The Conservative Party

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

By IS do you mean Isis? If so I suggest you take middle East 101.

That's a river mate or the name of a Greek goddess I think, unless of course you mean ISIS.

 

[robbieh]

That's a river mate or the name of a Greek goddess I think, unless of course you mean ISIS.

You stated that Iran funded ISIS which is a Trumpian sized untruth. Iran is Shia, ISIS is Sunni. In fact Iran played a major part along with the Kurds in their demise.

 

[BobKowalski]

Hahahahahahahaha. You have been telling us for the last 9 months that the UK was already doomed and there would be no trade business after brexit. Overplayed the hand maybe? This is the problem bob, if you call everyone stupid you've no words left for when proper stupid happens.

So you agree that this is ‘properly stupid’?

Progress.

 

[BobKowalski]

I think the UK popped to the bathroom when this was taken...or we just don’t bother these days :)

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

I think the UK popped to the bathroom when this was taken...or we just don’t bother these days :)

Who?

 

[bluethrunthru]

Who?

If you don't keep up with events best not to comment. You only embarrass yourself - try Google.

 

[mat]

I think the UK popped to the bathroom when this was taken...or we just don’t bother these days :)

Ours will be with the Belarusian President picking up tips to suppress the plebs and keep power.

 

[BobKowalski]

For what it’s worth...

 

[ganganvince]

I think the UK popped to the bathroom when this was taken...or we just don’t bother these days :)

Not much social distancing there

 

[lancs blue]

I think the UK popped to the bathroom when this was taken...or we just don’t bother these days :)

Probably just as well, Johnson's idea of diplomatic intervention in the Zaghari-Ratcliffe case got her a longer jail sentence.

 

[bluethrunthru]

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

 

[Fame Monster]

For what it’s worth...

How is replacing international law by using national law flouting the rule of law?

That's not to condone or condemn the Government but not sure I'd agree with the Times' assessment.

 

[hcblue95]

I don't think there is anything this government could do that would lose the support of the right wingers on here. Incompetence and corruption are how this government will be remembered.

 

[BobKowalski]

Not much social distancing there

Ha, true.

 

[ganganvince]

I don't think there is anything this government could do that would lose the support of the right wingers on here. Incompetence and corruption are how this government will be remembered.

That also works in reverse nothing they could do that would appease the left just a fact of life.

 

[BobKowalski]

How is replacing international law by using national law flouting the rule of law?

That's not to condone or condemn the Government but not sure I'd agree with the Times' assessment.

How can national or domestic law replace International law? A treaty between two sovereign entities is governed by International law and one entity changing domestic law has zero effect or applicability to the actual treaty. What we are changing is domestic law that gave effect to the treaty and in a way that is contrary to the treaty.

We are breaking international law. Rather helpfully the Govt has admitted to this in the House. Everything else thereafter is spin, obfuscation and lies.

More to the point by doing so we make every treaty or international agreement we have ‘non-binding’, and means any future treaty or international agreement is ‘non-binding’ as we now reserve the right to unilaterally change domestic law that gives them effect. This from a country that went to war on the back of a promise to another country.

We pride ourselves, perhaps somewhat romantically, that our word means something. It no longer does.

 

[bluethrunthru]

I watched Sir Desmond Swayne on the BBC News earlier voicing the same opinions - its like Tory MP's are amazed their own government is being autocratic in the way it rules - where the fuck have they been since March? Now Remembrance Sunday is about to be cancelled along with Christmas - trouble brewing at t'mill folks

 

[Fame Monster]

How can national or domestic law replace International law? A treaty between two sovereign entities is governed by International law and one entity changing domestic law has zero effect or applicability to the actual treaty. What we are changing is domestic law that gave effect to the treaty and in a way that is contrary to the treaty.

We are breaking international law. Rather helpfully the Govt has admitted to this in the House. Everything else thereafter is spin, obfuscation and lies.

More to the point by doing so we make every treaty or international agreement we have ‘non-binding’, and means any future treaty or international agreement is ‘non-binding’ as we now reserve the right to unilaterally change domestic law that gives them effect. This from a country that went to war on the back of a promise to another country.

We pride ourselves, perhaps somewhat romantically, that our word means something. It no longer does.

I suppose it doesn't really matter because it doesn't really deal with whether it's the right/wrong thing to do but purely on the semantics of 'flouting the rule of law', I'm not sure passing a more recent law to revoke or breach an older law qualifies as such. Maybe 'flouting the rule of international law' would be a more accurate description but the British constitution has always allowed for that because it gives no special weight to international law unlike other countries.

 

[lancs blue]

I suppose it doesn't really matter because it doesn't really deal with whether it's the right/wrong thing to do but purely on the semantics of 'flouting the rule of law', I'm not sure passing a more recent law to revoke or breach an older law qualifies as such. Maybe 'flouting the rule of international law' would be a more accurate description but the British constitution has always allowed for that because it gives no special weight to international law unlike other countries.

So why do we complain so much about other countries playing fast and loose with international law to the extent of imposing sanctions on some of them?