Another new Brexit thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
blueinsa said:
5 mns on Google which many are really good at on here will give you a list the length of your arm as to countries breaking International Law.......the EU included.
Click to expand...
How many have changed their own laws to unilaterally override an international agreement?
And if you find any examples, how many were negotiated by the same government that is now proposing to override it?
 
kevin horlocks wand said:
do you know that thing called parliament it makes and changes laws all the time
Click to expand...

Of course. Do you know that the ministerial code of our Parliament mandates compliance with international law? Likewise do you know that the Treasury Lawyer, like the AG and lord chancellor, swears an oath to protect the rule of law as well as it being in their code of ethics for being members of the bar?

You cannot have an independent and impartial civil service that also then allows Parliament to ignore either their own ministerial code or international law as it is then the complete opposite of being independent and impartial.
 
meltonblue said:
Of course. Do you know that the ministerial code of our Parliament mandates compliance with international law? Likewise do you know that the Treasury Lawyer, like the AG and lord chancellor, swears an oath to protect the rule of law as well as it being in their code of ethics for being members of the bar?

You cannot have an independent and impartial civil service that also then allows Parliament to ignore either their own ministerial code or international law as it is then the complete opposite of being independent and impartial.
Click to expand...

sorry I am lost

are people concerned because we are going to break the law ; Or

is it because legally through our sovereign parliament we are going to pass a new law which means we don’t break the law But it does have an impact on our standing in the world as it means countries don’t believe our word?

which is it ?
 
blueinsa said:
Not yet will do.

No need to add to that.

Wait....hang on......a call to war?

Fuck me. We are leaving a fucking trade club pmsl.

get a grip ffs.
Click to expand...


No were not .... we are leaving our relatively comfortable lives ...under a Labour Government we had the chance of

A secure job
A good Education
A habitable home
A living wage
A balanced media
A fair justice system
A healthy life (for you and your family)
A clean environment
A resilient NHS
A working democracy

and a chance of seeing your next birthday


not any more under this bunch of crooks and criminals ....


This is a call to arms
 
kevin horlocks wand said:
sorry I am lost

are people concerned because we are going to break the law ; Or

is it because legally through our sovereign parliament we are going to pass a new law which means we don’t break the law But it does have an impact on our standing in the world as it means countries don’t believe our word?

which is it ?
Click to expand...
It does appear to be because we are about to pass a law to make breaking another one illegal rather than break the law itself. Once you point that out it then becomes about ethics, morality, and our standing in the world.
 
kevin horlocks wand said:
sorry I am lost

are people concerned because we are going to break the law ; Or

is it because legally through our sovereign parliament we are going to pass a new law which means we don’t break the law But it does have an impact on our standing in the world as it means countries don’t believe our word?

which is it ?
Click to expand...
It is possible to break international law without breaking a sovereign country’s own laws.
 
Ifwecouldjust....... said:
No were not .... we are leaving our relatively comfortable lives ...under a Labour Government we had the chance of

A secure job
A good Education
A habitable home
A living wage
A balanced media
A fair justice system
A healthy life (for you and your family)
A clean environment
A resilient NHS
A working democracy

and a chance of seeing your next birthday


not any more under this bunch of crooks and criminals ....


This is a call to arms
Click to expand...
Do you mean the previous labour govt or the Corbyn led one we could have had? Genuinely interested in your answer and not having a pop btw. To me they are two very different things, and I say that as a fan of Corbyn.
 
west didsblue said:
How many have changed their own laws to unilaterally override an international agreement?
And if you find any examples, how many were negotiated by the same government that is now proposing to override it?
Click to expand...

Governments and countries not allowed to change minds now?

That wasn't the opinion last year was it?

Parliament is sovereign....i have heard that before on here and they can vote on and change whatever the fuck they like, again, something that was said so many times not so long ago.

It upsetting the EU will be of little to no consequence to it and no one is being charged, hauled up before the Hague or sent to prison over it.

It is a negotiating tactic that much is clear. It hasn't happened as of yet, just a threat.

If and when it does happen we can probably discuss it but as above, no one will stop the government from doing it.

Chip paper within a few weeks.

