Sorry Boris, but Nigel and Donald are right about trade

Brexit Facts4EU.Org exposes some of the deception coming from No.10

Just what is the truth about trade deals under the PM’s ‘new’ Withdrawal Treaty?

We have been receiving many questions from readers asking us who is right about the UK’s ability to do free trade deals under Boris Johnson’s ‘new’ Withdrawal Treaty. No.10 has been briefing journalists in the last 24 hours, and the public are being given the impression that both Nigel Farage and US President Donald Trump are wrong.

Let’s look at what Boris Johnson told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg yesterday

Off-the-record briefings from No.10 are one thing, but when put on the spot what did the PM actually say about trade deals yesterday?

BBC : “So the President hasn’t looked at it then? Because he said “You can’t do it, you can’t trade, we can’t make a trade deal with the UK.” So he’s misunderstood it?”
PM : “I don’t wish to comment on what he may or may not have...” [He tailed off.]

Readers will note that the Prime Minister did not immediately come out and say that the UK can do (and implement) a trade deal with the USA or other countries if the UK ‘leaves’ the EU on 31 Jan 2020. We start with some basic facts.

Brexit Facts4EU.Org Summary

Below we summarise the reality based on what the Treaty itself says

The text of Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement has not changed – only the Northern Ireland Protocol has
The changes to the N.I. Protocol are welcome, but they are not nearly enough
All the other completely unacceptable elements of Theresa May’s Treaty remain
These include :-

Paying a ‘divorce bill’, decided by the EU, and now expected to be well over £50 billion
Getting nothing in return for this
The UK will be subject to a foreign court (ECJ) for over 100 years in some cases
No taking back control of our waters, no independent foreign and defence policy
The UK is subject to new EU legislation during Transition, which can last for years, and which could damage our economy significantly – the UK will have no vote and no veto

NOTE: Readers can download our one-pager on all aspects of the PM's 'new' Withdrawal Treaty on our Brexit Fightback Initiative' page. It is Factsheet no.7.

No right to implement trade deals with other countries

Crucially, during Transition the UK will have no right to implement international free trade deals – a key economic benefit of Brexit – which would result in cheaper imported goods and stronger exports.

Under the Withdrawal Agreement the UK CANNOT implement any free trade deals with the USA or with any other country until the end of Transition.

Even after Transition the obligations contained in the Political Declaration (PD) bind the UK into all kinds of obligations. The revised PD is better than Mrs May’s but is still unacceptable. Any EU trade deal must ensure “a level playing field for open and fair competition” and “deep regulatory and customs cooperation”.

Here is paragraph 21 of the PD:

“However, with a view to facilitating the movement of goods across borders, the Parties envisage comprehensive arrangements that will create a free trade area, combining deep regulatory and customs cooperation, underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition, as set out in Section XIV of this Part.”

The key aspects are “deep regulatory cooperation” and “a level playing field”. Whilst these obligations may have been watered down, they still exist. How in any sense does this feel like being a free, independent, and sovereign country?

Observations

We will leave readers with the words of the eminent QC and specialist in EU law, Martin Howe. Mr Howe has now said that “I can understand a political judgement that the revised deal is still a bad deal, but is tolerable as a price for the greater prize of the United Kingdom regaining our freedom after Brexit.”

However here is what he wrote about the new Withdrawal Agreement:-

“The most important and damaging feature which remains is the long term subjection of the UK to rulings by the ECJ. At present, the ECJ is a multinational court in which we jointly participate. After we exit the EU, it will become an entirely foreign court. It will be an organ of the opposite treaty party with whom we may be in dispute, owing no loyalty at all to the UK. It is virtually unheard of in international relations for any sovereign independent state to submit the interpretation of its treaty obligations to the courts of the opposite treaty party, allowing them to be effectively re-written for the benefit of that party.”

