Of course. I'd draw attention to clause A3 which contains the objectives of the agreement;
"a commitment to assure that standards and principles of good governance such as accountability, democracy, shareholder participation/representation are firmly embedded within football governance structures"
"a commitment to open and balanced sporting competitions"
"a commitment to protect and develop a large and healthy professional football sector"
An MoU, even one that purports to be legally binding has to be entered into in good faith by BOTH sides. Can any of the above objectives be demonstrated to be untrue ? I'd say so.
It is also telling that the restrictions on taking remedial action against UEFA are onerously restrictive much to the glee of our friends in the media. That being the case, the impartial question would be "why ?". Why would an organisation committed to such good causes need to protect itself to the nth degree from independent scrutiny. The answer seems pretty obvious to me.
One last point that occurs, and I stand to be corrected on this, is that no group of people can enter into an MoU relating to activities that are against the law. So whatever they agree amongst themselves, if FFP is illegal, as I believe it is, no amount of UEFA and Agnelli (and his being the signatory on behalf of the ECA tells a story) over-rides that.
Again, it tells it is telling that FIFA has based itself in Switzerland. However, as the first 3 points in the memorandum detail, the rules govern football/clubs "at European level" and plying their trade in Europe. Much as UEFA may point to their extra-jurisdictional offices, I'm not sure they can escape European law.
We are taking on the establishment here and it is a war. We may lose battles but it's important not to allow ourselves to be distracted by bloggers like Castles, McGeehan etc and veer from confidence to despair. We'll win the war.