“in good faith” and the UK’s obligations

“In good faith”. That is the critical condition attached to the negotiations for the UK to achieve a Trade Deal with the EU. “In good faith”. That is what the UK and the EU signed up to in the package of documents associated with the Withdrawal Agreement Treaty.

“In good faith”. What does that mean ? Well we all know what acting in good faith means, don’t we ? It means acting in sincerity, without guile or some other, hidden agenda.

Both sides could sign up to this politically vague but morally particular statement because both sides knew what their faith was in. And that is the critical issue when it comes to what politicians mean. So, what is the political understanding, as opposed to the moral understanding of those words ?

The question is, Faith in what ?

For the EU, it means Faith in the EU project. That project is supranational and all embracing. Its clear intent is a European federal state. That is obvious now. Nation states have no future in this set up. They are to be reduced to mere local councils in one single greater Europe. Now this is fact. The entire record of the EU from its formal inception by the Treaty of Rome in 1957 to now, and its ongoing projects such as Defence demonstrate this. It is the central notion of reference for its Supreme Court, the mislabelled European Court of Justice.  It is a fact which EU adherents know full well but are frightened to proclaim less it scare off the majority of people by its revolutionary intent.

The Remain minded civil servants of Theresa May’s government negotiated the Chequers Agreement in good faith. Faith in the EU project that is. The current Withdrawal Agreement Treaty was their work. While Boris Johnson got some last minute adjustments, it was substantially the work of Remainers in the UK civil service. That is a fact.

Those Remain minded UK Civil Servants thereby broke faith with the Referendum result of June 2016 because that vote broke faith with the European Ideal. Such lack of faith is unacceptable in Brussels, Paris and Berlin. It is treachery –  treachery which must not infect the faithful remaining members. The contagion must be contained. “Brexit 16” must be quarantined and eradicated. Those not yet infected must be vaccinated against it. And the logic of vaccination is totalitarian – all must submit and accept for it to be effective and so eradicate the lethal disease.

“Brexit 16” is lethal to the existence of the EU. They are already in continuing crisis over the next 7 year budget because the pliant British contribution is no longer available to balance their books.

A truly independent UK might also become a sort of Singapore off the European mainland. Just what sort of message would that send to existing EU members ? Answer: Independance brings prosperity and success while membership means ever more angst with more regulations,  increased financial contributions and taking yet more non European immigrants.

So Brexit had to be made an exhaustive and painful process to deter other members states believing in the merits of leaving the EU. Hence the EU’s point blank refusal to negotiate a Trade Agreement alongside the Withdrawal Agreement. That of course  broke faith with  the specific  terms of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which required “taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union ” ?

The Withdrawal Agreement patently takes no  account whatsoever of the future trade relationship because the EU refused even to discuss future Trade before the Withdrawal Agreement was signed. Instead a Political Declaration was contrived last minute and issued with the Agreement.

The EU has, however, acted in perfect faith with its strategic political aim of European integration. Which is why it sees no problem at all with its blatant and serious breach of Article 50. Specific treaty obligations are totally controvertible in the EU’s pursuit of its political Aim, that is complete Integration.

Of course, the UK government is also obliged to act in good faith, but not in accordance with the EU’s faith in the European Integration Project.

The UK government is obliged to keep faith with its political Aim of Independence. The UK government’s obligations are far more profound than those of the EU. The UK government is overwhelmingly obliged to keep faith with the explicit and decisive vote of the British people.

That vote is now beyond question. The June 23rd 2016 Referendum result was explicit by 1.2 million votes with a historically unprecedented 17.4 million votes expressing approval for a particular proposal or government. The miraculous 80 seat majority for Boris Johnson’s “Get Brexit Done” pledge in December 2019 puts that Brexit decision beyond all the smears and doubts of die hard Remainers since 2016.

Boris Johnson is under a total obligation to keep faith with the legally and constitutionally expressed will of the British people – a will made clear by separate polls on the matter held 4 years apart. For decades, the UK Remainer Elite refused a Referendum on Europe because they knew their Ideology conflicted with the democratic will of the pragmatic and non doctrinaire British people.

As  Prime Minister of a single State called the United Kingdom, Johnson is also obliged by his position to keep faith with the most fundamental duty of any President or Prime minister: the Sovereign Integrity of his country.

For Boris Johson to act in good faith, he must therefore repudiate the EUs stance and require the type of Trade Agreement they already have with other non member States. But in accordance with their faith in their Project, they refuse. An existing member can only become a dependent territory. Their Aim is integration of ALL European States into one European Union State. The EU reacted to the Brexit vote by advancing the integration timetable in the UK’s case. The Withdrawal Agreement is prima facie evidence of this policy.  

To implement Brexit, Johnson must therefore repudiate the fallaciously founded Withdrawal Agreement. If the EU regards imposing an EU  border within the UK as a criterion for UK good faith, then the UK government should make a counter claim to put that EU border in the Atlantic between France and Ireland instead.

Why should the integrity of a treaty organisation like the EU  be more sacrosanct than the Independence and sovereignty of a democratic State like the United Kingdom ?

Ray Catlin