►
Description
1. Article 50 withdrawal negotiations: The Committee will take evidence from-
Professor Sir David Edward;
Michael Clancy, Director of Law Reform, Law Society of Scotland;
Laura Dunlop QC, and Peter Sellar, Faculty of Advocates.
2. Article 50 withdrawal negotiations (in private): The Committee will consider the evidence heard earlier in the meeting.
3. Work programme (in private): The Committee will consider its work programme.
Published by the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body.
www.parliament.scot // We do not facilitate discussions on our YouTube page but encourage you to share and comment on our videos on your own channels. // If you would like to join in our conversations please follow @ScotParl on Twitter or like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/scottishparliament
A
Good
morning
and
welcome
to
the
20th
meeting
of
the
culture,
tourism,
europe
and
external
relations
committee
in
2017,
I'd
like
to
remind
members
and
the
public
to
turn
off
mobile
phones
and
any
members
using
electronic
devices
to
access
committee
papers
during
meeting
should
ensure
that
they're
switched
to
silence.
Apologies
have
just
been
received
from
Stuart
McMillen
MSP
and
before
we
begin,
members
may
notice
that
we
have
a
large
official
delegation
of
Swedish
visitors
today,
they're
from
local
authorities
in
Sweden
and
there
we
would
like
to
welcome
you
to
the
Scottish
Parliament.
A
Our
first
item
of
business
today
is
an
evidence
session
on
the
article
50
withdrawal
negotiations
under
all
of
the
European
Court
of
Justice
and
opposite
options
for
dispute
resolution
post
break.
Sirs
I
would
like
to
welcome
our
witnesses.
Professor
Sir
David
Edward,
Michael
Clancy,
director
of
law
reform
at
the
Law
Society
of
Scotland
Lords
and
Locke
QC
and
Peter
Saylor
of
the
Faculty
of
advocates.
Welcome
and
thank
you
for
attending
today,
I'd
like
to
invite
Sir
David
to
make
some
opening
remarks.
Thank.
B
B
The
first
is
the
the
following
principles
should
ensure
orderly
completion
of
ongoing
cooperation,
so
that
citizens,
consumers,
families
and
businesses
involved
in
a
dispute
continue
to
have
a
clear,
predictable
legal
framework
for
the
resolution
of
that
dispute,
and
second,
legal
certainty
is
maximized
to
the
benefit
of
citizens
and
business,
we're
ensuring
that
there
negotiated
arrangements
are
respected.
Now,
that
seems
to
me
to
be
an
absolutely
admirable
statement
of
what
West
what
we
should
be
trying
to
achieve.
B
The
second
point
I
would
make
is
that
in
dealing
with
the
other
countries,
you
have
to
remember
that,
for
example,
in
article
19
of
the
German
Basic
Law,
it's
provided
should
any
persons
rights
be
violated
by
public
authority.
He
may
have
recourse
to
the
courts.
So,
as
far
as
the
Germans
would
be
concerned,
any
dispute
would
need
to
be
capable
of
judicial
recourse.
B
And
the
third
point
I'd
make
is
this-
that
the
paper
enforcement
and
dispute
resolution
appears
to
envisage
that
we're
talking
about
disputes
between
the
UK
on
the
one
hand
and
the
EU.
On
the
other
hand,
but
in
fact
EU
law
is
not
really
about
that
at
all,
and
certainly
the
jurisdiction
of
the
ECJ
is
not
about
that
at
all.
And
let
me
give
you
one
simple
example:
from
my
experience
when
I
was
a
judge,
a
lady
of
Spanish
nationality
came
to
Britain
and
studied
picture
conservation
at
Newcastle.
B
She
then
went
and
had
a
job
in
the
Louvre
I
think
in
Paris,
and
she
then
sought
to
be
appointed
to
be
to
a
position
in
the
Prado
in
Madrid,
and
she
was
refused
consideration
for
that
position,
because
she
did
not
have
a
picture
conservation
qualification
in
Spain
now
why?
Why
did
that
qualification
apply,
because
the
agreement
between
the
Prado
authorities
and
the
Prado
staff
committee
provided
that
you
must
have
a
Spanish
qualification.
B
So
there
you
have
a
situation
in
which
you
have
a
Spanish
national
concerned
with
a
wanting
to
be
appointed
to
a
job
in
Spain
and
refused
it,
because
not
because
of
a
Spanish
law,
but
because
of
an
agreement
between
a
state
entity
and
its
staff.
Association.
The
a
great
many
of
the
cases
that
come
before
the
ECJ
from
the
national
courts
concerned.
B
Because
let
me
take
examples.
British
companies
will
still
want
to
be
sending
their
employees
to
other
European
countries
as
directors,
managers,
sales
representatives
or
technical
staff.
They
will
want
to
live
in
the
country
to
which
they're
sent
with
their
family
to
send
their
children
to
school
and
to
have
health
care.
