Geoffrey Cox’s New “Legal

Advice” on Brexit Incentivises

Unionist Violence

"I especially cannot understand the pusillanimous attitude of the

government of Ireland to this development. The UK has published in
advance that it is taking Ireland and the Irish people for fools and has
no intention of keeping to the Irish backstop. The reaction of the
Government of Ireland is to pretend not to notice. That is an astonishing
dereliction of its duty to the people of Ireland, North and South."

In brief Some hope Vienna offers a way around the Irish

backstop But the bar for using the Vienna Convention is very
high An international rule allowing countries to back out of
treaties under certain circumstances has been dismissed as a
“figleaf” by legal experts after it was suggested to be a
solution to the Irish backstop row. One of the key sticking
points over Theresa May’s Brexit deal, which was voted down
again on Tuesday, is the plan to prevent a hard border between
Northern Ireland and Ireland. Legal advice published
by Attorney General Geoffrey Cox said there was a risk it could
leave the UK could trapped under EU rules, causing Tory
Brexiteers and the DUP to refrain from supporting the deal. Mr
Cox is believed to have held new talks with the DUP in a bid to
establish what it would take for them to support the deal. And
it was suggested that Article 62 of the Vienna Convention
could be used as a way for the UK to pull out of the Northern
Ireland border backstop unilaterally. What is the Vienna
Convention? The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
(VCLT) is a treaty outlining the international rules on legal
agreements between countries. Britain’s Attorney General
Geoffrey Cox leaves after attending the weekly cabinet
meeting (Photo: Getty Images) It entered into force on 27
January 1980 and has now been ratified by 116 states. Article
62 of the treaty states that if there is “a fundamental change
of circumstances” following the conclusion of a treaty “which
was not foreseen by the parties” then the states can withdraw
from said treaty. Mr Cox said on Tuesday that if there is no
solution found to stop the backstop “the UK has no unilateral
exit right to leave, unless there were a fundamental change of
circumstance under Article 62 of the Vienna convention on the
law of treaties”. This is relevant because the current deal
outlines that the UK cannot leave the backstop without
permission from the EU – whereas Article 62 would, in theory,
allow the British Government to do so unilaterally. A defaced
road sign on the border at Donegal and Derry (Photo: PA)
Reaction? The issue with using this legal device to leave the
backstop arrangement unilaterally is the definition of a
“fundamental change of circumstance”. Experts in EU law
have pointed out that it would have to be a truly exceptional
case for this to apply.
EU law professor of UCL, Piet Eeckout, said Tory Brexiteers are
hiding behind the legal device to justify changing their vote
and supporting the deal. He tweeted: “So now Art 62 of the
Vienna Convention seems to come back into fashion. This is
about terminating any treaty because of a fundamental change
of circumstances. “First point to note that it’s always been
there – since 1969 in fact, in its codified form. So nothing new.
EU law professor of UCL, Piet Eeckout, said Tory Brexiteers are
hiding behind the legal device to justify changing their vote
and supporting the deal. He tweeted: “So now Art 62 of the
Vienna Convention seems to come back into fashion. This is
about terminating any treaty because of a fundamental change
of circumstances. “First point to note that it’s always been
there – since 1969 in fact, in its codified form. So nothing new.
2. Now, we can't tell exactly what Rees-Mogg has in mind when he sonorously
invokes VCLT Art 62. But I think we can safely bet that in his view, a failure to
reach an agreement with the EU constitutes a fundamental change of
circumstances that entitles the UK to terminate.
Cameron Miles @usualcaveat
FollowFollow @usualcaveat
More
1. Gather round, children. This is VCLT
Art 62.

14. Put another way, through the act of *invoking* VCLT Art 62 in relation to a
particular circumstances at the time of the treaty's conclusion, the UK will
have - *literally in the same breath* - nullified it as a possible exit route.

