Political relations between UK-EU

Fode N The Hole said:
Yes but lawyers are trained to draft contracts in plain English not legalese.

If we didn't understand it at the time it was agreed, what on earth were our negotiating team doing? They should have asked for clarification or attempted to agree a re-wording before it was signed off.

I think we know that they probably did know what it meant but believed it to be politically convenient to renegotiate parts of it on an ad-hoc basis later down the line.
Click to expand...
I would have thought that lawyers drafted contracts for, er, lawyers. Until the 'law' gets in front of a 'court' and lawyers are arguing that black is white and sky blue isn't really a colour the contract won't have been tested. And party A will argue that para 6 subsec III meant diddly plonk while the other lawyer would argue that it actually means diddly squit!
 
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader said:
I would have thought that lawyers drafted contracts for, er, lawyers. Until the 'law' gets in front of a 'court' and lawyers are arguing that black is white and sky blue isn't really a colour the contract won't have been tested. And party A will argue that para 6 subsec III meant diddly plonk while the other lawyer would argue that it actually means diddly squit!
Click to expand...

Well you're mistaken, if some contractual terms aren't sufficiently clear about their meaning and intention then courts will not enforce them.

The bulk of most contracts is standardised terms and wording that is commonly understood, there is also also a reliance on using precedents rather than making it up on the hoof. This is to avoid making errors that could get them sued for negligence.

There are of course contracts that are poorly written and convoluted but I find that unlikely when the parties are the EU Commission and the UK Government.
 
Fode N The Hole said:
Well you're mistaken, if some contractual terms aren't sufficiently clear about their meaning and intention then courts will not enforce them.

The bulk of most contracts is standardised terms and wording that is commonly understood, there is also also a reliance on using precedents rather than making it up on the hoof. This is to avoid making errors that could get them sued for negligence.

There are of course contracts that are poorly written and convoluted but I find that unlikely when the parties are the EU Commission and the UK Government.
Click to expand...

The trade deal was deliberately vague in some key areas.

This article highlights a few:

www.politico.eu

10 key details in the UK-EU trade deal

What the agreement says about financial services, state aid and more.
www.politico.eu www.politico.eu
 
metalblue said:
The trade deal was deliberately vague in some key areas.

This article highlights a few:

www.politico.eu

10 key details in the UK-EU trade deal

What the agreement says about financial services, state aid and more.
www.politico.eu www.politico.eu
Click to expand...

Deliberately vague or light on detail in areas where agreement hadn't been reached because the parties were too far apart.

Financial services is one of those areas.

I'm struggling to comprehend why anyone would believe that the UK would ever come out of the negotiations as the net winner though.
 
Fode N The Hole said:
Deliberately vague or light on detail in areas where agreement hadn't been reached because the parties were too far apart.

Financial services is one of those areas.

I'm struggling to comprehend why anyone would believe that the UK would ever come out of the negotiations as the net winner though.
Click to expand...
There were never gonna be any winners in Brexit - the EU, and particularly the French with M. Barnier at the helm, were making it as clear as possible that if any other member of the EU had thoughts about leaving then they could look at the UK situation and think again. There's some issue in Poland at the moment where the Poles are insisting that Polish law supersedes EU law! Well, Powodzenia with that one!
 
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader said:
There were never gonna be any winners in Brexit - the EU, and particularly the French with M. Barnier at the helm, were making it as clear as possible that if any other member of the EU had thoughts about leaving then they could look at the UK situation and think again. There's some issue in Poland at the moment where the Poles are insisting that Polish law supersedes EU law! Well, Powodzenia with that one!
Click to expand...

I think in a few years time it will be obvious that the EU were the strategic winners.

The Polish Government knows that EU law takes precedent over domestic law, this is a fundamental to the EU.

The UK tried this silly bollocks with fishing rights in the Factorame cases, the Germans were forced to sell beer that contains additives.

I suspect the Polish government may be trying to engineer a situation where the EU are forced to expel them, the Polish government can claim it wasn't their fault and stoke false grievances and victimhood as most fascists like to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.