Some
of
them
will
find
themselves
on
the
wrong
side
of
local
bureaucracy,
and
some
of
them
will
separate
and
they
will
need
to
know
which
courts
will
grant
a
divorce
which
will
decide
on
the
financial
settlement,
custody
of
children
and
problems
of
cross
frontier
access.
B
A
A
B
Somebody
will
have
to
resolve
it
and
the
suggestion
is
that
it
would
be
solved
by
the
British
courts,
but
the
British
courts
have
to
know
what
is
the
law
that
they
are
going
to
apply,
and
that
is
why
there
is
this
reference
procedure
to
the
Court
of
Justice.
The
Court
of
Justice
says
this
is
how
you
interpret
the
law
now.
B
It
is
true
that,
under
the
after
procedures,
the
after
Court
would
decide
issues
arising
in
the
after
countries,
but
you
have
to
remember
that
the
after
the
EEA
agreement
includes
within
it
a
huge
part
of
a
EU
law.
So
it's
not
it's
not
the
same
as
a
situation
where
the
UK
leaves
the
single
market
and
customs
union,
which
is
the
hypothesis
that
we
have
to
imagine
and
somehow
the
British
courts
will
decide
on
situations
in
in
arising
in
britain,
correspondingly
the.
B
If,
if
we're
talking
about
a
British
person
working
in
Germany,
what
is
the
law
that
the
German
courts
will
apply?
Will
they
go
to
the
European
Court
to
have
a
ruling
on
what
the
law
is,
or
will
it
be
some
other
authority
which
will
tell
them?
Those
are
questions
of
the
extreme
complication
that
are
simply
not
properly
addressed
at
all
in
the
UK
position
of
paper.
Thanks.
A
Very
much
could
a
lot
of
members
of
the
panel.
You
know,
as
I
said,
the
ECG
is
said
to
be
a
red
line
issue
for
the
UK
and
but
for
the
general
public
I
think
it's
the
complexities
of
this
matter.
Little
understood
and
it's
impossible
to
explain
in
plain
language
for
any
known
lawyers
who
may
be
listening
what
the
relationship
is
between
the
ECG
and
the
single
marker
and
why
the
two
are
so
inextricably
linked.
C
Well,
what
one
clear
principle
I'm
I'll
have
a
good
one.
Then
others
can
join
in
one
and
I
suppose
overarching
principles
that
there
should
be
consistency
and
the
function
of
the
ECG
is
to
ensure,
by
giving
opinions,
that
the
position
that
sir
david
has
sketched
as
an
example
would
be
resolved
in
the
same
way
in
different
member
states,
so
that
you
don't
have
huge
diversity
of
solutions
to
people
in
countering
essentially
the
same
difficulties.
But
others
will
have
them
other
using
roughly.
E
I
think
that
it's
the
interpretation
and
the
application
of
that
log,
which
is
important
because,
of
course,
many
courts
throughout
the
28,
might
have
different
interpretations
of
the
same
point
of
law
and
the
the
the
ECG
is
there
to
provide
that
certainty.
And,
of
course
certainty
is
one
of
the
things
in
this
process
which
we
are
all
seeking
for.
A
so
David
mentioned
that
as
one
of
the
one
of
the
points
which
people
would
want
to
to
get
out
off
the
withdrawal
process
and
it's
something
which
the
Law
Society
has
highlighted.
A
E
B
Litigation
that
may
have
we
be
seen
to
arise
a
question
of
EU
law
about
an
existing
situation
before
breaks
it
occurs,
and
that
in
that
is
a
serious
problem.
I
have
I
have
a
dispute
with
my
employer
about
the
application
of
the
Equality
law,
gender
equality,
racial
equality
or
transfer
of
undertakings,
and
so
on
I
have
that
dispute
at
the
moment
it
may
not
actually
get
to
court
until
very
nearly
before
March
2019
is
that
dispute
to
somehow
to
descend
into
limbo
because
it
hasn't
got
to
the
European
Court
in
time.
A
C
C
I've
started
so
I'll
finish,
so
you
don't
change
the
way
in
which
the
case
is
going
to
be
dealt
with
midway
through
and
to
take
a
much
more
local
example
when,
in
Scotland
the
financial
jurisdiction
has
between
the
sheriff
court
and
the
Court
of
Session
was
changed
in
the
2014
Act
practicing.
Lawyers
would
expect-
and
this
is
what's
in
the
2049-
that
the
provision
that's
made
is
that
new
cases
are
governed
by
the
new
rules.
C
But
what
seems
to
be
being
can
first
in
the
position
paper
and
I'm.
Looking
particularly
at
paragraph
11
is
something
much
more
like
a
fudge,
I
suppose
and
something
that
seems
to
at
least
raise
the
possibility
of
a
discretion
that
there
there
can.
There
may
be
cases
where
considerable
time
and
resources
have
been
invested
and
CJ
EU
proceedings.
It
may
well
be
right
that
such
cases
continue
to
a
CJ
EU
decision
practicing.
Lawyers
would
I
think
expect
that
any
case
which
is
in
a
court
will
finish
in
that
Court.
