EU draft Withdrawal Agreement: what does it say?

15 November 2018 by

The draft Agreement – here – is a mere 585 pages. No harm in trying to read it, or the bits of it which are of particular interest, because in that respect you may be well ahead of some of the rather noisier politicians.

It may seem a bit premature to say too much about it, not least because of the political turmoils, but it promises that

(1) the EU and UK will “use their best endeavours” to have a future trade agreement concluded six months before the end of the transition period in December 2020; this is extensible on agreement thereafter;

(2) but that if this is not the case the EU and the UK could “jointly extend the transition period” for an unspecified period.

Anyway, first thoughts on some of the detail.

The draft Agreement is a bit of a game of two halves.

The first (300) pages is about holding the ring between the EU and the UK whilst they (try to) negotiate a more long-lasting agreement. This is, in many senses, postponing the effect of the UK’s Art.50 notice by another name. It has a number of enforcement mechanisms including retaining direct effect (Art.4) , the CJEU (where issues of EU law arise) and creating an arbitration body to adjudicate on other areas of dispute where a joint committee cannot resolve them.

The second half is a series of protocols which in some cases reveal rather more about the real deal than the first half. The most notable is the Northern Ireland protocol; starting at p.301, which has many annexes which extend to p.475.

In this protocol lies the much-talked about backstop. If no more permanent agreement is reached between the UK and the EU, then the relationship is governed by the annexes. These apply differentially to Northern Ireland only or to the UK. But they embed in domestic law much of EU law until a full agreement is reached, or it is agreed to set aside the backstop.

Some of the recitals to the NI protocols tell a bit of a story:

RECALLING that the Withdrawal Agreement, which is based on Article 50 TEU, does not aim at establishing a permanent future relationship between the Union and the United Kingdom,

HAVING REGARD to the Union and to the United Kingdom’s common objective of a close future relationship, which will establish ambitious customs arrangements that build on the single customs territory provided for in this Protocol…..,

Until the future relationship (“ambitious” or otherwise) cuts in, there shall be a ” Single customs territory, movement of goods” between the EU and the UK: Art.6.

This comes with the inevitable accompanying terms to stop UK undercutting of standards – hence

“With a view to ensuring the maintenance of the level playing field conditions required for the proper functioning of this paragraph, the provisions set out in Annex 4 to this Protocol shall apply.”

The level playing field, Annex 4, starts at p.354. It covers many areas across the board of EU law, but in my main field, environmental law, the message is emphatic. The principle of “Non-regression in the level of environmental protection” is established, in all major current areas of environmental legislation (habitats, waste, water, climate change). Ditto, the Rio 1992 Declaration is embedded, as is UNFCC/Paris, and the various environmental principles currently to be found in the EU Treaties on which the Government had promised to publish a Bill before Xmas. Hope it happens, but today’s political convulsions may stand in its way – the Defra sponsoring minister is Michael Gove, who, given the frenzy at the time of writing, may or may not there tomorrow.

But the embedding of environmental law under the backstop does not stop there. Laws may be fancy, but enforcement may be nil. The EU is all too aware of this. So in Art.3 of Annex 4, the UK shall

ensure effective enforcement of Article 2 and of its laws, regulations and practices reflecting those common standards,…”

It shall also ensure

that administrative and judicial proceedings are available in order to permit effective and timely action by public authorities and members of the public against violations of its laws, regulations and practices, and provide for effective remedies, including interim measures, ensuring that any sanctions are effective, proportionate and dissuasive and have a real and deterrent effect.

But more. The UK shall also implement the effective domestic monitoring, reporting, oversight and enforcement of its obligations by an independent and adequately resourced body or bodies.

And this body

shall have powers to conduct inquiries on its own initiative concerning alleged breaches by public bodies and authorities of the United Kingdom, and to receive complaints for the purposes of conducting such inquiries. It shall have all powers necessary to carry out its functions, including the power to request information. The independent body shall have the right to bring a legal action before a competent court or tribunal in the United Kingdom in an appropriate judicial procedure, with a view to seeking an adequate remedy.

Sounds a bit like the EU Commission, doesn’t it, but with local enforcement powers.

These are very much despatches from the front. But they reveal, if nothing else, what the EU want out of any Brexit deal, whatever stasis there may be in the UK over it.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: