Brexit Briefing September 2020

Standard YouTube Licence

Jane Lambert

The event for which September 2020 will be remembered was the introduction of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill    Why the Bill was needed at all or at any rate while negotiations on the new partnership with the European Union are at a critical stage is far from obvious.  As I said in The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill  19 Sept 2020 "my first impression on reading through this bill was that there was nothing in it that did not already fall within the scope of existing legislation except perhaps Part 5."

As even Nigel Farage could see, a stiff response from the European Commission was to be expected and perhaps even justified:

Forget Theresa May and Michael Howard - Johnson's conduct is now making even Nigel Farage seem sensible and reasonable https://t.co/llqrXJHVLi

— david allen green (@davidallengreen) October 1, 2020

If the UK is to leave the customs union and single market and the Republic of Ireland is not, there have to be customs controls at the border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland unless it is placed somewhere else. The only other place they could be located is between the ports of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  That is what Mrs May said no British Prime Minister could ever do.

It seems unlikely that this difficulty was not foreseen by Mr Johnspn or members of his party when they voted for the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 which ratified the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Nothern Ireland from the EuropeanUnion and the European AtomicEnergy Community.  The only explanation that occurs to me is that the Messrs. Johnson, Gove and Lord Frost hoped to renegotiate the withdrawal agreement in the new partnership talks.

Since art 50 (2) of the Treaty on European Union required the negotiators to take account of the framework for the UK's future relationship with the EU which was supposed to be expressed in the Political Declaration, the EU negotiators were mandated only to flesh out the details of that framework.  That is the substance of their draft treaty of 18 March 2020.  When Johnson, Gove, Frost and company refused to consider that draft the talks became deadlocked allegedly on state aids, fishing and dispute settlement.

If that surmise is right the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill could have been intended to jolt the EU into making concessions.  The threat is that if nothing is done the Irish government will be forced to police the border with Northern Ireland that could lead to political instability in the Republic as well as (possibly but from the Briitish point of view much more affordably) in Northern Ireland.   If that is the tactic it is not clear that it will work for the Commission announced at 10:00 this morning the first step in taking legal action against the UK.  We should know fairly quickly for both sides agree that the middle of October is the cut-off point for ratification of any new partnership agreement by the parties' legislatures before the end of the year,

Other developments in September have been the Agreement in Principle on a Comprehensive Economic Partnership with Japan 12 Sept 2020, exploratory talks with the governments of the parties to the Comprehensive and Progress Agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and continuing talks with the US government on a possible trade deal.

Anyone wishing to discuss this article or any of the issues discussed should call me on 020 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form.

Brexit Briefing - July 2019

10 Downing Street

Author Sgt Tom Robinson RLC/MOD
Licence Open Government Licence  v. 1.0
Source Wikipedia 10 Downing Street

Jane Lambert

On 24 July 2019 HMQ invited the Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP to form a government. Immediately, he installed a new team of ministers and advisers with the mission of withdrawing the United Kingdom from the European Union by 23:00 on 31 Oct 2019. Ostensibly the Johnson administration's objective is to negotiate a new withdrawal agreement within the meaning of art 50 (2) of the Treaty on European Union or renegotiate the existing draft but its preconditions for resuming talks are well beyond the negotiating guidelines of the European Council of 29 April and 15 Dec 2017 and 23 March 2018. According to Daniel Boffey and Rowena Mason, the Commission has advised the governments of the 27 member states that "Boris Johnson has no intention of renegotiating Brexit deal" (5 Aug 2019 The Guardian).

Now announcements of that kind are not always to be taken at face value. It is possible for one side or the other to make sufficient concessions to enable a deal to be done.  Parliament may pass a motion of no confidence or even a statute requiring the revocation of the notice of intention to leave the EU in the event of no-deal,. But these are unlikely.  They will require an act of political courage on the part of a sufficient number of remain minded Tory MPs that few have exhibited to date. There will be enormous demonstrations by brexit supporters and possibly even civil unrest.  The recent plunge in the value of the pound suggests that markets anticipate a disorderly brexit, that is to say, leaving without a withdrawal agreement.