C
The
points
are
David
is
making
is,
is
a
further
point,
which
is
that
there
will
be
disputes
which
have
not
yet
become
cases,
and
there
is
a
good
argument
for
saying
that
those
disputes
should
fall
to
be
dealt
with
according
to
the
law,
which
everyone
understood
to
be
the
governing
law.
At
the
time
when
the
dispute
developed
and
now
the
EU
in
its
position
paper
is
bidding
for
those
cases
to
continue
to
go
through
the
CJ
EU
as
well,
and
we
are
think
as
practicing
or
as
we
understand
why
that
is
so.
C
But
there
is
a
considerable
gap
between
the
two
positions
at
the
moment
and
with
the
UK
saying.
Well,
we
will
define
and
there
would
be
an
awful
lot
of
definition
required.
We
will
define
what
will
pop
fall
to
be
treated
as
a
pending
case
and
the
European
Union
saying
and
disputes
the
facts
of
which
have
arisen
under
a
particular
regime
should
still
go
through
the
the
court
of
justice.
That's
a
big
gap.
D
It's
not
just
theoretical
it's
it's
a
practical
issue:
I'm
involved
in
three
frankish
damages
cases
at
the
moment
which
are
in
various
phases:
they're
assisted,
so
they're
state
and
a
couple
of
them,
but
it
could
be
the
case
that
whenever
exit
day
is
designated
for
us
and
yes,
we
can
assume
it's
going
to
be
March
2019.
It
could
be
sooner
if
we
haven't
seized
the
court
of
the
idea
of
sending
a
preliminary
reference
question
to
the
Court
of
Justice.
D
Will
that
remedy
that
option
that
could
be
taken
away,
if
indeed,
we
only
alight
on
it
after
the
fact
after
exit
day?
So
the
reality?
It's
it's
it's
a
realistic
scenario,
and
it
also
also
pick
up
just
one
small
point.
With
regard
to
the
position
of
the
UK
and
the
position
of
the
EU
on
the
red
line
of
the
the
CJ
you,
it
seems
to
me
that
one
needs
to
make
a
distinction
between
where
your
rights
of
citizens
will
be
adjudicated
and
trade
disputes,
etcetera.
D
So
other
issues
which
arise
under
the
the
withdrawal
agreement-
and
we
have
quite
a
clear
I,
think
quite
a
clear
and
simple
position
from
the
European
Union,
which
has
its
political
tensions,
but
nevertheless,
is
quite
a
clear
one.
Where's
from
the
UK
side
we're
yet
to
have
any
sense
of
clarity
other
than
the
red
line.
Thank.
F
Thank
you
good
morning.
It's
obviously
a
complex
issue
and
I
just
want
to
ask
a
relatively
simple
question,
and
that
is
that
in
one
hand,
Tereza
me
has
said
that
exiting
the
European
Union
will
mean
that
the
European
Court
of
Justice
will
have
no
jurisdiction
over
the
UK.
On
the
other
hand,
there's
negotiations
and
a
debate
around
what
the
post
breaks.
That
relationship
should
be
in
relation
to
the
single
markets,
with
some
arguments
that
there
should
be
membership
of
the
single
market
and
some
arguments
that
there
should
be
access
to
the
single
market.
F
So
my
question
is:
is
it
possible?
Is
it
likely
that
the
UK
would
be
able
to
negotiate
access
to
the
single
market
as
they
want
to
be
preferring
membership?
They
want
access
at
the
same
time
as
which
the
European
Court
of
Justice
has
no
jurisdiction
over
the
UK.
And
my
second
question
is:
is
the
Yuki
likely
normally.
A
F
B
First
point
about
that:
is
it's
entirely
wrong
to
think
that
the
the
CG
au
has
jurisdiction
in
the
United
Kingdom?
It
has
simply
simply
has
jurisdiction
to
answer
questions
put
to
it
by
UK
courts.
If
and
that
may
say
that
the
existing
UK
law
is,
it
has
to
be
changed,
but
that's
a
quite
different
thing
from
saying
that
it
has
jurisdiction
in
the
UK
in
the
same
way
as
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
United
Kingdom
has
jurisdiction
in
Scotland.
B
That's
the
first
point.
Secondly,
on
the
single
market
to
go
back
to
layman's
language.
What
we're
talking
about
is
the
level
playing
field
and,
if
the,
if
we
want
to
play
in
the
same
playing
fields
as
the
other
27
as
regards
the
single
market,
they
can
legitimately
say
well,
we
want
to
play
by
the
same
rules
and
we
want
to
have
a
single
referee
who's
going
to
tell
us
what
those
rules
are,
and
if
it's
it's,
it's
a
it's
a
it's.
B
G
Thank
you,
I
mean
it
was
prepared
in
for
this
meeting.
You
can
see
how
complex
so
he
had
an
idea.
That
was
a
very
complex
situation,
but
I
think
he
didn't
so
need
examples
and
some
of
the
plaintiff
days
did
you
deal
eyes
exactly
how
much
more
complex
this
is.
The
situation
is
and
really
just
work
to
us.
