Twitter | Search | |
Lawyers For Britain
Lawyers, academics, retired judges & constitutional specialists who campaigned for Leave in the referendum. Now working constructively towards the best Brexit.
5,343
Tweets
585
Following
13,035
Followers
Tweets
Lawyers For Britain Jul 15
Replying to @lawyers4britain
Can this be done without violating the MFN principle in GATT? The answer is that it can.
Reply Retweet Like
Lawyers For Britain Jul 15
Suppose that the UK and the EU agree in principle that they intend to negotiate and conclude an FTA, but want in the meantime to have a standstill under which zero tariffs are charged on goods imported and exported between them?
Reply Retweet Like
Lawyers For Britain Jul 3
Avoiding the trap – how to move on from Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement.
Reply Retweet Like
Lawyers For Britain Jul 2
We don’t need a withdrawal agreement for a deal with the EU. - By Martin Howe QC, Chairman of Lawyers for Britain.
Reply Retweet Like
Lawyers For Britain Jun 19
(3/3) Peter Ungphakorn also ignorantly refers to Article XXIV as “Article 24”: seems he has not actually consulted the treaty text, in which the article numbers are in Roman numbers and all the internal cross references within GATT 1994 are in Roman numbers as well. Sloppy.
Reply Retweet Like
Lawyers For Britain Jun 19
(2/3) Puzzling why Peter Ungphakorn claims it’s “wrong” on interim agreements since his own blog at  makes exactly the same point.
Reply Retweet Like
Lawyers For Britain Jun 19
(1/3) LfB’s simple explainer pointed out that a temporary FTA for zero tariffs between the EU and UK would NOT need to be an interim agreement under Article XXIV GATT.
Reply Retweet Like
Lawyers For Britain Jun 19
A simple explainer about Article XXIV of the GATT
Reply Retweet Like
Lawyers For Britain Jun 18
Even in the wholly unlikely event that the EU were to agree to remove the whole backstop Protocol from the WA, the rest of the WA would still contains serious constraints on the UK and little or nothing of value.
Reply Retweet Like
Lawyers For Britain Jun 14
Avoiding the trap of the Withdrawal Agreement – the way ahead for a new Prime Minister.
Reply Retweet Like
Lawyers For Britain retweeted
Politeia Jun 10
Martin Howe at says that the politicians who negotiated the Withdrawal Agreement have left behind a 'political Chernobyl disaster'.
Reply Retweet Like
Lawyers For Britain retweeted
Francis Hoar Jun 10
Replying to @Francis_Hoar
Sorry, link here:
Reply Retweet Like
Lawyers For Britain retweeted
Francis Hoar Jun 10
Replying to @Francis_Hoar
See here for more. Even if this analysis is not accepted, the sum of £39 billion is merely a negotiated stlmt within a much wider draft agreement that has no status until ratification. In the event of no deal, the EU’s remedy would be arbitration, which is entirely conventional.
Reply Retweet Like
Lawyers For Britain retweeted
Francis Hoar Jun 10
No it isn’t. It’s a clause in an unratified draft agreement that has failed three times to obtain Parliamentary approval. It has as much status in international law as the Beano.
Reply Retweet Like
Lawyers For Britain Jun 10
We don’t owe the EU any money - By Martin Howe QC
Reply Retweet Like
Lawyers For Britain retweeted
Lawyers For Britain Jun 1
Replying to @lawyers4britain
7) But no one has actually looked at what the EU will realistically offer in the way of a trade agreement, and demonstrated that it would really be worth €40-45 billion, or indeed that it would be worth paying any money at all for what will be on offer.
Reply Retweet Like
Lawyers For Britain retweeted
Lawyers For Britain Jun 1
Replying to @lawyers4britain
6) The benefit is supposed to be the trade agreement that we will negotiate with the EU once we move on to the stage of actually talking to them about our future relationship.
Reply Retweet Like
Lawyers For Britain retweeted
Lawyers For Britain Jun 1
Replying to @lawyers4britain
5) But if you are going to agree to pay a large sum of money that you do not owe, you need to look carefully at what is the value of the benefit you will get in return.
Reply Retweet Like
Lawyers For Britain retweeted
Lawyers For Britain Jun 1
Replying to @lawyers4britain
4) I would advise a client as part of a settlement to agree to pay money that is not owed, if the overall benefits of a settlement, including the benefit of achieving a harmonious and beneficial future relationship with the other party, were sufficient to warrant the payment.
Reply Retweet Like
Lawyers For Britain retweeted
Lawyers For Britain Jun 1
Replying to @lawyers4britain
3)The fact that we do not owe the money does not necessarily mean that it is wrong to agree to pay some money.
Reply Retweet Like