Fudge Dredd

From @AnnaJerzwska on Twitter:

This seems obvious but clearly still needs repeating. No country can "promise", give or grant an FTA to another country.

That's not how it works. Countries neogitiate an FTA together and reach a deal provided that both sides are happy with the conditions

The reason behind it should please a lot of avid Brexiteers - countries negotiating an FTA are sovereign countries with independent trade policy.

As such, the EU and the UK did not "promise" to grant each other an FTA.

They promise to enter into negotiations. And within these negotiations, it is completely normal and understandable that each side looks out for its own interests.

It's completely normal for the UK to want to obtain as many concessions as possible.

It is also completely normal for the EU to stick to its rules and principles applicable to all 3rd countries. Which is exactly what the EU is doing whether we like it or not.

The only thing that both sides could have possibly "promised" each other is to enter into negotiations with an aim to achieve a comprehensive deal (and negotiate in good faith).

There was never a guarantee that the deal will be reached.

That was always going to depend on what each of the sides did during negotiations and to be honest nothing in the last 6 months indicated that things are going well.

Saying that the EU is "refusing" to give us an FTA is wrong. Saying that it "broke international law" by doing so is frankly stupid so I won't even entertain this part.

Meanwhile, Justice Secretary Robert Buckland tells #KayBurley he will consider his position if the UK is found to have broken international law in "a way that cannot be fudged" but adds he does not believe the country is "at that stage".

Apparently giving Ministers the domestic legal right to break laws isn’t a clear breaking of (international) law. I will try that next time I am done for speeding or taking a Rolex from a store without paying.

This is the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary saying that the state need not act in accordance with law and all cards up but that it is fine to fudge a knowing breach of the law if you can get away with it.

An interesting ethical and legal viewpoint, for someone sworn to uphold, checks notes, the law.

In the same way that you cannot be slightly pregnant, you can’t slightly break international law. If you do break international law, there will be consequences, and those will last a long time.

Further Meanwhile, Four senior congressmen write to Boris Johnson to reiterate there will be no US-UK trade deal if the legislation to override the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement isn’t pulled.

And yesterday, The Home Secretary, in a TV interview, misinterpreted the very SI she signed into law on Sunday night, by stating that the newly defined concept of “to mingle” would be subjected to police action and possible fines, when the bill said no such thing.

On Saturday, the attorney general, Suella Braverman QC was quized by the Bar Council on the make up of the three members who were consulted by the Government regarding the legality of breaking international law. Turns out all three are firm Brexiteers, and one has only one year's qualified barrister, so his views shouldn't have even mattered. And shows that to get the answer Ministers wanted, they ensured they asked the questions of people who would give them the right answers.

Other than that, all going well in Brexitlalaland.

More on that, later.