I
mean
a
point
raised
by
a
lot
of
dunloe
up
in
you
talked
about.
You
know,
there's
quite
a
big
gap
there.
G
C
C
That
would
be
a
clear
rule
and
a
casualty
of
that
would
be
the
sort
of
disputes
we
were
describing
earlier,
where
the
dispute
is
there,
but
the
the
litigation
is
not
so
these
would
be
clear
rules,
although
they,
the
consequences
of
that
is
that
you
are
denying
the
people
involved
in
those
disputes
a
resolution
according
to
the
legal
framework
that
ordinarily
would
govern
that
dispute.
So
to
answer
your
question,
it
depends
probably
is
the
answer
to
every
question.
A
E
E
So
therefore
M,
it
may
be
the
case
that
there's
a
sliding
scale
in
some
form
of
transitional
arrangement
which
could
take
us
beyond
the
29th
of
March
to
deal
with
cases
which
are
commenced,
with
the
understanding
of
a
certain
set
of
legal
parameters
and
but
I.
Think.
The
the
issue
of
pending
cases
is
such
that
we
have
to
remember
that
under
the
Human
Rights
Act,
there
is
no
right
to
an
effective
remedy,
because
article
13
of
ECHR
is
dis,
applied
by
the
Human
Rights
Act.
E
A
H
The
Prime
Minister
doesn't
announce
a
transition
in
her
Florence
speech
next
week,
then
I
think
everything
you've
said
is
right,
but
what
most
would
expect
is
that
there
will
be
in
a
Yuki
application
for
transition
period
and
therefore,
is
it
not
the
case
that
all
these
pending
cases
you're
describing
today
will
actually
flow
into
that
transition
period?
We
don't
know
how
long
that's
going
to
be,
but
the
Chancellor
gave
evidence
to
the
Treasury
select
committee
this
week
in
which
he
argued
quite
clearly
for
a
longer
transition
period.
H
In
those
circumstances,
my
clients
point
about
15
months
goes
on
and
on
and
on
so
it's
not
the
key.
Is
it
not
more
of
an
argument
about
how
many
more
cases
are
initiated
which
could
go
to
the
European
Court
of
Justice
over
the
next
18
months
before
we
formally
leave
on
the
30th
of
29th
of
March
2019?
Is
that
not
the
issue
and
then
how
long
transition
period
is.
B
Our
British
lawyers
entitled
to
appear
before
the
the
court
is
the
United
Kingdom.
What
is
called
a
privileged
applicant
enabled
to
end
to
appear
in
any
case
before
the
ECJ
to
argue
the
UK
position.
These
things
will
have
to
be
worked
out
and
simply
using
a
vague
expression
like
transitional
period.
What
you're,
really
talking
about
is
a
kind
of
standstill,
a
continued
standstill.
B
Well,
what
are
we
leaving
if
this?
If
this
standstill
is
in
place?
What
what
does
we
are
leaving
the
EU
on
the
throne
in
March
2019?
What
does
that
expression
actually
mean
and
I
think
one
of
the
greatest
difficulties
about
this
discussion
is
the
use
of
vague
phraseology
which
needs
to
be
tied
down
in
very
precise
legal
terms,
and
that
takes
a
long
time
to
negotiate
and
remember
that
March
2019
is
the
last
point,
but
you
still
got
to
get
round
the
parliaments
of
27
member
states
and
the
European
Parliament
before
you
even
enter
the.
E
Other
the
other
issue
is,
of
course,
that,
and
what
examples
can
we
bring
to
the
table
of
long
transitional
periods
where
one
Court
has
left
the
jurisdiction
of
another
or
one?
One
country
has
left
the
jurisdiction
of
a
court
rather
and
in
the
paper
which
we
sent
to
both
the
UK
government
and
the
task
force
50,
and
we
explained
that
the
the
situation
in
New
Zealand,
when
New
Zealand
gave
up
its
jurisdiction
to
of
having
cases,
go
to
the
Judicial
Committee
of
the
Privy
Council,
and
it
did
that
in
2003.
E
When
I
spoke
to
the
the
previous
registrar
of
the
Supreme
Court
and
a
couple
of
years
ago,
she
estimated
at
that
point
that
there
could
be
as
many
as
40
cases
still
sculling
around
in
New
Zealand,
which
might
end
up
at
the
GCP
see
in
London.
So
that
gives
you
an
idea
of
how
long
a
Teel
this
could
have,
because
2003
to
the
present
day
is
14
years.
I
Very
much
Anne
and
on
that
transitional
point
one
of
the
questions
that's
been
put
to
this
committee
and
to
others
is
a
transitional
period
that
involves,
as
Sir
David
described,
remaining
with
jurisdiction
of
the
European
courts
remaining
within
the
single
market
and
remaining
within
the
customs
union
for
a
transitional
period.
The
transitional
period
to
be
defined,
but
that
possibility
has
certainly
been
tabled.