Helen Farrell
@hpfarrell
Follow
More
@hpfarrell
Follow

Replying to @usualcaveat

I am not a lawyer. But surely if

you sign a Treaty saying you
will invoke this clause to
break that Treaty then you
can't claim it as an
"unforeseen circumstance"?
6:56 AM - 14 Mar 2019
Second point is that its scope is notoriously contested in
international law: should never be an easy way out of
international commitments!” “I’ve come across one instance:
when Yugoslavia descended into war and dismemberment, the
EU relied on the principle to rescind tariff concessions, which
Serbia continued to claim. In Racke the ECJ found that that
was an acceptable use of the principle – not without difficulty.
“If the ERG and the DUP wish to hide behind this principle to
change their vote, so be it. International lawyer will look at
this as a mere fig-leaf (or a codpiece …). As to the UK’s AG
now relying on this, well… I rest my case.” Nonsense Barrister
Cameron Miles said that the process was “exceptionally
difficult to invoke”. He pointed out that a request to use the
device in the 1990s by Hungary, which wanted to get out of
building a dam on the River Danube, was rejected despite the
breakdown of the USSR and Czechoslovakia – the other parties
involved in the treaty. “Those circumstances were not enough
to radically change the nature of the underlying treaty
obligation,” he tweeted. “When one looks at the current
political landscape between the UK and EU, one struggles to
identify any change in the terrain that would meet the
threshold set by the ICJ.
Cameron Miles @usualcaveat 11. The Backstop was inserted
into the withdrawal agreement precisely to cater for the event
of a failure to agree. How, then, can it be said that this
eventuality was not foreseen? It's nonsense on stilts. 347
10:01 - 14 Mar 2019
The Backstop was inserted into the withdrawal agreement
precisely to cater for the event of a failure to agree. How, then,
can it be said that this eventuality was not foreseen? It’s
nonsense on stilts.”

published by the Attorney General, no less.

The Westminster Government’s contempt for international law was fully
demonstrated just two weeks ago when it repudiated the International
Court of Justice – an act which is the ultimate disavowal of the rule of
international law – over the decolonisation of the Chagos Islands. So in
one sense it is no shock that they are prepared to sign a treaty with no
intention of honoring it.
But what is quite astonishing is that the discussions with the DUP and
ERG on how to sign up to the backstop and then dishonour it, have been
carried out fully in public, and with the potential other party to the treaty
looking on.
I simply do not see how the EU can now sign the Withdrawal Agreement
which was negotiated with May, when they have been given firm
evidence that the UK intends to cheat on that Agreement.
I especially cannot understand the pusillanimous attitude of the
government of Ireland to this development. The UK has published in
advance that it is taking Ireland and the Irish people for fools and has no
intention of keeping to the Irish backstop. The reaction of the
Government of Ireland is to pretend not to notice. That is an astonishing
dereliction of its duty to the people of Ireland, North and South.
The more so as Geoffrey Cox’s “advice” is an unsubtle hint to the DUP,
should the backstop become effective, to restart the Loyalist violence
with which they were for decades so closely associated, in order to
provide the pretext for cancelling the backstop. In reading this, it is
essential to remember that this legal advice was written, as a matter of
definite fact, directly for the DUP audience to try and influence the DUP
in the next “meaningful” vote. To signal to an organisation as steeped in
blood as the DUP that the way out of the “Backstop” arrangement which
they so hate, would be to demonstrate it is having a “socially
destabilising effect in Northern Ireland”, clearly gives a very direct
incentive to Loyalists to restart violence.
Anybody who knows anything about the history and politics of Northern
Ireland must be aware that what I have just written is true. At the very
best reading, Cox’s “advice” is grossly irresponsible and reckless.
It is also very poor legal advice. Unlike Geoffrey Cox, I have actually
negotiated a number of international treaties, including most of the UK’s
continental shelf boundary agreements, the Protocol on Deep Seabed
Mining to UNCLOS and the Sierra Leone Peace Agreement. Cox’s
interpretation of Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on Treaties is
complete nonsense. To start with, Article 62 is designed not to facilitate
but to prevent treaties being dishonoured under the excuse of
“unforseen circumstances”. It reads:
Article 62
Fundamental change of circumstances
1. A fundamental change of circumstances which has occurred with
regard to those existing at the
time of the conclusion of a treaty, and which was not foreseen by the
parties, may not be invoked as a
ground for terminating or withdrawing from the treaty unless:
(a) the existence of those circumstances constituted an essential basis
of the consent of the parties to
be bound by the treaty; and
21
(b) the effect of the change is radically to transform the extent of
obligations still to be performed
under the treaty.
2. A fundamental change of circumstances may not be invoked as a
ground for terminating or
withdrawing from a treaty:
(a) if the treaty establishes a boundary; or
(b) if the fundamental change is the result of a breach by the party
invoking it either of an obligation
under the treaty or of any other international obligation owed to any other
party to the treaty.
3. If, under the foregoing paragraphs, a party may invoke a fundamental
change of circumstances
as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty it may also
invoke the change as a ground for
suspending the operation of the treaty.
Very plainly indeed, neither 1 a) nor 1 b) apply to the situation Cox
outlines. Just not working out the way you intended is not grounds to
dishonor a treaty. Social discontent in Northern Ireland would not
radically transform the obligations under the treaty nor is social content
the essential basis of consent to the treaty.
The second, and frankly hilarious, point is that Cox’s advice is
demonstrably nonsense. To permit the dishonoring of the treaty, a
change in circumstance must not only be “fundamental” it must also be
“unforeseen”. Yet in his legal advice Cox foresees and specifies the
“unforeseen” event that might lead to cancellation!
I rest my case.
It is worth reminding you – as the MSM refuse to do – that the Tory
Brexiteers oppose the Good Friday Agreement, and destroying it is to
them a potential gain from Brexit rather than a disaster to be averted.
Remember this by Michael Gove, asserting that the British military
option would be better than the Good Friday Agreement?
Ulster’s future lies, ultimately, either as a Province of the United
Kingdom or a united Ireland. Attempts to fudge or finesse that
truth only create an ambiguity which those who profit by violence
will seek to exploit. Therefore, the best guarantee for stability is the
assertion by the Westminster Government that it will defend, with
all vigour, the right of the democratic majority in Northern Ireland
to remain in the United Kingdom. Ulster could then be governed
with an Assembly elected on the same basis as Wales, and an
administration constituted in the same way. Minority rights should
be protected by the same legal apparatus which exists across the
UK. The legislative framework which has guaranteed the rights and
freedoms of Roman Catholics and ethnic minorities in Liverpool
and London should apply equally in Belfast and Belleek…
In such circumstances, resolute security action, the use of
existing antiterrorist legislation and the careful application of
intelligence could reduce the IRA to operating as it did in the fifties
and sixties. Combining such security measures with a political
determination not to allow Ulster’s constitutional status to be altered
by force of arms would rob the republicans of hope.
It can be done. But does any Government have the will?
Interestingly enough, after I published an article on Gove’s 58 page
pamphlet attacking the Good Friday Agreement, the Tory think tank
which published it, the Centre for Policy Studies, immediately took it
down from the web. I have, however, copied it to my own website.
By chance, my next couple of speaking engagements are in Northern
Ireland. This is not the subject I was intending to discuss, but I never
know what I am going to say when I stand up anyway. Happy to answer
questions on anything.
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade,
Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering
propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or
institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary
subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily
agree with the articles, but welcome the alternative voice, insider
information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Sierra Leone Peace Agreement. Cox’s interpretation of Article 62 of the
Vienna Convention on Treaties is complete nonsense. To start with,
Article 62 is designed not to facilitate but to prevent treaties being
dishonoured under the excuse of “unforseen circumstances
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 ART 62
http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969
.pdf

Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, and in particular Article 62 on

"fundamental change in circumstances" in relation to the backstop
https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%201155/volume-1155-i-
18232-english.pdf
attempts to use this Article – it being marked down as an
warning against
"utterly hopeless" endeavour – in the absence of parliamentary
authority to implement the EU treaties, arising from refusal to repeal
Brexit legislation, a different scenario could apply.
In this case, we could see Article 61 apply: "Supervening impossibility
of performance". This states that a party may invoke the impossibility
of performing a treaty as a ground for terminating or withdrawing
from it, if the impossibility results from the permanent disappearance
or destruction of an object indispensable for the execution of the
treaty.
Whether lack of parliamentary approval qualifies as "permanent
disappearance or destruction of an object indispensable for the
execution of the treaty" is one for the lawyers to argue, but on the face
of it, Mrs May doesn't necessarily get a free ride if she wants to call
the whole thing off.
One person who is getting a free ride, though – at least from the
media – is Nigel Farage. He has re-emerged from the woodwork to
front a protest march from Sunderland to London, walking the first
leg only, before disappearing.
Having done nothing since the referendum (or before) to promote an
orderly exit, focusing instead on personal enrichment, he now gets
sympathetic headlines from the likes of Sky News about being
"betrayed" over Brexit. Yet, if anyone has betrayed the Eurosceptic
movement – in not pursuing a coherent exit strategy

Brexit: bring on the clowns

Michel Barnier as a "dangerous illusion", the idea that the EU would agree
to transition without the backstop.
The Price of Peace
6 Nov, 2018

