Politicians should consult with experts. They almost never actually do. We shouldn't tolerate this. And yet, we always will.
It seems to me that the purpose of ANNEX LAW-1 is to incorporate existing EU law into this agreement. It seems like they wanted to avoid creating a new text, just because the old one was, well, old.
We probably have something similar in our programming professions: If I am to split a monolith into microservices, I'd avoid rewriting the business logic at the same time. Reuse the existing business logic, and then revisit it once the architecture itself is stable.
If you are say, writing IP and finance code, is it your responsibility to seek legal counsel or is it the legal profession's responsibility to somehow find you, discover what you are doing, and then impose themselves upon you?
(I put this in quotes because they don't put pen to paper, it's done by someone else obviously, but these are their words)
It may be copyedited by Comms for tone and grammar, as well as fact checked by someone who is an expert in the subject - but also by Legal if it touches on relevant issues. In that case, they will seek you out, if only for CYA reasons, before it goes out the door.
Regardless, I didn't mean that experts shouldn't get involved in politics. It's just that experts care and don't care about politics to the same extent everyone else does. There's no reason why an expert within a given field should be expected to care more than anyone else.
I don’t know which is sadder that our current leaders are so incompetent or that people must have known that and voted them in with a big majority anyway. Speaks to how poor the opposition were too.
A pox on both your houses! :P
1. https://www.indy100.com/people/coronavirus-advice-experts-mi...
The ones _getting it consistently wrong_ being key... yet rarely quoted.
We should be keeping track of predictions from those who want to be called experts, and retrospectively grading them/enumerating their successes and failures.