I
What
would
be
the
implications
of
that
in
terms
of
case
case
law
and
in
terms
of
the
management
of
case
law
and
also
if
the
United
Kingdom
was
to
withdraw
from
the
European
Union
from
the
political
institutions
in
March
2019,
but
to
remain
within
the
single
market
for
a
further
two
or
three
years?
Would
that
then
require
the
establishment
of
a
new
form
of
arbitration?
B
Within
the
market
playing
according
to
the
rules
of
that
market,
as
they
are
at
the
time
so
does
it
mean
that
you
are
remaining
within
the
single
market
on
the
basis
of
the
rules
as
they
existed
at
the
moment
when
supposed
exit
occurs
at
the
beginning
of
the
transitional
period,
or
are
the
rules
to
be
the
rules
as
they
are
developed
in
the
course
of
the
transitional
period,
and
is
the
United
Kingdom
to
have
any
say
in
the
formulation
of
rules
emerging
during
that
period?
Is
it
to
be
part
of
them?
Legislative
procedure?
B
Is
the
court
of
justice
to
have
jurisdiction?
What
is
then
to
happen
about
cases
which
arise
in
the
course
of
the
transitional
period?
These
these
are
not
hypothetical
questions
that
we're
going
to
go
down
that
road.
We
need
to
be
very
precise
and
part
of
the
difficulty
is
that
it's
the
the
UK
is
presenting
a
wish
list,
but
entirely
forgetting
that
the
others
may
have
their
own
wish
list
or
their
own
objections.
E
E
So
if
there
is
no
national
legal
order
in
all
this,
it
becomes
intensely
difficult
to
then
a
muse
about
what
what
might
be
or
what
might
have
been
if
we
are
sitting
at
some
time
in
the
future
and
when
one
looks
then
at
Clause
6m,
it
tells
us
that
a
our
court
or
tribunal,
which
I
think
is
not
actually
defined
in
the
bill,
but
but
there
we
are.
That's
a
that's
another
amendment
which
we're
going
to
have
to
try
and
but
a
court
or
tribunal.
E
D
I
One
possibility
is
that
the
30th
of
March
2019
marks
a
political
point
of
departure
a
clear
day
as
data
as
Laura
described,
where
we
cease
to
be
members,
the
European
Union.
But
it
is
conceivable
that
if
the
will
was
there
and
if
the
bill
before
the
House
Commons
currently
was
amended
in
the
right
way
that
that
that
that
could
be
confined
to
a
political
separation.
At
that
point.
Under
the
other
points,
processes
of
separation
could
follow
over
a
two
or
three
year
period
and
that
perhaps
might
be
relevant
to
the
point
and.
D
That's
a
political
negotiation,
political
settlement
at
the
end
of
the
day,
but,
of
course,
going
back
to
the
question
but
staying
in
the
single
market
and
staying
in
the
customs
union.
If
the
cgu
comes
down
with
a
decision
on
a
reclassification
of
a
product
which
is
flown
in
from
the
United
States
and
lands
in
London
or
comes
to
Paris
well,
are
we
beholdin
to
that
in
that
transitional
period?
Afterwards?
B
Are
the
UK
experts
to
be
part
of
the
committee
that
decides
what
what
place
does
in
the
UK
have
not
just
in
the
judicial
evolution
of
the
single
market,
but
in
the
political
and
administrative
evolution
of
the
single
market?
If
you
say
well
we're
out
politically,
but
in
legally
what
about
these
situations,
which
can
blow
up
quite
quickly.
I
That's
that's
why
the
second
part
of
my
initial
question
referred
to
the
after
court,
because
clearly,
the
countries
which
are
in
the
European
Economic
Area
are
not.
Members
of
the
European
Union,
like
Norway,
for
example,
are
in
a
position
where
they
have
to
apply
the
law,
as
defined
in
you
in
the
European,
but
the
supervision
of
that
is
in
the
hands
of
the
after
Court
rather
than
the
ECJ,
and
they
are
not
political
members
and
have
no
political
say
in
those
decisions.
B
Extensive
political
and,
in
the
background,
sharply
extensive
political
involvement
in
the
evolution
of
EU
law,
which
is
which
they
are
then
obliged
to
transpose
into
domestic
law,
but
they
are,
they
are
represented
on
many
committees.
They
have
a
political
input
into
the
creation
of
EU
law,
which
they
are
then
going
to
have
to
apply
themselves.
I'm.
B
I
would
say,
certainly
is
a
model,
but
you
have
to
know
what
the
model
is,
what
the
model
contains,
and
if
you,
if
what
you're
saying
is
well,
we
don't
want,
we
don't
want
to
be
ruled
by
Brussels
anymore.
Well,
what
are
you
saying
that
well
we're
outside
this
altogether?
Are
we
going
to
participate
in?
What
way
are
we
going
to
participate?
B
B
J
Em,
come
here,
I'd
like
to
move
on
to
a
point
in
writing
to
the
trade
agreement
of
Canada,
but
just
very
briefly
before
that.
What
would
happen
in
the
event
of
there
being
no
deal
reached,
taking
aside
the
serious
economic
consequences,
etc?