I have never managed fully to understand the mechanism by which the

media and political class decide when to leave a fact, a glaringly
obvious and vital fact, completely excluded from public debate. That
process of exclusion is a psychological, not an organisational,
phenomenon but extremely effective.
Brexit continues to dominate mainstream political discussion, and the
Northern Ireland border issue remains at the centre of current
negotiations, forced there by the London government’s reneging on the
agreement it signed almost a year ago. But there is a secret here,
hidden in plain sight, the glaring fact driving the entire process, but
which the media somehow never mention.
For the Tory right, the destruction of the Anglo Irish Agreement is a
major goal to be achieved through Brexit. In this, they are in secret
communion with their friends in the DUP.
Consider the 58 page paper by one Michael Gove, entitled The Price of
Peace, published in 2000 by the Tories’ leading “think tank” the Centre
for Policy Studies.
The Price of Peace An analysis of British policy in Northern Ireland
MICHAEL GOVE
Gove’s 58 page pamphlet attacking the Good Friday Agreement, the Tory
think tank which published it, the Centre for Policy Studies, immediately
took it down from the web. I have, CPS
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/wp/wp-
content/uploads/2019/02/111220142628-
thepriceofpeace2000MichaelGove.pdf

Gove argues the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement and the
Anglo Irish Agreement should be annulled. And Gove concludes:
Ulster’s future lies, ultimately, either as a Province of the United
Kingdom or a united Ireland. Attempts to fudge or finesse that
truth only create an ambiguity which those who profit by violence
will seek to exploit. Therefore, the best guarantee for stability is the
assertion by the Westminster Government that it will defend, with
all vigour, the right of the democratic majority in Northern Ireland
to remain in the United Kingdom. Ulster could then be governed
with an Assembly elected on the same basis as Wales, and an
administration constituted in the same way. Minority rights should
be protected by the same legal apparatus which exists across the
UK. The legislative framework which has guaranteed the rights and
freedoms of Roman Catholics and ethnic minorities in Liverpool
and London should apply equally in Belfast and Belleek…
In such circumstances, resolute security action, the use of
existing antiterrorist legislation and the careful application of
intelligence could reduce the IRA to operating as it did in the fifties
and sixties. Combining such security measures with a political
determination not to allow Ulster’s constitutional status to be altered
by force of arms would rob the republicans of hope.
It can be done. But does any Government have the will?
Gove gets to this position through a statement of root and branch
opposition to the Good Friday Agreement motivated by a classic Tory
rejection of any role for the state in seeking to enhance social justice,
and of affirmation that the rights of the “majority community” to rule
must not be limited or mitigated. Gove objects to every measure of the
Good Friday Agreement, including promotion of Catholic recruitment
into the RUC, support for the Irish language, state support for
businesses, prisoner releases and changes to the oath of allegiance to
the United Kingdom.
It [The Good Friday Agreement] enshrines a vision of human rights which
privileges contending minorities at the expense of the democratic
majority. It supplants the notion of independent citizens with one
of competing client groups. It offers social and economic rights:
“positive rights” which legitimise a growing role for bureaucratic
agencies in the re-distribution of resources, the running of
companies, the regulation of civic life and the exercise of personal
choice. It turns the police force into a political plaything whose
legitimacy depends on familiarity with fashionable social theories
and precise ethnic composition and not effectiveness in
maintaining order. It uproots justice from its traditions and makes
it politically contentious. It demeans traditional expressions of
British national identity. And it privileges those who wish to
refashion or deconstruct that identity.
What does Brexit mean for the EU’s Area of Freedom,
Security ...
https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/What%20does%20BREXIT%20mean
%20for%20the%20EU.pdf

Disarming a ticking bomb: Can the Withdrawal

Agreement ensure EU-UK judicial and police
cooperation after Brexit?
https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/PI2018_16_MS_FG_EU-UK%20judicial
%20and%20police%20cooperation%20after%20Brexit.pdf