And then what?  In Preparing Brexit: No Deal, the Institute for Government warns that:

• It will be much harder and more complex to strike a deal with the EU;
• No-deal means losing deals with many other non-EU countries;
• A showdown in Parliament cannot be avoided:
• Brexit will dominate Whitehall;
• The government will have to support struggling and failing businesses: and
• The Union will come under unprecedented pressure.

Will we gain in a trade deal with the USA what we lose from erecting barriers between ourselves and our nearest and largest market?  Possibly, but unlikely (see What Sort of Trade Deal (if any) could the UK negotiate with the USA? 8 June 2018).  This morning we were flattered by Senator Tom Cotton and 44 of his colleagues in Cotton, Colleagues Pen Letter Pledging to Back Britain After Brexit 3 Aug 2019. But we were exposed to some healthy realism by former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers who made the point that we have very little leverage in any negotiations with the Trump administration

What can businesses and individuals do to mitigate the consequences of a hard brexit? Obviously, take note of the avalanche of guidance notes and emails that are likely from the government in the next few weeks but there are also a lot of useful suggestions in the CBI's What comes next? The business analysis of no deal preparations (see Practical advice on preparations for No deal from the CBI and IfG 1 Aug 2019).

Anyone wishing to discuss this article or legal issues relating to brexit generally should call me on 020 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form. 

Practical advice on preparations for No deal from the CBI and IfG

Dover Harbour

Author User:Mtcv

Licence: Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.5 Generic
Source Wikipedia Dover

Jane Lambert

As the Johnson administration's precondition for the resumption of talks on a withdrawal agreement within the meaning of art 50 (2) on the Treaty of European Union is one that the remaining EU member states cannot possibly meet without undermining the raison d'être of the Union, it is imperative for businesses of all kinds and in all industries to plan for no deal.  Though it is often said that there is a majority in Parliament against no deal, the only way MPs can prevent it is by forcing a general election through passing a vote of no confidence in accordance with s.2 (3) of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 and by the country's returning a government with a mandate to remain.  That will require an enormous act of political courage on the part of remain minded Conservative MPs and a very effective general election campaign by remain politicians.

Two reports that businesses will find useful have been published this week by the Institute for Government ("IfG") and the CBI. 

The IfG's report, Preparing Brexit: No Deal, by Joe Owen and others, starts from the premise that "no deal would not be the end of Brexit."  It adds:

"The UK will be out of the European Union, but the all-encompassing job of adapting to the new reality and building a new relationship with the EU will still be incomplete. The biggest questions Brexit will still need to be settled. The difficult choices that have been unresolved for the last three years will not evaporate overnight on the 31 October. And Brexit will remain the key dividing line in a Parliament in which Johnson’s government has a wafer-thin majority, and one that is constantly under threat."

It maps out the likely political and economic scenario for the period up to 31 Oct, the immediate aftermath and the months following brexit.

The CBI's What comes next? The business analysis of no deal preparations by 15 of the Confederation's specialists in offers more focused business-orientated advice.  Its message is as follows:

"First, it’s time to escalate preparations. Having analysed Brexit preparations by the UK government, the European Commission, EU Member States and companies in the 27 areas of the UK’s relationship with the EU that are most important to businesses, the CBI has concluded that no one is ready for no deal. 

Second, preparations can have a material impact. Working with its member businesses and Trade Associations, the CBI has compiled over 200 recommendations for reducing the harm of no deal. 

Third, many no deal mitigations rely on negotiations between the UK and the EU, which will hold all the political difficulties experienced in talks so far."

Like the  IfG, the CBI warns that "many of the consequences of no deal will be felt for years to come."  Hopes on the part of the government or indeed the long-suffering British public that getting brexit over the line will put the matter to rest are likely to prove forlorn.