What
would
the
implications
for
disputes
be
if
we
get
to
brags
a
day
and
there
isn't
a
deal
to
be
ratified,
but
we
have
left
I.
E
Let
me
begin,
and
anyone
who
wants
to
chip
in
the
the
supranational
relationship
which
we
have
with
with
Europe
will
will
cease
to
apply
because
article
50.
It
says
that
you
get
to
the
end
of
the
two
years
and
if
there
is
no
agreement,
the
treaties
cease
to
apply.
So,
therefore,
that
supranational
relationship
which
we
currently
enjoy
is
one
which
then
becomes
one
of
public
international
law.
E
But
all
of
that
takes
time.
So
there
would
be,
and
some
some
some
difficult
sleepless
nights
but,
as
so
David
is
pointed
out
in
the
past,
and
there
are
instances
where,
if
the
heads
of
government
managed
to
get
around
a
table
and
degree
something
they
can
then
register
that
agreement.
And
even
though
it
is
a
formally
approved
fitting.
We
can
register
that
agreement
with
the
UN
and
then
try
to
hold
to
it.
And
that
was
true
that
was
employed
after
Maastricht
in
92
and
also
the
then
Denmark
yes
and
also
David
Cameron
at
him.
B
It's
very
important
to
understand
just
what
the
WTO
does
and
what
it
does
not
do
under
the
WTO
agreement.
It
you
have
certain
rules,
you
cannot
apply
a
more
favorable
tariff
to
one
country
than
to
anybody
else,
and
the
exception
is
a
customs
union.
Now,
assuming
we
drop
out
the
cliff
edge,
we
go
over
the
cliff
edge.
We
are
no
longer
in
the
customs
union
and
therefore,
formally
speaking,
the
EU
has
to
apply
to
the
United
Kingdom
the
same
rules
as
they
apply
to
anybody
else
as
regards
tariffs
but
and
tariffs.
B
Customs
procedures
are
important
for
the
not
for
the
general
trade
in
goods,
but
most
particularly
for
the
passage
of
components
crossing
the
crossing
the
frontier
several
times
in
the
case
of
building
motorcars,
for
example,
and
then
there
are
very
complicated
rules
of
origin
which
apply
which
which
are
eliminated
by
the
EU
customs
union
and
then
you're
only
talking
about
goods
in
particular
you're,
not
talking
about
services,
which
is
the
most
important
element
in
the
in
the
UK
economy
and
the
the
there
is.
There
is
very
little
in
the
WTO
agreements.
J
D
The
WTO
side
of
things
when
you're
selling
your
goods
and
it
gets
stopped
at
the
border
so
from
between
Dover
and
Calais,
a
stop
for
the
X
number
of
time,
and
it's
costing
you
a
lot
of
money.
What
can
you
do
about
it
as
a
as
a
company
or
as
a
person
under
WTO
rules,
not
very
much
other
than
that?
Lobby,
your
government
as
much
as
you
can
raise
it
as
a
political
point,
and
hopefully
they
will
take
it
through
the
dispute
settlement
process
and
you're
on
on
the
outside
of
that
as
an
individual.
D
So
in
terms
of
being
able
to
assert
your
rights,
etc
in
a
court,
you
don't
really
have
that
if
the
fallback
is
W
to
WTO
rules,
but
that's
the
trade
stuff.
If
we're
talking
about
citizen
rights
as
well
and
how
what
happens
to
the
citizens
afterwards,
from
what
I
understand
with
the
repeal
bill
in
its
current
form,
all
the
regulations,
all
the
decisions,
all
the
directives
that
are
in
place
with
regard
to
its
EU
citizens
rights
here
and
you
case-
isn't
certain
rights
in
an
EU.
They
would
be
grandfathered
through.
J
On
a
somewhat
more
positive
note
than
falling
off
the
cliff
edge
and
I'm
wondering
the
comprehensive
economic
trade
agreement
with
Canada
the
mechanisms,
that's
got,
how
comparable
are
they
to
what
the
UK
government
seems
to
be
seeking?
It
seems
in
some
aspects
of
of
the
rhetoric
and
some
aspects
of
the
possession
papers
that
Sita
is
comparable.
That
mechanisms
include
in
seats
are
somewhat
comparable
to
what
they
are
aiming
for
is
that
the
case
is.
B
True,
as
far
as
trade
is
concerned,
but
you're
seeing
nothing
about
the
case,
the
the
the
citizens
rights
workers,
rights,
you're,
saying
nothing
about
the
situation
of
poor,
mrs.
Bob
idea
who
qualified
in
in
picture
restoration
in
Britain
and
wanted
to
to
do
picture
restoration
in
the
Prado.
It
says
nothing
about
that,
and
that
is
what
the
vast
majority
of
the
case
law
of
the
Court
of
Justice
is
about.
A
You
I
think
it
may
be
helpful
actually
and
to
get
on
record
and
these
alternative
arbitration
mechanisms
that
say
that
there's
talk
of
falling
back
on
it's
not
just
with
Canada,
believe
this
one
to
do
with
the
association
agreement
that
the
EU
has
with
the
you
clean,
for
example,
I.