This view of Northern Ireland is shared by Gove’s colleagues in the

European Reform Group. They may have accepted it was politically not
possible to roll back the Good Friday Agreement in the last couple of
decades, but Brexit and a hard border fundamentally undermines the
Anglo-Irish Agreement and changes their whole calculation.
It is not possible to understand the current state of play in Brexit
negotiations, without understanding that those effectively driving the
Tory Party position do not view a hard border with Ireland as
undesirable. They view it as a vital achievement en route to rolling back
power sharing and all the affirmative measures which brought peace to
Northern Ireland, in an affirmation of the glory and power of unionism.
It is no accident that Northern Ireland is the rock on which Brexit has
foundered. It is considered Tory strategy about which, by that
psychological mechanism I will never understand, the mainstream
media has chosen not to tell you.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/03/geoffrey-coxs-new-legal-advice-on-brexit-
incentivises-unionist-violence/?
fbclid=IwAR2c4wsiXW9_YPTe8jSYesKGiLM4Hi_pXqA5zxuDMEeTc3zkNKIWvO3oIjQ
UK Rejects International Court of
Justice Opinion on the Chagos
Islands
26 Feb, 2019
In parliament, Alan Duncan for the government has just rejected
yesterday’s stunning result at the International Court of Justice, where
British occupation of the Chagos Islands was found unlawful by a
majority of 13 to 1, with all the judges from EU countries amongst those
finding against the UK.
This represents a serious escalation in the UK’s rejection of
multilateralism and international law and a move towards joining the US
model of exceptionalism, standing outside the rule of international law.
As such, it is arguably the most significant foreign policy development
for generations. In the Iraq war, while Britain launched war without UN
Security Council authority, it did so on a tenuous argument that it had
Security Council authority from earlier resolutions. The UK was
therefore not outright rejecting the international system. On Chagos it is
now simply denying the authority of the International Court of Justice;
this is utterly unprecedented.
Duncan put forward two arguments. Firstly that the ICJ opinion was
“only” advisory to the General Assembly. Secondly, he argued that the
ICJ had no jurisdiction as the case was a bilateral dispute with
Mauritius (and thus could only go before the ICJ with UK consent, which
is not given).
But here Duncan is – against all British precedent and past policy –
defying a ruling of the ICJ. The British government argued strenuously
in the present case against ICJ jurisdiction, on just the grounds Duncan
cited. The ICJ considered the UK’s arguments, together with arguments
from 32 other states and from the African Union. The ICJ ruled that it
did have jurisdiction, because this was not a bilateral dispute but part of
the UN ordained process of decolonisation.
The International Court of Justice’s ruling on this point is given at length
in paras 83 to 91 of its Opinion. This is perhaps the key section:
88. The Court therefore concludes that the opinion has been requested
on the matter of decolonization which is of particular concern to the
United Nations. The issues raised by the request are located in the
broader frame of reference of decolonization, including the General
Assembly’s role therein, from which those issues are inseparable
(Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1975, p. 26, para. 38;
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 159,
para. 50).
89. Moreover, the Court observes that there may be differences of views
on legal questions in advisory proceedings (Legal Consequences for
States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West
Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory
Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1971, p. 24, para. 34). However, the fact that the
Court may have to pronounce on legal issues on which divergent views
have been expressed by Mauritius and the United Kingdom does not
mean that, by replying to the request, the Court is dealing with a bilateral
dispute.
90. In these circumstances, the Court does not consider that to give the
opinion requested would have the effect of circumventing the principle of
consent by a State to the judicial settlement of its dispute with another
State. The Court therefore cannot, in the exercise of its discretion,
decline to give the opinion on that ground.
91. In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that there are no
compelling reasons for it to decline to give the opinion requested by the
General Assembly.
As stated at para 183, that the court did have jurisdiction was agreed
unanimously, with even the US judge (the sole dissenter on the main
question) in accord. For the British government to reject the ICJ’s
unanimous ruling on jurisdiction, and quote that in parliament as the
reason for not following the ICJ Opinion, is an astonishing abrogation of
international law by the UK. It really is unprecedented. The repudiation
of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention over Julian Assange
pointed the direction the UK is drifting, but that body does not have the
prestige of the International Court of Justice.
The International Court of Justice represents the absolute pinnacle of,
and embodies the principle of, international law. In 176 decisions, such
as Nigeria vs Cameroon or Malaysia vs Indonesia, potentially disastrous
conflicts have been averted by the states’ agreement to abide by the
rule of law. The UK’s current attack on the ICJ is a truly disastrous new
development.
I have taken it for granted that you know that the reason the UK refuses
to decolonise the Chagos Islands is to provide an airbase for the US
military on Diego Garcia. If Brexit goes ahead, the Chagos Islands will
also lead to a major foreign policy disagreement between the UK and
US on one side, and the EU on the other. The EU will be truly shocked by
British repudiation of the ICJ.
I have studied the entire and lengthy ICJ Opinion on the Chagos Islands,
together with its associated papers, and I will write further on this
shortly.
—————————————————
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade,
Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering
propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or
institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary
subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily
agree with the articles, but welcome the alternative voice, insider
information and debate.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/02/uk-rejects-international-
court-of-justice-opinion-on-the-chagos-islands/
UK Rejects International Court of Justice Opinion
on the Chagos Islands