There are several other issues upon which the CBI and IfG appear to agree. One is shifting government onto a no-deal footing.  Another is that Northern Ireland is likely to be affected more than anywhere else in the UK and unless a power-sharing agreement on restoring devolved government can be reached between the Democratic Unionist Party and Sinn Fein very quickly legislation will be required to reintroduce direct rule into Northern Ireland.  Far from supercharging the economy, there will be vast swathes of British industry that will require support.

Anyone wishing to discuss this article or the legal consequences of brexit generally (particularly with reference to IP) should call me on 020 7404 5252 or send me a message through my contact form.

Brexit - A Significant Change of Tone

Rt Hon Michael Gove MP

Author Chris McAndrew

Licence: Attribution 3.0 Unported
Source Wikipedia Michael Gove 

Jane Lambert

It is not often that a notice from the Cabinet Office publicizes a newspaper article even when that article has been written by a cabinet minister.  The arrival of the authored article No-deal is a very real prospect. We must ensure we are ready: article by Michael Gove in the mailboxes of subscribers to the "Immediate updates to Brexit" mailing list at 14:35 yesterday is therefore significant.  That article had appeared earlier that day in The Sunday Times.

HM Government has been publishing Guidance on how to prepare for Brexit if there's no Deal since 22 Aug 2018 (see Jane Lambert And if there is no deal .......... 24 Aug 2018). Until now, those guidance notes have emphasized the government's intention to leave the European Union in accordance with a withdrawal agreement negotiated pursuant to art 50 (2) of the Treaty on European Union and that it was planning for withdrawal without such an agreement just in case. Yesterday Mr Gove wrote:

"No deal is now a very real prospect, and we must make sure that we are ready."

The article still pays lip service to the hope of negotiating a withdrawal agreement with the remaining EU member states.  Gove writes:

"It’s our aim to ensure we can leave with a deal. We want to continue with warm and close relations with our friends, allies and neighbours in the EU. We will do everything in our power to conclude a good agreement that honours the referendum result and secures a brighter future for us outside the single market and the customs union." 

But since the government's precondition for recommencing negotiations is abandoning the backstop which would mean sacrificing the interests of one of the remaining 27 member states in favour of those of the governing party of the departing state, it is hard to see that happening. 

As I noted in Irish Preparations for No Deal 20 July 2019, "The rationale for keeping the threat of leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement is that the prospect of disruption and other negative consequences for the economies of the 27 remaining member states will force the governments of those countries to require the Commission negotiators to make concessions." As Ireland is geographically separated from the other remaining member states by us to the east and north and a longish sea crossing to Britanny to the south the calculation must be that pressure on Ireland even tacitly and gently applied will yield concessions.   As I also said in that article: "It is not a very attractive negotiating position either for us or for our trading partners and it may well do a lot of long term harm, but, for some in the UK, that will not matter if the threat is effective." 

In EU Preparations for a "No Deal Brexit" 2 July 2019, I noted the Commission's press release of 12 June 2019 ‘No-deal' Brexit: European Commission takes stock of preparations ahead of the June European Council (Article 50).  The Commission acknowledged that a withdrawal without an agreement in accordance with art 50 (2) of the Treaty on European Union "will obviously cause significant disruption for citizens and businesses and would have a serious negative economic impact" but such serious negative economic impact will "be proportionally much greater in the United Kingdom than in the EU27 Member States."  In Irish Preparations for a No Deal 20 July 2019 I concluded that no deal is "clearly not an outcome that anyone in Ireland wants (even though there may be some benefits for Ireland such as the transfer of some financial services businesses from the City of London to Dublin) but it is one that the government of the Republic seems at least as able to handle as that of the United Kingdom."

