I was very surprized to read the view of experienced Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin that “there is no intrinsic reason why Brexit should be difficult or damaging.” ( “It’s a sad truth: on Brexit we just can’t trust the Treasury,” 9 October; https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/08/brexit-treasury-eu-bernard-jenkin )
As the current chair of parliament’s select committee on public administration and constitutional affairs , which has investigated different aspects of Brexit’s impact on our governance, he should know better.
In Parliament on Monday, Mrs May revealed that the European Court of Justice would continue to have jurisdiction in the UK over the period of transition/implementation of the Brexit agreement, to predictable howls of horror from ill-informed Brexiteers like Jacob Rees-Mogg. (“Brexit MPs angry as Theresa May accepts continuing rule of EU court,” 10 October; https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/09/brexit-mps-angry-as-theresa-may-accepts-continuing-rule-of-eu-court
However, a recent well –researched expert report demonstrates how the ECJ will remain the final arbiter in certain energy issues after Brexit, which a Brexit dept paper itself does not appear to address, (although I am unsure whether this opaque sentence from the paper is meant to cover such eventualities: ."The UK will be bound by the agreements with the EU as a matter of international law, and will be subject to whatever international enforcement mechanisms the agreements contain." www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/639609/Enforcement_and_dispute_resolution.pdf)
In the analysis, released on 10 May by the international London-based think tank Chatham House, authored by Antony Froggatt and Georgina Wright (supported by Matthew Lockwood, a senior Research Fellow, Energy Policy Group at the University of Exeter) the authors examine several areas where the current UK energy integration with the EU27 will prove complex, if not impossible to disentangle, without significant energy security detriment to the UK.
The report’s authors argue that remaining fully integrated with the internal energy market (IEM) “would require the UK’s compliance with current and future EU energy market rules, as well with some EU environmental legislation.”
Without a willingness to abide by the jurisdiction of the ECJ, and in the absence of a new joint UK–EU compliance mechanism, “the UK may be required to leave the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) – an instrument in the UK’s and EU’s fight against climate change,” they conclude.
(Staying Connected: Key Elements for UK–EU27 Energy Cooperation After Brexit; https://reader.chathamhouse.org/staying-connected-key-elements-uk-eu27-energy-cooperation-after-brexit#)
Very strong food for thought.