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE YEAR

2019 25 February 25 2019 General List LEGAL
CONSEQUENCES OF THE SEPARATION OF THE
CHAGOS ARCHIPELAGO FROM MAURITIUS IN
1965
26 Feb, 2019
https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-
related/169/169-20190225-01-00-EN.pdf

dates for elections have already been set and the requirement to hold
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?
uri=CELEX:32018D0994&from=DE
COUNCIL DECISION (EU, Euratom) 2018/994

of 13 July 2018

amending the Act concerning the election of the members of the European
Parliament by direct universal suffrage, annexed to Council Decision
76/787/ECSC, EEC, Euratom of 20 September 1976
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in
particular Article 223(1) thereof,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community,
and in particular Article 106a(1) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the European Parliament,
After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,
Having regard to the consent of the European Parliament (1),
Acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure,
Whereas:
(1 The Act concerning the election of the members of the European
) Parliament by direct universal suffrage (2) (‘the Electoral Act’),
annexed to Council Decision 76/787/ECSC, EEC, Euratom (3),
entered into force on 1 July 1978 and was subsequently amended
by Decision 2002/772/EC, Euratom (4).
(2) A number of amendments are to be made to the Electoral Act.
(3 As a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on
) 1 December 2009, the Council has to lay down the provisions
necessary for the election of the members of the European
Parliament by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a
special legislative procedure.
(4 Transparency of the electoral process and access to reliable
) information are important for raising European political awareness
and for securing a solid election turnout, and it is desirable that
citizens of the Union be informed well in advance of elections to
the European Parliament about the candidates standing in those
elections and about the affiliation of national political parties to a
European political party.
(5 In order to encourage voter participation in elections to the
) European Parliament and to fully take advantage of the
possibilities offered by technological developments, Member
States could provide for the possibilities of, inter alia, advance
voting, postal voting, and electronic and internet voting, while
ensuring, in particular, the reliability of the result, the secrecy of
the vote and the protection of personal data, in accordance with
applicable Union law.
(6 Citizens of the Union have the right to participate in its
) democratic life, in particular, by voting or standing as candidates
in elections to the European Parliament.
(7 Member States are encouraged to take the measures necessary
) to allow those of their citizens residing in third countries to vote in
elections to the European Parliament.
(8) The Electoral Act should therefore be amended accordingly,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1
The Electoral Act is amended as follows:
(1 Article 1 is replaced by the following:
)
‘Article 1
 1. In each Member State, members of the European Parliament
shall be elected as representatives of the citizens of the Union on
the basis of proportional representation, using the list system or
the single transferable vote.
2. Member States may authorise voting based on a preferential
list system in accordance with the procedure they adopt.
3. Elections shall be by direct universal suffrage and shall be free
and secret.’;
(2 Article 3 is replaced by the following:
)
‘Article 3
1. Member States may set a minimum threshold for the
allocation of seats. At national level, this threshold may not
exceed 5 per cent of valid votes cast.
2. Member States in which the list system is used shall set a
minimum threshold for the allocation of seats for constituencies
which comprise more than 35 seats. This threshold shall not be
lower than 2 per cent, and shall not exceed 5 per cent, of the
valid votes cast in the constituency concerned, including a single-
constituency Member State.
3. Member States shall take the measures necessary to comply
with the obligation set out in paragraph 2 no later than in time for
the elections to the European Parliament which follow the first
ones taking place after the entry into force of Council Decision
(EU, Euratom) 2018
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?
uri=CELEX:32018D0994&from=DE

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 3627/93 of 28 December 1993 concerning

the stopping of fishing for Atlantic redfish by vessels flying the flag of a Member
State
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri=OJ:L:1993:329:FULL&from=EN

Eleanor Sharpston

@akulith
 Follow
More
Follow @akulith

32. I am naturally not

advocating any particular
mechanism or any particular
course of action. But if the
political will to agree a longer
Article 50 TEU extension is
there, a legal mechanism can
be found to accommodate
that desire and ‘deal with’ the
issue of the EP elections.
4:48 PM - 13 Mar 2019
31. No doubt other mechanisms could be envisaged also. What would be
necessary would be to ensure that the EU-27 could go ahead and elect a new
EP as scheduled, and to arrange for the British MEPs to sit in that new EP as
additional members on a temporary ‘Brexit-limited’ basis.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/758557/22_November_Draft_Political_Declaration_setting
_out_the_framework_for_the_future_relationship_between_the_EU_and_the_UK
__agreed_at_negotiators__level_and_agreed_in_principle_at_political_level__su
bject_to_endorsement_by_Leaders.pdf