As for British preparedness, the Institute for Government which describes itself as "the leading think tank working to make government more effective" has today published Preparing Brexit: No Deal  by Joe Owen, Maddy Thimont and Jack Jill Rutter.  The report states:

"With huge barriers to agreeing and ratifying a deal by the end of October, the prospect of a no-deal exit is rising. But no deal would not be the end of Brexit. The UK will be out of the European Union, but the all-encompassing job of adapting to the new reality and building a new relationship with the EU will still be incomplete. The biggest questions Brexit will still need to be settled. The difficult choices that have been unresolved for the last three years will not evaporate overnight on the 31 October. And Brexit will remain the key dividing line in a Parliament in which Johnson’s government has a wafer-thin majority, and one that is constantly under threat."

The tasks for the new government in the next few months are herculean. They include putting the whole government on a no-deal footing, introducing new legislation for the government of Northern Ireland and probably an emergency budget.  The report warns that no deal is a step into the unknown, that there is no such thing as "managed no-deal" and peak preparedness for brexit may have passed.

The government has announced a massive advertising campaign to sell no deal to the British public (see Christopher Hope Boris Johnson to unveil biggest ad campaign since Second World War to prepare for 'no deal' 29 July 2019 Daily Telegraph).  If despite that campaign brexit proves to be unpopular with the public the government can always blame the obduracy of its former trading partners.  That has always worked in the past though it may not do so in the future as the EU has less and less to do with our affairs.

Anyone wishing to discuss this article, the Cabinet Office's email, the Institute for Government's report or the legal consequences of brexit generally should call me on 020 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form.

Litigating in London after Halloween

Basher Eyre / Junction of Fetter Lane and Rolls Buildings / CC BY-SA 2.0

Jane Lambert

Unless the government loses a vote of confidence in accordance with s.2 (3) of the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011, there is a strong possibility that this country will leave the European Union at 23:00 on 31 Oct 2019 without concluding an agreement in accordance with art 50 (2) of the Treaty on European Union. The reason I say that is the new administration has announced that it will not enter negotiations for such an agreement unless the remaining make concessions that they have so far refused to make (see Patrick Walker UK on course for no-deal Brexit as Johnson rejects EU agreement 26 July 2019 The Guardian).  That is a consideration to be taken into account by those who are contemplating proceedings in the Business and Property Courts of England and Wales or indeed the proper law of any contract that they may be negotiating.

One of the reasons for choosing London as a forum for the resolution of civil or commercial disputes is that the following legislation applies to the United Kingdom:

• Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, p. 1–32;
• Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p. 19–72;
• Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 OJ L 324, 10.12.2007, p. 79–120;  
• Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters OJ L 174, 27.6.2001, p. 1–24;  
• Regulation (EU) No 606/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters OJ L 181, 29.6.2013, p. 4–12; 
• Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure OJ L 199, 31.7.2007, p. 1–22; 
• Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims OJ L 143, 30.4.2004; and 
• Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters OJ L 136, 24.5.2008, p. 3–8.

The benefits of this legislation were spelt out by the Bar Council's Brexit Working Group in paragraphs 4 and 5 of Paper 4 (third edition) of the Brexit Papers:

"4.1. Judgments of the courts of EU Member States are to be enforced throughout the EU as if they were judgments of a court of the Member State in which enforcement is sought. This includes “protective measures” such as injunctions freezing assets.
4.2. The courts of one Member State may apply “protective measures” to assist with proceedings in another Member State.
4.3. Subject to a number of notable exceptions, persons domiciled in an EU Member State should be sued in that Member State and where this is not what has happened courts are required to decline jurisdiction.
4.4. Where the parties have specified in their contract that disputes should be heard in a particular jurisdiction (an exclusive jurisdiction clause), the courts of other Member States are required to abide by the terms of that jurisdiction clause and to decline jurisdiction.
4.5. Where a person is one of a number of Defendants, he may be joined to proceedings which are commenced in another Member State where he is not 4 domiciled if those proceedings are “so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments”.
4.6. Where proceedings have already been commenced in one Member State, the courts of other Member States are required to stay any subsequent proceedings dealing with the same subject matter until jurisdiction has been decided by the court first seized of the matter (the lis alibi pedens principle).
4.7. Clarifies the scope of the exclusion of arbitral proceedings from the jurisdiction rules. 

