FT: Bojo to override WA

[Streetwalker]

So you have misrepresented. Fake news, I'm afraid.

Ok, found this. A UK-Gov statement on its legal position. Basically the UK don't have any issue in writing local laws that breach international treaties and international law. Taken from the statement:

Parliament is sovereign as a matter of domestic law and can pass legislation which is in breach of the UK's Treaty obligations. Parliament would not be acting unconstitutionally in enacting such legislation.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/916702/UKIM_Legal_Statement.pdf

There you have it folks, the UK is saying to the world that any international treaty it signs, it can just bring in a local law to over rule part or parts of a treaty unilaterally and that's everyone else's tough luck.

I'm going to get some popcorn, can't wait to https://pol-tics.com/Smileys/akyhne/grin.gifsee with time how this one pans out. Like I'm sure countries are now going to form a line waiting to sign FTA's with the UK knowing the UK thinks it can just do what they want when they want. Good luck with that one.

It goes on to say other countries can also do this as part of their legal structure, such as new Zealand. This is where it starts to get bat shit crazy. First question, has any other country (not a banana republic done this and secondly while New Zealand's legal structure might allow this as a respected and honourable country they would never ever do it. Like the UK is.

Sorry baff, not fake news

Indeed I posted that link yesterday , you must have missed it .  We have Gina Miller to thank for confirming that it is for Parliament and Parliament alone  to enact or repeal legislation  (Miller v  secretary of state  exiting the EU  2017) 

[GerryT]

Entirely correct. No international treaty supercedes national law.
Which is as it should be.

And what we left the EU to achieve.
It's enshrined in the WA too.

We have a word for this. It's called "sovereignty".

No what the UK has done is not enshrined in the WA, mumbo jumbo from bojo.
Beacuse you can break international treaties doesn't mean you should. Having sovereignty comes with responsibility to abide by your agreements. If your not going to then don't sign any agreements. That would include the WTO for you lot.

And yes all countries in the world can do this. I doubt you will be able to give me an example of a country that has not.
Off the top of my head, most EU countries closed their schengen borders recently.
France Germany and Italy have all broken their agreed EU fiscal rules.
France and Germany suspended free movement of goods in the EU recently. (PPE).
And so on. Do you still want a trade deal with them now that you know?

Seriously, you think that that's an example of a country passing legislation to overule an international treaty with another country. You post some nonsense about countries taking action in a pandemic that has killed over 900,000 people. Where countries HAD to stop travel. Stopping PPE leaving is not breaking any rules, having goods to sell doesn't mean you have to sell, that's nonsense.
They you go on about 2 countries that struggled to comply with the stability pact, they did breach the 3% defect rule, but so did many other EU countries. The EU parliament looked at France and Germany and decided not to impose fines. Guess what the UK led the charge in not fining them. They could have but didn't.
France and Germany both got their house in order and continue today to be among the highest contributors to the EU project. Such a non example. This is not an example of a country passing a lay to break in international treaty. These are countries that struggled to hit a financial target and would have paid a fine if the rest of the EU decided to levy one.

So again, name one country and not a banana republic, that has brought in a law to break in international treaty INTENTIONALLY, and like the UK claim that's ok.


Britannia waives the rules.

Fake news is that the government officially said it is going to break international law passing a bill (to clarify it's position on the WA). It said no such thing.

I jut posted a govt link which says the UK is going to pass a law that breachs its treaty obligations. Do I need to write that twice. The UK is going to breach it's treaty obligations. The point Baff is just because it can pass that new legislation it SHOULDN'T as doing so will breach it's international law obligations.

[Baff]

So you have misrepresented. Fake news, I'm afraid.

Ok, found this. A UK-Gov statement on its legal position. Basically the UK don't have any issue in writing local laws that breach international treaties and international law. Taken from the statement:

Parliament is sovereign as a matter of domestic law and can pass legislation which is in breach of the UK's Treaty obligations. Parliament would not be acting unconstitutionally in enacting such legislation.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/916702/UKIM_Legal_Statement.pdf

There you have it folks, the UK is saying to the world that any international treaty it signs, it can just bring in a local law to over rule part or parts of a treaty unilaterally and that's everyone else's tough luck.