More
Chain continues! 25. Article 50 TEU (withdrawals from the EU) is the mirror
provision of Article 49 TEU (accessions to the EU). Article 49 TEU served as
the legal base for the 2011 Treaty of Accession of Croatia to the European
Union.
28. An entire provision – Article 19 – was devoted to increasing membership of
the EP so as to accommodate Croatian MEPs before the date of the next EP
elections. In so doing, the Parties derogated from otherwise mandatory Treaty
provisions.

https://twitter.com/akulith/status/1105979001384984577
THE ROLE OF THE OIREACHTAS POST LISBON Joe Costello TD
...
https://www.labour.ie/download/pdf/theroleoftheoireachtas.pdf
The Referendum in Ireland - laois.ie
CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM. 2.1 Amendment of the Constitution. The
Constitution of Ireland (Bunreacht na hÉireann) was approved by the people at a
plebiscite held on 1st July 1937 and came into operation on 29th December 1937.

https://www.laois.ie/wp-content/uploads/The-Referendum-in-Ireland-1.pdf

POLITICAL DECLARATION SETTING OUT THE FRAMEWORK FOR THE FUTURE

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
INTRODUCTION
future trade agreement. While the wording is vague, it is clear that the current
Withdrawal Agreement + the Political Declaration means a Customs Union.
Indeed it is not well disguised. Paragraph 23 of the declaration refers to “single
customs territory.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/758557/22_November_Draft_Political_Declaration_setting_
out_the_framework_for_the_future_relationship_between_the_EU_and_the_UK__a
greed_at_negotiators__level_and_agreed_in_principle_at_political_level__subject_t
o_endorsement_by_Leaders.pdf

Attorney General has already put his thoughts down in public in the House of
Commons and privately in a memo to the Prime Minister that was subsequently
released. In this private advice AG-to-PM-Legal-Effect-of-the-Protocol-on-Ireland-
Northern-Ireland
https://lawyersforbritain.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/181113-AG-to-
PM-Legal-Effect-of-the-Protocol-on-Ireland-Northern-Ireland.pdf
Attorney General will then try the same trick David
Cameron tried and ‘lodge it at the UN’. This has no legal
importance, and does not, as with David Cameron’s
renegotiation, make a document a ‘treaty’ (see David
Lidington here)
The Decision of the Heads of State or Government is a treaty between the 28 Member
States. Article 102 of the UN Charter and Article 80 of the Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaties provide that every treaty and every international agreement shall be
registered with the UN Secretariat. Registration with the UN is a clear indicator that
the document is a treaty.
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
European Council
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what the legal
effect is of registering the Decision of the Heads of State or Government, meeting
within the European Council on 18 and 19 February 2016, with the UN.
European Citizen's Initiatives blocked by EPP...

Is it any surprise that Fine Gael are a member of the most authoritarian
party in the EU? The European "People's" Party (EPP)? Which happens
to be the largest in the EU with the most power over the Commission
https://www.facebook.com/RevolutionIreland/videos/2237471306506571/
Revising the European Citizens’ Initiative [EU Legislation
in ...
On 9 March 2018, the Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO)
published its draft report on the Commission proposal for revision of
the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI). The AFCO committee is expected to vote on
the report on 20 June. Interactive PDF. Revising the EuropeanCitizens’ Initiative
4.3.2019),
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/6146
27/EPRS_BRI(2017)614627_EN.pdf

The ECI enables European citizens to invite the Commission to

table a proposal for a legal act. The detailed rules for such
initiatives are laid down in a 2011 regulation, whose main
stated aim is encouraging citizens’ participation in the
political life of the European Union (EU). However, since the
regulation became applicable in April 2012, numerous actors
have raised concerns regarding the instrument’s functioning
and have called for reform, aiming to simplify the existing
procedures and increasing the tool’s usability. On 13
September 2017, the Commission presented a legislative
proposal which would update the tool and replace the existing
regulation on the European Citizens’ Initiative.
Following interinstitutional negotiations between September
and December 2018, the co-legislators reached provisional
agreement on the proposal for revision of the ECI. The agreed
text now needs to be approved by the Parliament and Council.