5. Another vital element of legal process is the service of claims by claimants on defendants. Without proper service, as a general rule, a claimant cannot bring a claim against a defendant. The position as to service has also been regularised within the EU. The current position with regards to service is governed by the Service Regulation1, which has applied in the UK since 13 November 2008. It creates a ‘European judicial area’ for the free movement of judicial and extra-judicial documents."

Under the Draft Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the EuropeanAtomic Energy Community 14 November 2018, this legislation would have continued to apply to the UK until 31 Dec 2020 at the earliest.  If the UK leaves without ratifying that draft agreement or renegotiating another in accordance with art 50 (2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, this legislation simply falls away.

In its guidance note Handling civil legal cases that involve EU countries if there’s no Brexit deal 13 Sept 2018 the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Ministry of Justice spelt out the consequences of the UK's departure from the EU without a withdrawal agreement:

"In the event of ‘no deal’, there would be no agreed EU framework for ongoing civil judicial cooperation between the UK and EU countries. Most of the EU rules operate on the basis of reciprocity between EU countries. If the UK continued to apply the rules unilaterally after exit, the UK’s status as a third country would mean that EU countries would not consider the UK to be covered by these rules. As a result, UK citizens, businesses and families would not benefit from these rules,"

The government warns that the following would be repealed in those circumstances:

• Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 which provides rules to decide where a case should be heard when it raises cross-border issues between the UK and other EU countries, and the recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments between EU countries; 
• Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 which establishes EU procedures for dealing with, respectively, uncontested debts and claims worth less than €5,000;
• The EU/Denmark Agreement: which provides rules to decide where a case would be heard when it raises cross-border issues between Denmark and EU countries, and the recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments between the EU and Denmark; and
• The Lugano Convention: which is the basis of our civil judicial relationship with Norway, Iceland and Switzerland: This would not prevent us applying to re-join the Lugano Convention in our own right at a later date.

Thereafter the UK would revert to the existing domestic common law and statutory rules, which currently apply in cross border cases concerning the rest of the world.  The UK would continue to apply existing international agreements, such as the Hague Conventions, which in many areas provide alternative rules covering the same areas as the above instruments, although they are not always as comprehensive. The UK, which is currently a party to the Conventions as an EU member state. would apply for membership in its own right.

There is bound to be a consequence for businesses and individuals,  The government advises:

"Any party to a cross-border legal dispute, including businesses, consumers and families, would need to consider the effect that these changes would have on any existing or future cases involving parties in EU countries. Where appropriate you may wish to seek professional legal advice on the implications of these changes for your individual circumstances."

The following advice applies to those negotiating or drafting contracts:

"Businesses, individuals and legal practitioners would need to consider how these rules interact with the domestic rules of relevant EU countries to determine how jurisdiction in cross-border disputes should be established and whether any judgments should be recognised and enforced."

Finally, they should bear in mind that in certain cases, the interaction between the common law rules and national legislation may not be clear.  It is possible that certain countries may not recognize judgments from the UK#s courts. Businesses and individuals are advised to take legal advice about how these changes may affect them.

I can certainly provide such advice.  Anyone wishing to discuss any of these matters should call me on 020 7404 55252 or send me a message through my contact form.

Brexit Briefing - July 2018

Plage de la Coutarde

Author Baptiste Rossi
Copyright waived by the author 
Source Wikipedia

Jane Lambert

A lot happened in July. First, the resignations of the Rt Hon David Davis MP, the Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP and a number of other ministers. Secondly, the publication of white papers on The Future Relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union and Legislating for the Withdrawal Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union.   Thirdly, the Prime Minister and her ministers have visited the capitals of other EU member states to canvass support for the future relationship white paper's proposals. Finally, active preparations have begun here and in the rest of the EU for the UK's withdrawal from the EU without a withdrawal agreement.

