Home » News/Views » No to EU dodgy Brexit guidelines

No to EU dodgy Brexit guidelines

12 May 2017

European Court of Justice, Luxembourg. Photo Workers.

The EU continues to act in bad faith towards Britain over our vote to leave. Their latest stunt is an attempt to continue the influence of the European Court over us.

The European Commission published its Brexit negotiating guidelines. The preamble attributes “peace and prosperity” to the existence of the Union and claims itself as the source of British citizen’s rights.


In a key section on governance it says that the withdrawal agreement should “cover disputes in relation to the continued application of Union law; citizens’ rights; application and interpretation of the other provisions of the Agreement, such as the financial settlement or measures adopted by the institutional structure to deal with unforeseen situations”. And further, “in these matters, the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.”

‘The EU is making bargaining chips of 5 million people.’

This means that the EU will only agree to guarantee existing British and EU citizens’ rights if we continue to accept the direct legal authority of the European Court of Justice and the European Commission. Theresa May made numerous offers to settle this issue months ago, but Angela Merkel and other EU leaders always refused, saying “no negotiation before notification”. The EU is deliberately making it impossible to secure citizens’ rights. The EU, and not the British government, is making bargaining chips of almost 5 million people.

The EU also wants the Court and the Commission to keep control of the law, of the money we send the EU, and of policies for any other contingencies – a very wide and open-ended set of demands. They want us to be subject to the EU even after an agreement is reached.


Theresa May has said for months that Britain will not stay under the Court’s jurisdiction. The EU demand that its jurisdiction be maintained is a wrecking demand; it is at odds with their claim to want a clean break.

Our democratic majority decision to leave the EU cost it a tenth of its income. We subsidised the EU, and now its leaders are angry because their countries will have to pay more or get less, or both. Our decision was also a severe blow to their project of “ever closer union”. To the EU, leave does not mean leave. They will do all they can to stop us leaving.