Its classic brexit though i will admit to that. The WA no remainer wanted and every brexit supporter cheered on and here we are with a threat to rip it up and remainers are up in arms and brexit voters couldn't give a fuck. The same with the way Sovereign parliament nehaved last year when it looked like it was about to thwart brexit.
 
kevin horlocks wand said:
sorry I am lost

are people concerned because we are going to break the law ; Or

is it because legally through our sovereign parliament we are going to pass a new law which means we don’t break the law But it does have an impact on our standing in the world as it means countries don’t believe our word?

which is it ?
Click to expand...

Ok so to clarify what I think you’re suggesting, we should get rid of being compliant with international law? Ignore the Vienna convention too as part of that? I mean the latter would be very ironic given that was the very thing Johnson was trying to use to his advantage only a few months ago!
 
Ifwecouldjust....... said:
No were not .... we are leaving our relatively comfortable lives ...under a Labour Government we had the chance of

A secure job
A good Education
A habitable home
A living wage
A balanced media
A fair justice system
A healthy life (for you and your family)
A clean environment
A resilient NHS
A working democracy

and a chance of seeing your next birthday


not any more under this bunch of crooks and criminals ....


This is a call to arms
Click to expand...

I honestly struggle to take you seriously.
 
meltonblue said:
Ok so to clarify what I think you’re suggesting, we should get rid of being compliant with international law? Ignore the Vienna convention too as part of that? I mean the latter would be very ironic given that was the very thing Johnson was trying to use to his advantage only a few months ago!
Click to expand...

no I think you are missing the point.

we are not going to break law. We are seeking legally to go back on our agreement with the eu , which has an affect in our standing in the world and our place on the world stage.

that is a perfectly fair criticism.
 
west didsblue said:
Yes we are. We are proposing to break international law.
Click to expand...

sorry been fishing, this will help you..

“Yes this does break international law in a very specific and limited way. We are taking the power to disapply the EU law concept of direct effect required by Article 4 in a certain, very tightly-defined circumstance.

There are clear precedents for the UK and other countries needing to consider their international obligations as circumstances change. I would say to honourable members here, many of whom would have been in this house when we passed the Finance Act 2013, which contained an example of treaty override, it contains provisions that expressly disapply international tax treaties to the extent that these conflict with the general anti-abuse rule.

We are determined to ensure we are delivering on the agreement we have in the protocol and our leading priority is to do that through the negotiations and through the joint committee work. The clauses that will be in the bill tomorrow are specifically there for should that fail, ensuring we’re able to deliver on our commitments to the people of Northern Ireland.”
 
blueinsa said:
What International law has been broken?
Click to expand...

The NI Secretary in answer to a question in the House on the proposed changes stated the changes would break International Law. In the absence of details on the changes we have nothing more that that at this stage.

This however, is the first time, as far as people can tell, that the UK will not only break International Law but actually admit to doing so.

The point of treaties is that they are not subject to unilateral changes otherwise there would be no point in having them if one side wakes up one morning and says ‘stuff that for a game of soldiers, it no longer applies’.

The point of treaties, international law etc is to regulate and govern relations between States. This helps avoid unnecessary conflict. The UK is usually a strong advocate of rule of law and sticking to treaties that they sign. Took Johnson nine months to bin that tradition.

Of course if the proposed changes do not live up to the hype or are agreeable to the treaty partner then everyone will stand down, although it begs the question why the NI Secretary thought otherwise.

There is also the issue of the GFA which the WA and NI protocols are designed to protect and again there could be fallout here if we start unilaterally mucking around with that.
 
kevin horlocks wand said:
sorry been fishing, this will help you..

“Yes this does break international law in a very specific and limited way. We are taking the power to disapply the EU law concept of direct effect required by Article 4 in a certain, very tightly-defined circumstance.

There are clear precedents for the UK and other countries needing to consider their international obligations as circumstances change. I would say to honourable members here, many of whom would have been in this house when we passed the Finance Act 2013, which contained an example of treaty override, it contains provisions that expressly disapply international tax treaties to the extent that these conflict with the general anti-abuse rule.

We are determined to ensure we are delivering on the agreement we have in the protocol and our leading priority is to do that through the negotiations and through the joint committee work. The clauses that will be in the bill tomorrow are specifically there for should that fail, ensuring we’re able to deliver on our commitments to the people of Northern Ireland.”
Click to expand...
Thanks for confirming.

Where’s the quote from?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top