![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As I understand it, the difference lay in the Irish backstop. GoodDay ( talk) 18:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
the difference lay in the Irish backstopMost of the lawyers tasked with publishing reviews of the legally binding "changes to the withdrawal agreement" (basically, 3 additional documents, rather than changes to the WA itself), including Geoffrey Cox, found that the "changes" don't materially alter the WA. So, talk of a "difference" between the "two versions" would arguably be misleading, because the actual WA was the same in both cases. Zazpot ( talk) 00:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
However, it does supplement it with a new protocol, defining how it should be interpreted. Under the Vienna Convention, such a protocol is legally binding. This is a significant difference, that needs to be explained.Thanks for the reply. However, it is up to the ICJ to decide how to interpret the Withdrawal Agreement, irrespective of the protocol. Moreover, in relation to the matter that prompted the creation of the new protocol, it is pretty clear, in the light of long-standing precedent, that the protocol changes nothing. As such, I have removed the "missing information" template. Zazpot ( talk) 13:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Which change exactly was refused? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.202.81 ( talk) 16:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Anybody visiting this article to find out about the withdrawal agreement will instead find themselves hopelessly bogged down in blow-by-blow details. Accordingly, I invite comments on a proposal to delete the Events and Negotiation sections. At least. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 16:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
As I have merged the article Declaration on Future European Union–United Kingdom Relations into this article, I will just leave a link to that article's talk page prior to merge: [1]. ― Hebsen(previously Heb the best) ( talk) 21:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
It is not at all obvious to me that it makes sense to edit this article to shoe-horn in today's draft BWA. It would be far better to move the article as it stood at 23:59 BST 16/10/19 (or perhaps 9/10/19?) to something like Brexit Withdrawal Agreement (2017) and start a new Brexit Withdrawal Agreement (2019?) article. Doing this will preserve a clear explanation of what happened first time round in an article that is barely short of being too long didn't read. Starting again for the second time round creates space for the twists and turns of the next few months. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 13:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
The Guardian has produced a digestible list if anybody feels like summarising? [1]
I am persuaded by the arguments above and withdraw the proposal. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 16:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
References
Brexit implementation period redirects here, but has no obvious target. Would anyone care to do the needful, please? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 12:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
moved here from my talkpage. -- DeFacto ( talk). 17:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC))
You sure?? James Parker Tom ( talk) 17:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
There is a WP:SPLIT proposal at talk:Brexit and the Irish border#Split out the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol that may affect this article. Please use that talk page for any comments. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 18:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
The current infobox has UvdL as an additional signatory on behalf of the EU. Is there any evidence for this? It seems obvious that it would only need to be Charles Michel on behalf of the European Council? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 10:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/eea-efta-separation-agreement Kaihsu ( talk) 21:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As I understand it, the difference lay in the Irish backstop. GoodDay ( talk) 18:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
the difference lay in the Irish backstopMost of the lawyers tasked with publishing reviews of the legally binding "changes to the withdrawal agreement" (basically, 3 additional documents, rather than changes to the WA itself), including Geoffrey Cox, found that the "changes" don't materially alter the WA. So, talk of a "difference" between the "two versions" would arguably be misleading, because the actual WA was the same in both cases. Zazpot ( talk) 00:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
However, it does supplement it with a new protocol, defining how it should be interpreted. Under the Vienna Convention, such a protocol is legally binding. This is a significant difference, that needs to be explained.Thanks for the reply. However, it is up to the ICJ to decide how to interpret the Withdrawal Agreement, irrespective of the protocol. Moreover, in relation to the matter that prompted the creation of the new protocol, it is pretty clear, in the light of long-standing precedent, that the protocol changes nothing. As such, I have removed the "missing information" template. Zazpot ( talk) 13:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Which change exactly was refused? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.202.81 ( talk) 16:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Anybody visiting this article to find out about the withdrawal agreement will instead find themselves hopelessly bogged down in blow-by-blow details. Accordingly, I invite comments on a proposal to delete the Events and Negotiation sections. At least. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 16:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
As I have merged the article Declaration on Future European Union–United Kingdom Relations into this article, I will just leave a link to that article's talk page prior to merge: [1]. ― Hebsen(previously Heb the best) ( talk) 21:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
It is not at all obvious to me that it makes sense to edit this article to shoe-horn in today's draft BWA. It would be far better to move the article as it stood at 23:59 BST 16/10/19 (or perhaps 9/10/19?) to something like Brexit Withdrawal Agreement (2017) and start a new Brexit Withdrawal Agreement (2019?) article. Doing this will preserve a clear explanation of what happened first time round in an article that is barely short of being too long didn't read. Starting again for the second time round creates space for the twists and turns of the next few months. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 13:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
The Guardian has produced a digestible list if anybody feels like summarising? [1]
I am persuaded by the arguments above and withdraw the proposal. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 16:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
References
Brexit implementation period redirects here, but has no obvious target. Would anyone care to do the needful, please? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 12:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
moved here from my talkpage. -- DeFacto ( talk). 17:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC))
You sure?? James Parker Tom ( talk) 17:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
There is a WP:SPLIT proposal at talk:Brexit and the Irish border#Split out the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol that may affect this article. Please use that talk page for any comments. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 18:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
The current infobox has UvdL as an additional signatory on behalf of the EU. Is there any evidence for this? It seems obvious that it would only need to be Charles Michel on behalf of the European Council? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 10:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/eea-efta-separation-agreement Kaihsu ( talk) 21:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)