ml1dch

May's big pitch to the other 27 countries tonight apparently, referring to the proposed Irish sea border is "how would you feel if your country were carved in two?" That's to a room including the heads of state of Ireland, Germany, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Slovakia...

Actually, this does:

Which I think says it all!

It's hypothetical panic, like your hypothetical questions. We know for a fact that aircraft currently leave and land at UK airports as a result of an EU treaty. We also know for a fact, that if that treaty ceases and something isn't put in its place, aircraft will not leave and land as there will be no legal basis for them to do so. Now, the thing that allays the panic is the "something put in its place" bit. If it's sorted, no drama. The thing that exacerbates the panic is that Chris Grayling is dealing with it by trying to liaise directly with individual countries, who can't arrange a bilateral treaty with the UK. So it could all be fine, but on the evidence there is good reason for the hypothetical panic.

The term that you want is "exclusive competence". So there are elements of international protocol that the member states have decided they are better off working collectively. They decide that in some areas (commercial policy, fishing resources, competition rules) they are better off having a common policy that they decide to stick together and all adhere to. To take fisheries, they've decided that it works better if fish stocks are managed together rather than as a free-for-all trolley dash to see who can empty the oceans quickest. Spain could argue that it is in the Spanish national interest to empty the Bay of Biscay of migratory fish stocks. But "Brussels" (i.e the other nations who fish the same stocks) could argue that it's not in the overall interest. I've used fish as it's a pretty relatable example, but they see commercial policy as similar. They're better off in the long run sticking as a group. The UK has decided that it's going to be the guinea pig to see whether they are right or not. When you see who is in charge of doing that for the UK though, I can't imagine the Commission is panicking too much about it. For reference, there aren't many exclusive competencies, although they are often big ones. They are far outweighed by shared or supporting competencies, such as defence, foreign policy, humanitarian aid, research and development, education etc.

Spain says that a special agreement for Gibraltar needs to be included in the Brexit agreement because they think there should be a "more balanced relationship". Oh yes. Gibraltar is still an important thing in all this.

Michael Gove has said that it doesn't really matter what agreement we come to, we'll just change it later. Now we just need to hope that nobody in Europe has access to the Andrew Marr Show and thinks to bring this up.

Any time you think "surely nobody can possibly be worse than this shambles of a government", you then remember that Barry Gardiner is still a thing.

The 1961 wedding or the 1978 one? ()

I'm going to wait for Bob Loblaw's Law Blog before I jump to any conclusions.

Nah, Craig Murray says that their story checks out. Case closed.

That's the problem with supranational affairs though. One country doesn't get to decide for everyone. If the Commission decided to run it's own "legal review", it's probably going to come down on the side of "yes, these chumps do need to cough up". Although I'm not sure that it even matters (not saying that you're suggesting that it does) whether it is seen as a "technical default". The other 27 countries say that we owe this money, and they are going to be the ones filling the hole if they don't get it. They're the same 27 countries on whose goodwill and cooperation we need if this is going to be elevated from "catastrophe" to "shambles". Us waving around a HoL review and saying "buuuut, technically" isn't going to have much sway in real terms.

While we're apportioning blame, can we blame Brexit for Raab being shit at Brexit?

"Don't worry guys, everything is going according to plan..."

The precis of the Economists for Economic Oblivion report released today basically seems to be: 1) China and India aren't in the EU 2) China and India don't have a consolidated Free Trade Agreement with the EU. 3) China and India have faster growth rates that countries in the EU 4) Stands to reason that the UK's growth will be better if we just copy the arrangements that China and India have with the EU. Done.