Don't
think
these
are
widely
understood,
so
I
don't
know
for
the
benefit
of
their
again.
For
then
for
the
non
lawyers,
if
someone
could
just
explain
them.
B
Experience
not
a
great
deal
of
international
investment
arbitration
it
it
is
extremely
time-consuming
and
it
is
in
general,
extremely
slow.
It
is
not
wide.
There
are
a
lot
of
complaints
about
it
and
some
some
countries
have
withdrawn
from
the
what
is
called
the
exeed
system
for
settlement
of
investment
disputes.
I
wouldn't
recommend
it
if,
if
I
were
talking
to
an
individual
citizen,
I
wouldn't
recommend
it
as
a
means
of
settling
their
disputes.
First
of
all,
you've
got
to
choose
your
arbitrators.
B
Let's,
let's,
let's,
let's
think
of
the
25
cases
which
were
which
went
from
the
UK
courts
to
the
court
of
justice.
It's
not
a
matter
of
convening
an
ad-hoc
arbitration
tribunal.
They've
got
to
have
backup,
they've
got
to
have
staff.
The
after
Court
has
three
full-time
judges
and
a
permanent
staff
of
20,
and
that
does
not
include
translators.
If
the
president's
principal
assistant
in
the
after
court
said,
if
you
came
were
to
join,
they
would
have
to
increase
their
permanent
staff
to
50.
So
this
is,
this
is
fanciful.
C
I'm
not
going
to
live
to
regret
this,
but
we
are
wondering
if
we
could
have
a
shot
at
some
kind
of
list
that
we
could
pass
to
you.
You
know
in
answer
to
your
question
about
what
are
the
bespoke
mechanisms
that
are
out
there.
I
think
we
are
largely
talking
about
trade
disputes
and
disputes
under
trading
agreements,
if
I'm
right
about
that,
we
could
I
think
do
a
bit
of
research
on
that
and
try
to
produce
some
summary
of
ones.
We've
been
able
to
identify.
A
That
we
just
said
sure
I'm
sure
members
would
find
that
very
helpful,
but
just
before
moving
on
to
the
next
members
question,
my
understanding
is
that
many
of
these
same
arbitration
panels
of
judges
could
convene
behind
closed
doors
and
it's
a
lot
less
transparency.
Then,
if
something
goes
to
a
properly
constituted
court
like
this
eg
in.
G
Just
think
we
could
spend
an
awful
lot
more
time
on
this
as
well
and
but
I
did
have
some
questions.
It
was
about
there.
There
was
a
drawl
bill
in
particular
and
I
know
well,
actually
before
we
get
to
that,
and
we've
talked
about
some
of
the
position
papers
now
mentioned
brought
this
up
in
the
committee
before
it
as
an
issue.
G
We
are
some
of
the
positions
that
been
put
forward,
delete
tomorrow's
that
are
devolved
to
the
Scottish
Parliament,
and
it
be
interesting
to
get
a
legal
perspective
on
if
the
negotiations
are
based
on
some
of
those
position
papers
like
I
see
that
Lolita
specifically
devolved
issues.
What
will
happen
to
that?
Should
an
agreement
eventually
be
reached
and
if
it's
done
on
the
basis
of
what
is
in
those
papers
and
what
does
that
mean
for
Scotland.
E
I'm
being
nominated
a
very
good
and
well
M,
hey
you
pose
a
very
interesting
question.
As
you
know,
international
agreements
brackets,
including
the
EU,
are
reserved
to
the
United
Kingdom
under
schedule,
5
paragraph
7
of
the
Scotland
Act
1998.
So
therefore,
formally
in
terms
of
the
agreement
and
the
Scottish
Parliament,
it
is
out
with
the
competence
of
the
Scottish
Parliament
and
the
Scottish
Government,
to
be
part
of
that
discussion
and
and
I
think
that
this
is
where
we
we
we
may.
E
We
may
reflect
on
parts
of
the
bill
which
I
talked
about
things
which
are
out
with
the
competence
of
the
Scottish
Parliament
and
and
in
particular,
what
happens
under
Clause,
11
and
but
I.
Don't
know
if
we
want
to
get
into
that
particular
thicket
2d,
because
it
is,
it
is
problematic
they
released
and
I.
Think
there
are.
There
are
a
number
of
options
which
we
have
put
forward.
E
E
In
the
final
analysis,
the
the
issue
of
the
politics
comes
into
play
and
the
rule
of
intergovernmental
relationships
in
this
is
a
key
one,
and
the
role
of
the
GMC
and
the
participation
in
the
GMC
is
one
where
the
Scottish
government
it
can
make
its
its
points
most
cogently,
and
the
question
is
how,
and
how
can
we
encourage
the
GMC
to
be
the
kind
of
organization
which
is
one
which
everyone
can
stand
back
up
there
from
and
see?
This
is.
