It's all there in the document. We're not leaving EU jurisdiction.

So, Mrs May says we are ending EU jurisdiction?  Aye, right!  We’re doing no such thing.   

And the draft agreement she produced last week proves it.   Just take, for example, Article 4.  That’s the bit that effectively declares how the whole agreement is to be interpreted in any judicial sense:   “The provision of this Agreement and the provisions of [European] Union law made applicable by this Agreement shall produce in respect of and in the United Kingdom the same legal effects as those which they produce within the Union and its Member States.”   

Just read it slowly again.  Yip, EU law remains superior to UK law at any time and in any area the EU wants.  And in the event of any dispute?  Yip, the adjudicator would be the EU itself.  

So our elected representatives in Westminster, or Holyrood or wherever, must follow the EU’s Parliament.  If we don’t, well there is final arbitration.  Not the UK Supreme Court of course, but the judicial arm of the European Community, the European Court of Justice.   

And if you were wondering, is there not a little wriggle room, I’m afraid not.  Paragraph 3 tells Britain to interpret and apply law “in accordance with” EU law.  Which is repeated in Paragraph 4.  The UK must interpret all law “in conformity” with the ECJ’s jurisprudence through the transition period.     

Given the EUs track record we can be sure of one thing.  The so called implementation period will be used to drive a dagger into the UK.  And we will have no say in it.  Yes, beleive it or not, Mrs May did commit us to this in spite of not being able to influence such decisions.  Does may you wonder which side Mrs May has been on all along.    

Ah, you are just being negative, reading it all the wrong way, you tell me.  Really?   Lest you be in any doubt of the indefinite superiority of the ECJ – this is in paragraph 5:   “In the interpretation and application of this Agreement, the United Kingdom’s judicial and administrative authorities shall have due regard to relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down after the end of the transition period.”  

I think the key word there is “after”. Yes, the document says we will not be free even after we have finally left.  You can spin it all you want, but that's thewords used.

But it is on this contentious thing about when can we leave finally I conclude.  And do we need the EU to give us permission to do so.   

I think the best place to find that answer is in the document itself.  The ECJ is the final judge of when the UK can end its transition period.    Flip through to Article 164.  This provides for a “Joint Committee” to be co-chaired by the EU and the UK.    If this Joint Committee couldn’t agree, then it could defer to an “arbitration panel” (Article 171).  This is presumably what May has spun as an “independent panel”.    If the “arbitration panel” fails to agree whatever the EU expects it to agree, the ECJ will decide (Article 174).  And in this respect, Article 168 confirms that no party will have recourse to any other party than specified in the agreement. The ECJ will have the final rulling.

In other words, it’s true, the ECJ, the legal arm of the EU, can stop us leaving. It’s there in ink.   

One great tactic of leaders found in history is confuse the people.  Clearly that’s what May is banking on.    

The other great tactic is keep trotting out the same line of your story, even though it's porky pies, on the basis that if you say it often enough, people will begin to believe you.  George Orwell would be proud of Mrs May!    

Or as Bruce Newsome, Ph.D. is a lecturer in International Relations at the University of California Berkeley remarked earlier this week in relation to us leaving the EU, “Lies are easier to sell if you keep everything complicated. It’s the only thing she and the EU are expert at.”