12th November 2021
Once upon a time I thought it would be unlikely that a government would actually trigger Article 50.
This doubt was for two reasons.
First: I did not think that any rational government – notwithstanding the 2016 referendum result – would be mad enough to start a formal departure process which was so structurally skewed in favour of the European Union.
And second: even if the United Kingdom did want to depart the European Union there was no absolute reason why it had to be done by Article 50.
(As I averred at time it would have been better if a general departure agreement had been negotiated instead of the somewhat artificial two-stage process we had instead.)
But.
The government of the United Kingdom triggered Article 50 anyway – and without any thought or planning.
What has followed since is generally because of this lack of thought and of planning.
So when the question of triggering Article 16 of the Northern Irish protocol came along, I was careful not to be so rash as to predict that the government would never be so mad to trigger Article 16 – at least as not as part of a re-negotiation exercise.
The government of the United Kingdom has shown it is perfectly capable of triggering articles of treaties without any idea what then follows.
A government capable of triggering Article 50 is capable of triggering Article 16.
It is almost as if triggering a treaty article is seen as some sort of political virility test – Article 50 one year, Article 16 another year.
And so we have been braced-braced for the triggering of Article 16 – even if the government of the United Kingdom has no idea what to do next.
But.
The government of the United Kingdom still has not triggered Article 16 – and, according to news reports, ministers are now seeking to de-escalate the situation.
Perhaps the government of the United Kingdom has come to its senses – and realised that there is a time and a place for Article 16 notifications, and this is not one of them.
Or perhaps the the government of the United Kingdom has realised that the reaction of the European Union – and the United States – would not be worth the trouble.
Who knows.
But one hopes that the government of the United Kingdom is becoming less gung-ho about triggering articles of international agreements.
Such acts are not signals of political virility, but of political thoughtlessness.
And we have had too much political thoughtlessness already.
******
This daily law and policy blog needs your help to continue – for the benefit of you and other readers
Each free-to-read post takes time and opportunity cost.
This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.
If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – both for the you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
*****
You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
******
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.
Comments will not be published if irksome.
Political verity or vanity test or both?
Perhaps someone has explained to the government what the effect of “triggering” Article 16 actually is. It is not some sort of nuclear bomb, or get-out-of-jail-free card. It is more of an automatic repair mechanism, like a blood clot or an anti-puncture tyre.
You just have to read the three short paragraphs of Article 16 and the six short paragraphs of Annex 7 to understand the process. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/840230/Revised_Protocol_to_the_Withdrawal_Agreement.pdf
Notify the other party without delay, with all relevant information. Explain what the problem is, why the proposed safeguard measure is strictly necessary (in scope and duration) to remedy the problem, and how the proposed safeguard least disturbs the functioning of the Protocol (compared to any other measure, or none). Consult for a month after the notice (as it is hard how there can be any “exceptional circumstances requiring immediate action” given the UK government have grumbled and complained but delayed taking action for such a long time). Review the application of the safeguard at least every three months. And wait for the other side to impose “proportionate rebalancing measures”.
Look what you made me do.
Article 16 is much more limited in scope than Article 50 – which allows the fundamental change in the relationship that we have seen. Article 16 is tinkering around the edges. Maybe the Government has discovered at last that the lack of thought and planning that underlay the Brexit process was a poor thing to have happened. A bit late, surely. We are stuck with it for the political near future.
The US is right alongside the Republic of Ireland – and therefore right alongside the EU on this. The lying shyster has forced the US to choose between the EU (including of course the Republic) and the UK. No contest. If he is dumb enough to trigger Article 16 then he and we will be in an even bigger mess than he is and we are already. Is he that dumb? Reading the note from Cummings about how he had not understood the Customs Union maybe he is.
I think the arrogance of Her Majesty’s Government epitomised by Johnson and Frost has been tempered somewhat by the ever closer relationship between the EU and the US under the Biden administration with reportedly the US Congress laying any disruption to the peace process in Ireland firmly at the door of No. 10
It might be simpler than that. Whilst the vast majority of those reading this blog are well infromed about Brexit and thoroughly hostile to it, its supporters in the land are not. However, it could well be that Bojo and Frosty bitching about an accord that they so loudly trumpeted, less than a year ago, as their own brilliant achievement, is a step too far even for them. If “the public” couldn’t be persuaded that the ensuing trade war triggered by using Article 16 was the fault of the EU (a tough sell) then blame would attach to Bojo – not a circumstance the man of jelly would be happy with. As ever, all of this must be seen through the lens of “how does this work out for me, Boris Johnson, World King?” because the national interest never gets a look in.
The boy who never did his homework, yet aspired to be ‘king of the world’, was elected to lead the UK through one of the most difficult periods in recent history.
Verity has never been his strongest suit. His virility has been toxic. I think the word we might be looking for is venality.
Dominic Cummings recent blogpost on Johnson not understanding what leaving the customs union meant, makes me wonder if we overestimate the governments insight on the implications of triggering A50.