E
B
B
B
G
Would
just
ask
in
terms
of
that
I
mean
it
is
beautiful
and,
and
some
of
the
cross-border
issues
does
that.
Do
you
think
that
the
withdrawal
bill
as
it
stands
at
the
moment
would
give
that
Scotland
to
a
sufficient
protection
with
within
that,
in
terms
of
continuing
to
tackle
cross-border
cross-border
training?
No.
B
A
K
Just
actually
a
point
that
I'm
interested
in
about
the
position
papers,
because
obviously
there's
a
lot
of
flesh
to
be
put
on
the
bones
of
the
position
papers.
Do
you
think
that
it's
that
that's
deliberate
because
of
the
negotiating
position
that
that
the
UK
government
are
in
and
neither
side
want
to
give
too
much
away.
C
There
are,
of
course,
the
position
papers
and
the
partnership
papers,
and
the
partnership
papers
in
some
instances
are
an
attempt
to
just
disrupt
the
sequencing
plan
so
to
take
the
current
negotiations
beyond
the
three
issues
with
which
they're
supposed
to
be
concerned,
and
only
concerned,
in
other
words,
to
try
to
head,
if
possible,
in
the
direction
of
what
the
position
is
to
be
about.
Trade
and
I
have
seen
some
arguments
that
it
is
necessary
to
do
that.
C
For
example,
resolving
the
position
about
Northern
Ireland
would
be
assisted
by
knowing
what
some
of
the
answers
are
on
questions
about
the
single
market
and
the
customs
union.
So
I
think
there
are
attempts
going
on
to
persuade
the
EU
negotiators
to
enter
into
discussion
of
some
issues
which
more
properly
belong
in
the
next
phase
of
negotiations.
C
Once
the
three
first
primary
issues
have
been
resolved
and
one
of
the
things
which
I
think
is
striking
as
you
are
reading
a
lot
of
this
material
is
that
questions
of
dispute
resolution
really
belong
with
the
ultimate
solution
for
trade.
You
know
what
is
to
happen
about
trade
and
provision
of
services,
and
so
on
once
we
know
that
dispute
resolution
may
become
easier
to
resolve,
trying
to
do
it
at
the
moment,
which
is
certainly
the
case
in
the
partnership
paper,
and
there
is
an
element
of
cart
before
horse
about
that.
A
Thank
you,
Peter
Sellers,
okay,
we've
now
come
to
the
end
of
the
session.
It's
been
a
fascinating
session
and
there's
probably
much
more
ground
that
we
could
cover.
If
I
was
about
to
ask
mr.
Clancy,
if
there
were
any
other
points
that
you
would
wish
to
make
and
ground
that
we,
you
felt
we
hadn't
covered
and.
E
We've
we've
discussed
a
lot
about
the
cgu
as
we
classic.
We
understand
it
in
the
terms
of
dealing
with
references
and
and
citizens
issues
and
and
and
trade
matters,
but
I
wanted
to
draw
attention
to
two
specific
points.
One
is
one
is
the
the
issue
of
the
role
of
the
cje
you
in
Euratom
and
the
way
in
which
the
adherence
of
cgu
in
that
that
treaty
is
effectively
the
reason
for
were
drawing
from
your
atom
and
I.
E
Think
that
that's
that's
a
problematic
on
a
number
of
points,
not
only
in
terms
of
civil
nuclear
usage
but
also
medical,
nuclear,
nuclear
medicine
and
the
difficulties
which
are
going
to
be
created
if
we
do
not
have
a
single
market
for
the
import
and
export
or
3d
isotopes,
and
things
like
that
in
terms
of
health
as
way
allows
the
more
strategic
issues
that
are
owned
about
civil
nuclear
matters
and
the
the.
The
second
point
is
about
the
unified
patent
court.
E
Agreement,
which
again,
is
is
another
treaty,
an
agreement
where,
amongst
the
EU,
Member
States
for
there
to
be
such
a
body
and
of
course
the
UK
has
a
branch.
Our
chamber
of
that
Court,
which
will
be
situated
in
London
but
again
a
the
in
fact,
I-
think
the
the
Parliament
is
going
to
be
asked
to
ratify
the
the
agreement.
E
I
think,
though,
may
indeed
be
an
order
sculling
around
at
the
moment
and
for
the
ratification
of
that
agreement,
and
so
we've
got
to
be
it,
although
it
is
in
difficulties
in
Germany,
I
believe
at
the
moment.
The
the
point
is:
is
that
a
it
is
not
our
court
in
in
terms
of
our
court
or
tribunal
under
Clause
6,
because
it's
actually
a
separate
international
body.
But
it's
a
the
impact
of
CJE
you
in
it
means
that
it
is
effectively
daubed
with
a.
E
Sign
which
says
we
don't
want
this
either
and
I
think
we've
got
to
be
careful
and
about
simply
identifying
the
initial
cje.
You
I
think
the
UK
government.
It
should
be
careful
about
identifying
those
initials
and
simply
saying
that's
something
we
don't
want
under
any
circumstances.
I
think
it
was
got
to
be
be
much
more
circumspect.