The practicalities of gaining redress is a rather different matter to whether or not the Withdrawal Agreement expires or not at the end of the year (currently, without bilateral agreement, it doesn't).
WTO is a non sequitur (until and unless the EU decides that non-compliance with the Withdrawal Agreement constitutes a valid trade dispute - there are arguments, given that Customs arrangements for future trading are one of the now contentious items, that this is the case.) If we have fallen back to WTO arrangements, it could then decide to unilaterally (or in combination with other WTO members it can persuade) to apply specific UK-targeted WTO-based remedies, including specific sanctions/tariffs, etc.
The more immediate point is that the Withdrawal Bill does not expire at the end of the year; it has certain remedies, provisions and processes that may be used in the event of non-compliance. These remedies will still legally be in force.
As the agreement is seen as a treaty under the Vienna Convention (which appears to be rather forthright about unilateral repudiation being illegal under International law), ultimate potential oversight would be via that route, which includes the intervention of the ICJ.
But, I doubt it will ever get there; whatever the legal position, the more worrying fact is the lack of integrity and good faith being demonstrated by the UK Government. You couldn't have much worse international "optics" than a legislature negotiating an agreement, hailing it as a major breakthrough, and then, before the ink is dry announcing it has no intention whatsoever of keeping to it as it had its fingers crossed when it was signed (and the people it was intended to mollify confirming that they'd been told at the time it would be changed).
It's sub-Banana Republic behaviour. It has nothing to do with negotiation (if it had, it would initially at least have been played out in "darkened rooms"), it is simply playing to the gallery.
Last edited by: tyrednemotional on Sat 12 Sep 20 at 09:23
|
