Is signing an agreement that will have the UK subject to a foreign power in perpetuity a criminal offence?

We all know that no UK parliament can bind its successor.  There would be no point in having elections if they could.     

So why, in Article 20 of the Agreement, does Mrs May want to push through that very same UK parliament an agreement that would bring about exactly that scenario?   As has been stressed before, this is an agreement that Mrs May and the EU want to be recognised under international law.   

If it is recognised under international law then a future UK parliament cannot undo it without the agreement of all the parties involved in the agreement.  So no parliament in the future can ever, without the agreement of the EU, resile from the agreement.   We would be stuck.

This will be a first.  International treaties and trade treaties always have get out clauses for obvious reasons.  Even the EU’s own trade agreements with non-member countries, which is what we voted to become, don’t contain such draconian clauses.  This treatment is reserved for the UK because we had the temerity to vote to leave.

As Martin Howe, QC, says in a paper today “(there will be) no unilateral exit clause. The Protocol can only be stopped from coming into force if the EU agrees with the UK to replace it before the end of the transition period with a trade agreement.  If the Protocol comes into force, the UK cannot exit from it without a “joint” decision (meaning the EU has a veto) in the ‘joint committee’ (article 20 of the Protocol). This absence of a clause allowing withdrawal on notice is unprecedented in trade treaties including the under international law, future governments and Parliaments would be locked in and bound by the treaty concluded by this government.”  

If any MP of any party votes for this they clearly are in the wrong job as they will be binding their successor in perpetuity.  And that is against our own rules in the UK.  

But, one final question. 

Why is Mrs May deliberately seeking to overrule our own systems of laws and force us to be wedded to the EU for ever?  Is she not, in effect, seeking to overthrow the UK state by having it permanently under the rule of another foreign power?   

Who’s side is she on?  Who’s side has she ever been on?