three years (it requires a majority of both communities to operate) and where in a pickle. Hence the DUP viewed the result of the 2017 GE literally as being 'Gods will for us to ensure NI remains a Protestant homeland' because as Deputy Leader Sammy Wilson said 'now we don't need Stormont, we can rule from Westminster'. And so it happened NI had no legal government for the next 3.5yrs, Arlene Foster styled herself as First Minister and whispered instructions in the ear of the SoS for NI who allowed it because May's government depended on DUP support. We in NI are quite used to illegality from Westminster. In Nov 2018 The Lord Chief Justice of NI issued an extra-ordinary public rebuke of the SoS saying that the administration of NI was illegal - the SoS was instructing senior civil servants directly. The GFA is clear in the event of no government being formed within 3 months of an election then the SoS must call a new election or formally assume direct rule which means direct input from both London and Dublin. Both were anathema to the DUP. They failed to force a hard border and in the EU Parliament elections in May 2019 and the latest GE the DUP got clobbered. For the first time the majority of NI MPs in Westminster are nationalist. NI is firmly pro-EU. Plus the Tories got sick of the blackmail and after the 2019 GE the Tories no longer need the DUP so Johnson took pleasure in coming to Belfast and telling the DUP publicly that they must form a government with Sinn Fein and that the NI Protocol part of his WA stood and in fact he said his deal 'gave NI the best of both worlds, because they were fully part of the UK market but also remained in the EU ' - the very protocol he is attempting to unilaterally repudiate. However the most important point to understand right now is that the EU and the US have made it plain that the GFA is an international treaty enshrined in EU and UN law and that it has to be to be upheld. The UK can leave the EU as a sovereign nation but not with NI. Make no mistake if this IMB passes then there will never be a trade deal with the EU or the US and almost certainly others will back off as well plus the UK be a pariah and will face sanctions.

[@stuartnetherclift7566]

Govt. is just doing what it should - put UK interests first. It’s a pity EU is so malevolent but it is what it is and only a fool would try to fight fair with a power that would threaten to cut of food import/ exports. You need to get real.

[@sirbarringtonwomblembe4098]

And you need to get your facts right.

[@jackpayne4658]

For a small minority, Brexit might provide a key to personal enrichment and/or the re-modelling of the UK in radical directions. But for a much larger number, Brexit is a quasi-religion in which the end justifies the means. And for them, Brexit's self-destructive irrationality is either irrelevant, or an added attraction - 'Credo quia impossibile'.

[@hus390]

The EU's view of "State Aid" is something no other Federations or a country share. In the US, states and cities are free to help industries and businesses that operates in their jurisdictions. It's just outrageous that a government need to go through Brussels loop, to subsides building a fence around a commercial, to protect it from wolves (that's a true case). It's just extreme and stupid.

[@adamdaher2292]

This is all well and good, but the withdrawal agreement specifically mentions that the EU and UK will negotiate a FTA which will respect the UK’s sovereignty. Thus the EU is already in breach of this agreement with its “dynamic alignment” ridiculousness and so I doubt it can enforce one clause on the UK while being in breach of another itself, in my opinion anyway.

[@stephenconway2468]

It also suggests that the agreement will respect the EU nations' sovereignty. Respect does not mean giving in, but it does suggest empathy. Do you understand the nature of the single market?

[@adamdaher2292]

Stephen Conway I don’t understand how laws governing the UK disrespect the EU’s sovereignty. Could you please clarify.

[@stephenconway2468]

@@adamdaher2292 It is supposed to be an agreement which respects both parties.The contradiction is to have a frictionless open border where items may be exported/imported and yet there are no common rules. The UK is obligated by GFA (and yes we have gone through 4 years of denial and then acceptance of the same) to have an open border between NI and Ireland. The UK made a decision to leave the EU, and yet it has to abide by it's peace treaty commitment too. How? For year Brexit campaigners put forward non-existent (and still non-existent) technology. It is up to the UK to square this circle of it's own making and not infringe on the EU nations' sovereignty (the EU itself is not sovereign and never was). The EU nations have agreed to a single market. So that's how this law is a problem.

[@adamdaher2292]

Stephen Conway Well the issue is that a customs border across the Irish Sea violates the GFA as much as a border across Ireland. I don’t see how The Republic of Ireland’s sovereignty will impugned upon by having a border between the north and the south, but I can clearly see a violation of sovereignty with a customs border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[@stephenconway2468]

@@adamdaher2292 Yes. There is an issue whereby the UK has a massive contradiction. However, the NI/GB issue is internal and geographic to a large degree. Biosecurity for the island of Ireland has always meant different rules. Yet, the GFA is external, legal and the 3 parties to the deal are the UK, Ireland and the US. Major and Blair explained all of this prior to the vote in 2016, and they were ignored. Sorry.... but they were telling it straight.

