It is fundamentally absurd that a court appointed, financed and legislatively influenced by one of the parties to a treaty should have jurisdiction over a treaty between those two parties, since it is defined from the outset as being within a partisan, conditional conflict of interest. Neither a British nor an EU court should be allowed to have jurisdiction over the treaty and its subject matter in the event of a dispute. It can actually only be an uninvolved third party court.
Tricky.
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert.
|