“This clause was originally imposed by the EU on the desperate former Soviet republics of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova. It was successfully resisted by Norway and the other EEA States and most recently has been rejected again by Switzerland in the EU’s attempt to impose it as part of a new framework agreement. Dr Carl Baudenbacher, a Swiss lawyer who recently retired as president of the EFTA Court, has said ‘It is absolutely unbelievable that a country like the UK, which was the first country to accept independent courts, would subject itself to this.‘ Indeed, it is hard to understand why the UK which is so much bigger than Switzerland and far less dependent on trade with the EU, should be willing to succumb to this clause.”

International trade must be conducted under the law. And if we ‘leave’ the EU under the new Withdrawal Treaty on 31 Jan 2020, that law will be the EU’s law.

[ Sources: EU Commission official texts | BBC interview with Boris Johnson 01 Nov | Martin Howe QC of Lawyers for Britain ] Politicians and journalists can contact us for details, as ever.

Brexit Facts4EU.Org, Sat 02 Nov 2019

Click here to go to our news headlines

And please scroll down to COMMENT on the above article.

Something to say about this? Scroll down for reader comments

Since before the EU Referendum, Brexit Facts4EU.Org
has been the most prolific researcher and publisher of Brexit facts in the world.

Supported by MPs, MEPs, & other groups, our work has impact.

We think facts matter. Please donate today, so that we can continue to ensure a clean Brexit is finally delivered.

Any credit card user

Quick One-off

From £5 - £1,000

Monthly

From £3 per month

Paypal Users Only - Choose amount first

Quick One-off

Monthly

PLEASE NOTE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT : You can write your comment under any existing comments below. After you have clicked to preview your comment, you MUST then click on the CAPTCHA system and send you comment, for it to be published. Thank you!

Reader Comments 22

1. William Pentelow , Saturday, November 02, 2019, 06:49:

" Sorry Boris"
Why would you say sorry to this traitorous deceiving liar?
You have no reason for saying sorry.
Boris and almost every single Tory are lying about this deal.
IT WILL BRING THE UK TO ITS KNEES.

2. Tom Rogers , Saturday, November 02, 2019, 06:56:

The best outcome for Brexit is a weak, minority Corbyn government and some seats for the Brexit Party. The Brexit Party needs to take the fight to the Tory Party and beat them in their heartlands. The fight is only beginning.

3. Concerned , Saturday, November 02, 2019, 07:27:

Comment 1, William Pentelow - oh how I hope and pray that you misjudge Boris. However I feel very uneasy with the Conservatives who are to my mind no longer Conservative. Just as I know Labour deserted the worker years ago. I don't consider the Liberals as worthy of anything. Put together in my view the Westminster bubble stinks to high heaven.
In my opinion the one and only deal is a clean-break Brexit, and this of course is the one and only deal none of these parties will go for. I don't trust any of them.
Now the breath of fresh air is TBP, if they win big, then the arrogance of the Conservatives may just get lanced. Whatever happened to the conservatives, have they lost their voices?
History will recall this as the most traitorous period in British history unless of course the 'progressives' rewrite history as they usually try to do.
Not one mainstream party, no mainstream newspaper or magazine agrees with the people....... politics is that soured in the UK. We have been working up to this point for 47 years since we joined the EEC. I would say unless the politicians of the time were brain dead, they knew damn well that the intentions of the EEC were not honourable and were from the beginning communist in outlook. Britain has not been served well by the political class.