[@cromac3319]

Only Johnson could achieve a no deal Brexit WITH sanctions 🤪

[@fwcolb]

When the UK Government enters into a treaty such as the Withdrawal Agreement, then under the Vienna Convention, jurisdiction passes to the International Court of Justice. The UK has a case but the outcome is not up to the UK or the EU to decide. 1) Is the Withdrawal Agreement binding after December 31, 2020? 2) Is the Withdrawal Agreement a treaty in its own right or in substance a "treaty to treat"? (treat = negotiate) This appears to be the key issue. If the Withdrawal Agreement is a treaty to treat, the UK has several claims to justify its position. This is because the practice of the European Court of Justice is to look beyond the words of treaties to take in the substance of treaties and their context to determine if either party or both parties have breached the terms of the treaty. The UK can claim that during negotiations the EU displayed 1) lack of good faith and 2) abuse of power. There are other more specific claims. If the Withdrawal Agreement is decided to be in substance a treaty to treat there are a few things the UK can use in its defense. 1) the EU negotiator announced October 15 as the end date for negotiations. The UK has agreed. Thus the UK will not be bound in good faith to negotiate after that date. 2) The EU has insisted on limits on UK sovereignty in respect to UK domestic law not included in the Withdrawal Agreement; 3) The EU has insisted on limits to UK sovereignty in respect of UK territorial rights not included in the Withdrawal Agreement. Thus, depending on its provisions and provided the internal markets Bill/Act does not come into force before October 15, the UK cannot be faulted for breaking off negotiations. If the Withdrawal Agreement is in substance a treaty to treat, then the Agreement will expire on December 31, 2020. The question remains whether or not the Northern Ireland Protocol is separable from the Withdrawal Agreement. If there is no trade treaty between UK and EU from January 1, 2021, trade between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland will be governed by WTO rules. WTO rules require that all trading partners operate under the same rules UNLESS there exists a trade agreement between two or more member countries. If there will be no trade agreement between the UK and EU, then the Northern Ireland Protocol will appear to be incompatible with WTO rules.

[@patrickkyle4601]

For a supposedly learned commentary it misses one important point while (partly) quoting Article 10: " - in respect of measures which affect that trade between Northern Ireland and the Union which is subject to this Protocol." Article 10 does NOT apply to trade moving internally between NI and the British mainland. If the EU are concerned that goods arriving in Belfast for domestic consumotion may somehow get into the single market then THEY must be the ones to build a customs barrier at the border.

[@NLJeffEU]

Why are you making a video about this? They are ONLY breaking law in a specific and limited way... No biggie 😂👍

[@stevebinning977]

Try using that excuse if you get caught shoplifting. (Hypothetically of course).

[@olmostgudinaf8100]

"Specific" is an antonym of "vague". In other words, they know exactly what law they are breaking and how. No "sorry, your honour, I did not know I was not supposed to to that" excuse. Speeding on the motorway only breaks the Highway Code "in a specific and limited way". I should remember that.

[@dag4390]

Misinformation. And patently deliberate. Opinions of the FT 'journalist' and what else could one expect? Read the legislation, without the pro-EU slant, and you will see that the UK government is seeking to protect the integrity of the UK against the EU's perfidious bad faith tactics. I, by the way, voted to remain; not that that should bear any weight in a balanced consideration.

[@guyvert49]

The EU says it will never embargo food deliveries to NI. The UK says it will never implement legislation unless the EU does so & therefore UK will not break international law. What's the problem?

[@garryharris2857]

Aren't the furlough schemes to support business currently being used by all Nations, Spectacularly incidentally within the EU a "State Aid" ?

[@christopherblackburn6811]

I also believe the state aid rules allow for them to be breached in extraordinary circumstances like war or a pandemic.

[@Markus-zb5zd]

@@christopherblackburn6811 yeah that's the point... They aren't even limiting

[@patchso]

'Someone else broke the law so it's OK for me to do it'. Fine, go ahead, rob a bank, try your argument out on a judge.

[@xr3871]

The Gina Miller case says the UK Parliament is sovereign and can change and repeal domestic law and international treaties. Thanks Gina Miller.

[@landsgevaer]

Yes, and the EU is souvereign enough to impose sanctions and seek compensation if the UK does not follow the proper procedures agreed by themselves to withdraw from treaties. It is like going to a store, getting stuff, and when you have to pay you unilaterally declare that you're withdrawing from the sales agreement. It doesn't work that way. Yes, you can declare that, but then you can be prosecuted for theft, and other stores will deny you access from then on, in this example. It is not going to be a fun ride, I fear.

[@jamescopeland6428]

@@landsgevaer The EU is not sovereign. The UK union is sovereign, but the EU is simply just a club. There are stark differences between the two. Further, the WA awards provision that nothing in it can or shall impair on the sovereignty of the United Kingdom regarding internal affairs. The IMB is an internal Bill, and no government or parliament in this country is bound to that of its predecessor or early sitting. The EU are taking a hard stance by treating the UK differently to how they treat other nations by demanding forethought and contemplation of any upcoming changes to domestic standards, however it is customary that such changes are notified on an as and when basis, as it is for every other trading partner. That alone qualifies an interpretation of bad faith, which is explicitly detailed in another clause within the WA, and awards ability to take unilateral measures. I'm sorry if it's not what you were hoping for, but to be quite honest this is all above board and within the parameters of what was agreed. The EU tried to flex their muscles - and I can understand why - but this is the response they are getting.

