British concessions to the EU last week are a matter of grave concern

The ECJ should have no role post-Brexit, and “alignment” must not be used to keep us in the Single Market

by Owen Paterson / December 13, 2017 / Leave a comment

Conservative MP Owen Paterson. Photo: Victoria Jones/PA Wire/PA Images

The withdrawal agreement that Theresa May and the European Commission made during phase one of the Brexit negotiations allows the talks to move forward to the future relationship. But despite the recent row over whether the deal is “legally binding,” nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. And as we assess the negotiations so far, there are obvious causes for concern.

As things stand, the Government has conceded that the European Court of Justice will have jurisdiction over the rights of EU citizens in the UK for eight years after Brexit. We cannot allow this.

It is standard practice across the world for the courts of countries in an international treaty to pay attention to the judgments of their partners, and to try, if possible, to apply a consistent interpretation. But the idea that EU citizens in the UK should be “protected” by the ECJ is bizarre, and would create a privileged class of three million people whose rights in this country would be enforced by a court beyond the influence of our government and parliament.

The question of the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland has dominated the headlines in recent days, so it was particularly good to see confirmed what many of us have been arguing for some time: there is no need for a “hard” border and avoiding one is entirely possible with new technology and goodwill which should exist on both sides.

YOU'VE HIT THE LIMIT

You have now reached your limit of 3 free articles in the last 30 days.
But don't worry! You can get another 7 articles absolutely free, simply by entering your email address in the box below.

When you register we'll also send you a free e-book—Writing with punch—which includes some of the finest writing from our archive of 22 years. And we'll also send you a weekly newsletter with the best new ideas in politics and philosophy of culture, which you can of course unsubscribe from at any time

Prospect may process your personal information for our legitimate business purposes, to provide you with our newsletter, subscription offers and other relevant information.

Click to learn more about these interests and how we use your data. You will be able to object to this processing on the next page and in all our communications.

DEBUG messsage: regular

Brexit: and so we approach what negotiators call the “end-game”

David Henig / June 28, 2018

The most likely outcome is a soft exit says a former Assistant Director at the Department...

Do not underestimate the consequences of a “no deal” Brexit

Anand Menon / September 10, 2018

There has been suggestion that Europe will help limit the damage. It will not

Comments

Spitfire
December 13, 2017 at 12:30
Haha bless! Still parroting C4 interview which lead ballooned... Seems pretty angry for someone whose 'winning' :)
LeuvenRich
December 13, 2017 at 12:42
You can't be out of the customs border and have a soft border. It's time to own up to that and for Mrs May to say which has the priority - soft border or custom union exit.
R_HITCHMAN
December 17, 2017 at 15:32
To avoid a hard border in Ireland, we have to comply with the customs union and single market rules. In any cased, we need the single market to protect invisible exports. To get free trade with non EU countries it would be better to be part of a bloc of 500 million people, not 65. Anyway, Trump and Bombardier do not make it look as if our chances of a good deal with the US are very high. Leavers partly lied, and partly are in denial, because they did not do their homework. It is time for them to face reality.
Alexander G.
December 19, 2017 at 17:27
Good grief, what delusional rubbish. Still banging on about trade as if it only relates to tariffs arrangements for tangible goods. How do you ACTUALLY enforce a border, and regulate non-tariff rules, with "new technology and goodwill"? That is, stuff which is yet to have been created and stuff which is intangible (i.e. a legal fiction). And what a bald faced lie - "the World Trade Organisation option means taking back control of our laws, money and borders": no, rather, it means substituting one set of complex rules under international law with another set of equally complex rules. Nothing has been learnt since the legally non-binding advisory opinion that was, only for political reasons, declared a referendum.