The procedure by which a member state withdraws from the European Union is set out in art 50 (2) of the Treaty of European Union:

"A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."

The procedure was initiated by  a letter from the Prime Minister to the President of the Council dated  29 March 2017 giving notice of the UK's intention to withdraw from the EU. The Council provided the guidelines on 29 April 2017 supplemented by others on 15 Dec 2017 and 23 March 2018.  Negotiations on the terms of a withdrawal agreement began after the British general election a draft of which was published in February.  About 80% of the text is now agreed but there are a number of sticking points one of which is the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.

The withdrawal agreement has to take account of the future relationship between the UK and EU.  The Chequers statement which I reviewed in The Chequers Statement Explained 8 July 2018 was an attempt to get agreement within the government on what that relationship should be.   It did not survive the weekend as David Davis resigned on Sunday night and was followed by several other ministers including Johnson. The white paper on the future relationship was attacked by Brexiteers and remainers in the UK and given a lukewarm reception in Brussels.  I discussed it in The White Paper on the Future Relationship between the UK and the EU on 21 July 2018.  The EU's negotiator, Michel Barnier, set out his vision for the future relationship between the EU and UK in his op-ed  An ambitious partnership with the UK after Brexit on 2 Aug 2018.

If a withdrawal agreement is concluded it will have to be incorporated into English and Welsh, Scots and Northern Irish law by statute. The government's proposals for legislation are set out in the white paper on Legislating for the Withdrawal Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union which I discussed in Today's White Paper on the Withdrawal Agreement - What's happened to Ireland? on 24 July 2018.

In Brexit - Why do I follow the Art 50 (2) Negotiations when I am an IP Lawyer? 26 July 2018 NIPC Law I explained why the art 50 (2) negotiations are important and the likely outcomes if they are successful and also if they are not.   I also described the negotiations as "finely balanced".  There is an evens chance of their going either way.

Anyone wishing to discuss this article or Brexit generally should call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 or send me a message through my contact form.

Today's White Paper on the Withdrawal Agreement - What's happened to Ireland?

Satellite Image of Ireland

Author NASA
Licence Copyright waived by the owner

Jane Lambert

Today our government published yet another white paper on Brexit.  This one is entitled Legislating for the Withdrawal Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union Cm 9674 and it proposes legislation for the implementation of the withdrawal agreement contemplated by art 50 (2) of the Treaty of European Union,

A draft of that agreement was published at the end of February and about 80% of it has been agreed according to Monsieur Barnier  (see Press statement by Michel Barnier following the July 2018 General Affairs Council (Article 50) 20 July 2018). But there remains one stumbling block and that is how to avoid the need for border posts with customs officers and immigration inspectors along the border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland when the UK leaves the Customs Union and Single Market that allows freedom of movement between member states.  One obvious solution would be for Northern Ireland to remain in the Customs Union and Single Market so that the border between the EU and UK is the Irish Sea but that would be anathema to Ulster Unionists as well as many in the Conservative Party and perhaps other British politicians.

It is no doubt for that reason that the 44 page white paper is almost silent on Ireland.   I counted only 13 references to the island in the text, mainly in the Introduction.  There is a lot more detail on Citizen's Rights (Chapter 2 - paragraph 16 to 51), the Implementation Period (Chapter 3 - paragraph 52 to 104), The financial settlement (Chapter 4 - paragraph 105 to 136) and Procedures for approval and implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement and framework for our future relationship (Chapter 5 - paragraph 137 - 157).  A lot of Mrs May's problems would disappear if more of her backbenchers and local Conservative Association members bothered to read those last 20 paragraphs.

In that it shows how far the negotiations have progressed on everything except Ireland and it betokens an intention to seeing the job through I am mildly comforted by  this document. Should anyone wish to discuss it or Brexit in general, call me on 020 7404 5252 or send me a message through my contact form.