You're probably right. They also won't give a fuck when we reap the consequences of this because they'll believe some toffee nosed **** who's laughing at them when he tells them that it's the EU's fault that their affluence and quality of life has taken a turn for the worse.Most folk wont give a fuck.
That's the way a democratically elected Parliamentary majority Government works.This is basically the way North Korea operates. You can do whjat the F you want - but don't expect to be seen as a leading world nation and for other countries to be interested in dealing with you if you can't play fair and keep your word. You end up and irrelevance (other than the extent to which you are a military threat).
Nail on the head. It's like when the fucking electorate make the 'wrong' choice in a referendum, EU election, or GE.Sovereign parliament was being cheered on last year when it did what it wanted for a few months and looked likely to scupper brexit.
I saw no references to North Korea then?
I think the moral argument is getting confused with the legal one. I understand that we would be going back on our word, but from a legal perspective it would seem as per what @Chris in London said above a simple parliamentary majority could make the necessary ammendments to ensure no laws are broken. For this reason I think the resignation thus morning is a political gesture by a supposedly neutral civil servant (again). Still, everyone should have the right to withdraw their labour I suppose.
You're probably right. They also won't give a fuck when we reap the consequences of this because they'll believe some toffee nosed **** who's laughing at them when he tells them that it's the EU's fault that their affluence and quality of life has taken a turn for the worse.
That's the way a democratically elected Parliamentary majority Government works.
Laws are made and revoked all the time by successive Governments and Boris' govt is different to the one that put forward the WA.
I think you got so used to the 'stalemate' years that you've forgotten that this is how our Parliament operates and has done for years. Everything else you said is just sour grapes.
I take your point, but not all EU nations are party to the convention (notably France) so the EU as a whole perhaps can't choose to invoke it.I don’t believe that is the case, parliament can absolutely pass any law or amendments they want but if that then is used to not comply with the treaty then it will be against the Vienna convention. They’d have to get it approved again by the EU. Even if that isn’t applicable, knowingly going against it is hardly a good look.
We don’t know the details yet though. To have the treasury lawyer resign over it though is in no way a good thing and I don’t understand the leap to it being a political rather than a legal or even just ethical decision. He’d have resigned years ago otherwise!
I take your point, but not all EU nations are party to the convention (notably France) so the EU as a whole perhaps can't choose to invoke it.
That is such shite. If he wanted an entirely different WA he should have "put forward" a different WA. His government forced the WA through Parliament with what IDS now says is insufficient scrutiny (having said he knew what it all meant). Be honest for a change.That's the way a democratically elected Parliamentary majority Government works.
Laws are made and revoked all the time by successive Governments and Boris' govt is different to the one that put forward the WA.
The political system is fair, just and true, when it gives you what you want.Politics is literally being reinvented before our eyes or at least, attempted.
Still its no real surprise given we reached the stage in 2016 where a majority of over 1 million votes was to be ignored so why a parliamentary majority should matter any more.........?
Yes, I won't try and defend it from a moral ethical view, but that is not the same as a legal position. Like being engaged when you are still married, it's wrong/immoral but not illegal.Yep, which is why I said I could see it being an ethical position (as in if we don’t treat it in the same spirit as we would do any other treaty).
Yes, I won't try and defend it from a moral ethical view, but that is not the same as a legal position. Like being engaged when you are still married, it's wrong/immoral but not illegal.
Try us..... Even an announcement to remain this afternoon and call it all off would leave you grasping to find something to criticise it over so you constantly telling us the world is laughing or describing toddler tantrums is literally falling on deaf ears....
Apparently it's irrelevant and only to do with Scotland mate ;-) ask Vic.Seeing as clause 38 was written by an 80 year old activist lawyer, it must be ok then.
I thought his specialist subjects were exports and currenciesApparently it's irrelevant and only to do with Scotland mate ;-) ask Vic.
What a soft fucker he must be - was it not his job, which he will have been well paid to do, to provide support and advice to the government of the day on how to bring forward legislation to deliver policy?
Anyway - I see this only as a positive - it seems that the rumoured intention to reduce the impact of the WA has some truth behind it
So if Johnson won an election on a manifesto of not destroying your business, you'd be OK with sovereign Parliament then legislating to destroy your business...The heady days of being told parliament was sovereign and could do whatever it liked. If it wanted to change the law to remain then so be it.....
Sovereignty is a bit of an issue again this week I see ;-)
So if Johnson won an election on a manifesto of not destroying your business, you'd be OK with sovereign Parliament then legislating to destroy your business...