https://epthinktank.eu/2017/12/07/revising-the-european-citizens-initiative-eu-legislation-in-progress-
policy-podcast/

Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe 2004

http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7ae3fd7e-8820-413e-8350-
b85f9daaab0c.0005.02/DOC_1
European Parliament hearing and own-initiative report Parliament’s
Environment Committee is currently preparing an own-initiative report to follow
up on the initiative. Lynn Boylan’s (GUE-NGL, Ireland) draft report
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?
pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-
539.669+01+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN
Response of the European Commission

Commission says yes to first successful European Citizens' Initiative

While the collection of signatures for the ECI was still ongoing, the Commission

decided in June 2013 to specifically exclude water services from the scope of the

proposed Concessions Directive, responding to public concerns.

In March 2014,

Factsheet- Revision of the Euroepan Citizens' Initiative Regulation

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/european-citizens-
initiative-factsheet-sept2017_en.pdf

Ban glyphosate and protect people and the environment from toxic pesticides
2017
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/3/2017/EN/C-2017-8414-F1-
EN-MAIN-PART-1.PDF
Water and sanitation are a human right! Water is a public good, not a commodity!
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2014/EN/1-2014-177-EN-F1-
1.Pdf
European Approach Rapporteur Olgierd GEBLEWICZ (PL/EPP)
Commission document COM (2018) 236 - final Document COR-2018-03908-00-00-
PA-TRA Type of opinion Own-initiative
https://cor.europa.eu/en/events/Documents/CIVEX/21st-CIVEX-Commission-
MEETING/COR-2018-04738-00-00-CONVPOJ-TRA-EN.pdf
European Citizens' Initiative ... EP European Parliament EPP European People’s
Party ... Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201411/20141104A
TT92474/20141104ATT92474EN.pdf
European Union ... initiative to advance the responsible sourcing of minerals
from ... Union citizens and civil society actors have raised ..
http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-7239-2017-INIT/en/pdf

My Voice against Nuclear Power

http://ecithatworks.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/04/116__AgainstNuclearPower.pdf
"Evaluation of the Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EC" (PDF). Ec.europa.eu.
Retrieved 30 January 2018.
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-
regulation/roadmaps/docs/2015_env_041_drinking_water_en.pdf

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION on the European Citizens'

Initiative "Stop Vivisection" 2015

http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/3/2015/EN/3-2015-3773-EN-F1-1.PDF

"Report on the application of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 on the citizens'

initiative"

http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2015/EN/1-2015-145-EN-F1-1.PDF
"EESC, ECI Day 2015 General Report"2018
https://www.eesc.europa.eu/resources/docs/eci-day-2015-final-report.pdf

European Passport to Active

Citizenship (EPTAC) 2018
Welcome to the European
Union (EU), the world’s premier
transnational and participatory
democracy!
https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/resources/docs/qe-04-15-149-
en-n.pdf
Making civil society a driving force in the implementation of the UN 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development Position paper – July 2018
https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/eesc-2018-58-en.pdf
ESC Calls the European Commission to Fine-Tune the State Aid Framework
for SGEI. Position paper – March 2018
Position paper
https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/qe-01-18-234-en-n.pdf
The Energy Union and the European Energy
Dialogue. Position paper – April 2017
https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/resources/docs/qe-02-17-344-
en-n.pdf
Proactive Trade Agenda
Position paper
https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/resources/docs/qe-02-17-158-
en-n.pdf
EESC position on migration - Position paper – December 2016 Position paper
https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/resources/docs/pp_migration_e
n_withlinks.pdf
Road Transport - Position paper – October 2016
https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/resources/docs/ppaper-
en_transport.pdf
Breaking down the barriers. Persons with disabilities and their right to vote
in European Parliament elections
https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/qe-03-19-084-en-n_0.pdf
EESC holds the Civil Society for rEUnaissance event. The
purpose of this event is two-fold: (1) to draw attention to
Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty on European Union)
https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/qe-04-19-235-en-n.pdf
Speech by Greta Thunberg, climate
activist
European Economic and Social Committee
Published on Feb 21, 2019
The speech was delivered during our event "Civil Society for rEUnaissance" on 21/02/2019.

Spread Greta's message by sharing this clip https://twitter.com/EU_EESC/status/10...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeYOPJZ8oc&feature=youtu.be
Unite behind the science. The actions
required are beyond any manifesto or
any party politics. Once you have done
your homework you realize we need a
whole new way of thinking.“ My full
speech at EESC in Brussels