I agree with OP's interpretation: > A more charitable interpretation is that the copy/paste isn't because the authors are hopelessly out of touch: instead, the

I agree with OP's interpretation: > A more charitable interpretation is that the copy/paste isn't because the authors are hopelessly out of touch: instead, they're seeking to enable the direct re-use of all of the executive policy and judicial precedent which has developed around those legal particulars since they were first codified. I mean honestly if this is the most egregious thing they have found in the agreement so far, it doesn't sound that bad (and I voted to remain)