[@landsgevaer]

​@@jamescopeland6428 Ah, exceptionalism par excellence. Take it to court then, I trust my EU enough to know that it hasn't been stupid enough to agree to a withdrawal deal that would basically allow the UK to do whatever they please not only for internal affairs (for which sure, the UK can figure them out as they please), but also for affairs that affect Europe equally and affairs for which existing agreements are in place, heck no (like the Irish border). But at least we can agree that we're both glad that the UK will soon no longer be part of the EU family.

[@jamescopeland6428]

@@landsgevaer There is nothing to be taken to court lol. The IMB is a domestic Bill, it frankly has nothing to do with the EU. Our statute is what governs when and where international law is applicable to us, and that is governed by parliament who is sovereign in this sovereign union (not membership). It is a completely different thing altogether than the club approach which the EU is constructed. That is why you hear people mentioning about reputation often when raising this point, because they understand that ultimately the decision is with the sovereign and not any foreign actor. And to be quite honest, there is no necessity to govern ourselves in alignment with the EU... That's part in parcel of the reason why the majority voted to leave in the first place.

[@landsgevaer]

@@jamescopeland6428 But you agreed with Ireland how to deal with the Irish border. You cannot unilaterally renege on a bilateral agreement that you commited yourself to. If that harms the other party, they are entitled to compensation. The UK rule on internal affairs, of course, but is responsible for the international consequences of these internal decisions. And no, you cannot simple declare some international law that you agreed to previously to no longer to apply to you if that decision harms others. Or, you can declare that, but do expect those others to retaliate to such hostility. Of course the UK can say they do not recognize some international court, but don't expect the remaining international community that does respect that court to remain accommodating to you. You'll become a new North-Korea, self-righteous but utterly isolated. The international community has no obligation to you if you proclaim to have to oigation to them. Your choice.

[@SajidKhan-jg8bk]

British Imperialism in action!

[@zo0mpa]

Thank god.

[@danieljames2015]

Where do you live?

[@Seerwealth]

On the drugs? Stop it, it is illegal.

[@Al_Ellisande]

It's not really. It's more like a skinny, loudmouth druggy (the government executive, not the people) in a muscle vest trying to take on a heavyweight boxing champion. The EU is a rules-based organisation. The UK isn't getting anywhere on this.

[@jayc342009]

@@Al_Ellisande try us.

[@rosshilton]

Wrongly focussed on state aid. At issue is trade between Mainland Uk and NI. Under the previous act the EU could block UK trade from NI, which is an interference with internal trade.

[@BonannoCM]

A sovereign country's ability to make or break agreements can only be abrogated by violence. There is no other way a sovereign nation can be forced to abide to anything. Any soverign nation finding itself on the losing side of any agreement ( past or ongoing ) between sovereign nations, is bound by nothing if it believes that an agreement was not or is not equitable between all sovereign nations involved. That's the nature of sovereign nations, or any group of sovereign nations. The EU, for example, will exist as long as each member feels it's in their best interest to stay or leave. And threats will do nothing to change this.

[@rogersmith7371]

Would be useful if you could find someone with a less boring voice to read this.

[@sirbarringtonwomblembe4098]

How about Bolerhatman, Wodja?

[@jonnydougs]

Sorry remainers, new trade deal announced today with Japan....the UK is on its way to great prosperity freed from the shackles of Brussels dictatorial regulatory chokehold....

[@ContentedSoul]

Have you compared it to the present trade deal that the EU has with Japan? We are still a party to that agreement. Have you made a line-by-line comparison? What are the pluses and minuses? And to play along with your vision of "shackles" and "chokeholds", are you sure this new deal is not going to "bind" us in knot weed?

[@pinchermartyn3959]

You'd never hear about that on most MSM. It's far better that anything the EU could come up with.

[@TorianTammas]

@@pinchermartyn3959 The EU Japan treaty has a most favoured nation clause that means any benefit Japan gives any other nation is automatically given to the EU. So by international treaty law the UK can only get an inferior or at best equal treaty. So whoever misinformed you had not even one semester of international law.

[@danielcooke9974]

Genuine question, if the E U has a stance of no deal unless you let us have your fish, have the EU made the deal unreachable and themselves broke the law ?

[@AaronOkeanos]

No, because the EU said to the EU: Make a fair alternative to the CFP or stay in the CFP. Besides: It's fully EU's decission when and how they grant someone any deal or not and there is no flying flamingo you can do about it.

[@collarmole1819]

I just remembered I have to watch this for a class.