4. James Bertram , Saturday, November 02, 2019, 08:17:

This was Martin Howe's summation:
-
But is the new deal “tolerable”?
But even if the deal is bad, and is worse than a no deal alternative, is it tolerable, in order to prevent Brexit being de-railed altogether?
This question is more political than legal. A significant number of Brexit supporting politicians ultimately voted for the TM deal because they thought that was preferable to the risk of not getting Brexit through at all. I did not criticise their decisions at the time and I do not do so now because I recognise the extremely difficult judgement call they had to wrestle with.
But I remain of the view that that was objectively the wrong call, because it did not fully take account of the crucifying effect of the TM deal on the UK’s ability to negotiate an acceptable future relationship, nor of how difficult it is under international law to get out of a binding treaty obligation which does not have an exit clause......
-
My own preference would have been to by-pass the WA and go to new talks on our future relationship, instead of trying to renegotiate it, for two reasons.......
The first reason is that it is very hard to negotiate changes to an existing text where you have to battle for every point.......
But there is a second and even more important reason. By law, the UK cannot ratify an Article 50 withdrawal agreement without an implementing Act of Parliament first being passed into law. An implementing Bill has been drafted which is believed to contain at least 175 clauses and multiple schedules........
Once a Bill is placed before Parliament, the government will have no control over what amendments are tabled and which will be passed by the last-ditch anti-Brexit majority in both Houses. Amendments could be made – for example either for a second referendum, or requiring the government to go back and negotiate changes to the deal – which might turn a just-tolerable deal into a disastrous one.
-

5. James Bertram , Saturday, November 02, 2019, 08:23:

In effect, Howe's 'My own preference would have been to by-pass the WA and go to new talks on our future relationship, instead of trying to renegotiate it.' is what John Redwood has consistently argued for https://johnredwoodsdiary.c...
and is the offer that Nigel Farage is more or less making to Johnson - to just drop this appalling WA deal and get on with offering the EU a FTA based on economics only, no political strings attached.

6. J Slater , Saturday, November 02, 2019, 08:27:

Comment 3: You've hit the nail on the head. So, so true, and yet none of us realised it - as if we were sleep-walking. But the brakes are now on. And we've all had more than enough of subterfuge and lying. A new Party holding the balance of power, or even in power, fighting for a no-ties Brexit will be the country's salvation.

7. Sydney Ashurst , Saturday, November 02, 2019, 08:43:

James Bertram,
You summed up correctly why the ERG backed the border revision.
I think the Conservatives would be absolute idiots not to have pact with the BP.
Pride comes before a fall, going it alone will not bring them a healthy majority in the Commons.
Boris dying in the ditch was part of Cummings plan to leave by default with NO DEAL.
Get a good majority and the UK can default on 31st January with all the mini deals that have been put together.
MP's like John Redwood prefer this to the EU written withdrawal agreement.

8. Not4EU●, London , Saturday, November 02, 2019, 09:27:

Johnson has just confirmed that they have no intention of leaving the the EU at all, by confirming that they will not 'leave' without a Treaty thereby giving back the EU the controls that we voted to take back as their manifesto 'pledge'.
That is what it means in plain English & not the political sophistry being used with the deliberate intention to deceive the British electorate. There is NO requirement for a Treaty, deceptively described as a 'deal'. They are CHOOSING not to leave, in direct opposition to the democratic mandate that the people gave. They truely are the Conservative & EU Unionist Party. They deserve to die in the ditch that Boris has dug. Failing that, a hanged Parliament. That is how far the treason & EU-run Parliament & CS have made many people feel.

9. Barbara Jell , Saturday, November 02, 2019, 09:53:

Not4EU - echo your sentiments. Have emailed Boris, JRM and Steve Baker asking them WHY they are not leaving without signing a Treaty, as suggested by Sir John Redwood. AS you rightly say, there is NO REQUIREMENT to sign a Treaty. Stomach churningly suspicious. Took part in Brexit protest Rally on Thursday 31st outside Parliament and the anger and bitterness was palpable and powerful. Forget the George Soros and Elite funded Remainer demonstrations, we truly represented the 17.4 million betrayed and vengeful electorate from whom the Establishment is trying to steal our freedom and democracy. They have been warned!

10. Sean Bryson , Saturday, November 02, 2019, 09:54:

Brexiteers thinking of voting for anyone except TBP, should follow this link and scroll down to 'The Lemming Effect'
Insanity is constantly repeating the same process and hoping for a different result.
BoJo has been 'complicit' in the BREXIT mess of today

22 comments, page 1 of 3

Add comment:

Please note: Your email address is never published unless you choose to enter it.