Disaster for Brexit as EU continues to use its own laws

New policy papers from the UK Government are appearing this week, to the mixed feelings of Remainers. They are unhappy because the papers seem to demonstrate that the UK really is leaving, despite constant hopes of second referendums and the like. On the other hand, there are always straws to clutch  and triumphant 'told you sos' as actual policies seem to differ from campaign promises (surprise!). As usual, there is a complete refusal or inability to see any difference between 'position papers' and actual final policy on the part of the EU -- what they say simply IS what will happen.

El Guradion led my early printed edition with the news that the  'European court of justice would influence UK law after Brexit' because there will be 'a range of options for resolving future disputes between Britain and the EU – over the rules of any new trade deal, for example – some of which are likely to involve European judges, or the application of ECJ case law'. ECJ law will obviously cover the EU side of things and they will want compliance with UK law -- whether they get it unamended and how much will be open to negotiation I assume will follow. Nothing really to see here then... Thank goodness the headline writer helps us to bring it home:

Theresa May accused of U-turn over EU court’s role after Brexit  

Accused by Remainer MPs that is -- how newsworthy. The actual copy is more moderated as usual:

Wednesday’s paper is likely to point to precedents for international dispute resolution that do not involve a direct role for the Luxembourg court, including disputes between Switzerland and the EU, which are settled through a series of joint committees – though the EU is unhappy with that arrangement, and would like a more judicial approach.

Further attempts to point out the implications for those who might otherwise be uninterested follows in a shorter story inside. As an example of the constant 'banging on' we were promised, we were warned that  'Parents in the UK would find it “much more difficult” to recover abducted children [ie abducted to EU countries?] if Britain fails to persuade the EU to continue legal cooperation after Brexit, according to government officials detailing their latest plans'. Loads of 'ifs' as usual and a nice pretty abstract case for Guardian mums and dads to worry about. Would a nasty EU, still in a fit of pique, really refuse to cooperate in cases of abducted children? How this might compare to cases involving abduction to other countries is not discussed.

After the 'human interest' stuff, the article goes on to make the more general point that 'The (UK position paper) also confirmed that a reciprocal deal would involve foreign judges being able to exert authority over British citizens, despite Theresa May’s past insistence that Brexit would exclude Britain from the rulings of foreign judges'  No reservations or nuances here compared to the longer piece.

The link takes us to another longer story (a different version to the first one) about cross-border cases:

In the latest in a series of policy papers that seek to blur the edges of hard Brexit, the government argues that for the smooth settlement of cross-border disputes it is necessary that foreign judgments sometimes apply to individuals and businesses in the UK...A judgment obtained in one country can be recognised and enforced in another,” said a government source speaking anonymously before the paper’s publication on Tuesday...But the distinction may prove a narrow one for individuals [who?] who could yet find themselves subject to the rulings of judges in France or Germany long after Britain has left the EU.'

Again, hardly news. Isn't this a good thing for the Guaridian though, especially as the Insitute of Directors, no less,

has welcomed the push from government to ensure that the forthcoming paper not only addresses ongoing civil and commercial disputes for businesses operating across the EU but also lays out principles for future judicial cooperation between both sides.