I'm going to get some popcorn, can't wait to see with time how this one pans out. Like I'm sure countries are now going to form a line waiting to sign FTA's with the UK knowing the UK thinks it can just do what they want when they want. Good luck with that one.

It goes on to say other countries can also do this as part of their legal structure, such as new Zealand. This is where it starts to get bat shit crazy. First question, has any other country (not a banana republic done this and secondly while New Zealand's legal structure might allow this as a respected and honourable country they would never ever do it. Like the UK is.

Sorry baff, not fake news

Entirely correct. No international treaty supercedes national law.
Which is as it should be.

And what we left the EU to achieve.
It's enshrined in the WA too.

We have a word for this. It's called "sovereignty".


And yes all countries in the world can do this. I doubt you will be able to give me an example of a country that has not.
Off the top of my head, most EU countries closed their schengen borders recently.
France Germany and Italy have all broken their agreed EU fiscal rules.
France and Germany suspended free movement of goods in the EU recently. (PPE).
And so on. Do you still want a trade deal with them now that you know?


Fake news is that the government officially said it is going to break international law passing a bill (to clarify it's position on the WA). It said no such thing.

[GerryT]

If the UK is out why is France DEMANDING access to UK waters?
Remember "Nothings agreed until it's all agreed".

Demanding ?
Maybe you don't get the negotiating process. "I'll offer this but in return I want that"
another way of looking at it is "if you don't give me that then you don't get this"

It's very basic ABC of negioating, but if you want to spin it into DEMANDING then that's fine.

As for "Nothings agreed until it's all agreed" that was in relation to Brexit, which is finished and that no longer applies. Brexit is finished and the nothing is agreed is in reference to all the leaving deals were wrapped into a single document and all those parts were signed and agreed at one time. That was the WA.

Now a FTA is a single agreement and you either have it or you don't. There is one FTA not multiple ones.

[GerryT]

So you have misrepresented. Fake news, I'm afraid.

Ok, found this. A UK-Gov statement on its legal position. Basically the UK don't have any issue in writing local laws that breach international treaties and international law. Taken from the statement:

Parliament is sovereign as a matter of domestic law and can pass legislation which is in breach of the UK's Treaty obligations. Parliament would not be acting unconstitutionally in enacting such legislation.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/916702/UKIM_Legal_Statement.pdf

There you have it folks, the UK is saying to the world that any international treaty it signs, it can just bring in a local law to over rule part or parts of a treaty unilaterally and that's everyone else's tough luck.

I'm going to get some popcorn, can't wait to see with time how this one pans out. Like I'm sure countries are now going to form a line waiting to sign FTA's with the UK knowing the UK thinks it can just do what they want when they want. Good luck with that one.

It goes on to say other countries can also do this as part of their legal structure, such as new Zealand. This is where it starts to get bat shit crazy. First question, has any other country (not a banana republic done this and secondly while New Zealand's legal structure might allow this as a respected and honourable country they would never ever do it. Like the UK is.

Sorry baff, not fake news

[Nick]

He doesn't even consider

How do you know what is considered? Just because it's isn't mentioned in a particular post doesn't mean it isn't considered.

[Nick]

We don't care. We want out, deal or no deal. Border in Ireland or no border in Ireland. When are you going to get it?

You are out Nick, when are you going to get it ?

If the UK is out why is France DEMANDING access to UK waters?
Remember "Nothings agreed until it's all agreed".

[GerryT]

He doesn't even consider the possibility of those who think of seperate countries, not a union.

Which is extra ironic considering his oppositiin to the EU.

What gets me is how Johnson and co continue to lie but when it comes to brexit theirs blind belief. People around the world, politicians in the UK, even resignations of senior people over this recent legislation saga, and again blind belief that Johnson isn't lying and the EU has it all wrong. Not even a glimmer of questioned is what's happening a breach of international law, Baffling.

[GerryT]

So... only a vague idea of what the joint commitee does.
I have no idea either.
Who does?

i gave a summary of the key duties of the committee, if you want more info I could give it. Or you could read up yourself. It is a treaty the UK is bound to so you may as well get familiar yourself.

The UK government has not said it is breaking international law.
One member of the cabinet has said so. And he is neither it's spokesperson nor leader.
So you have misrepresented. Fake news, I'm afraid.
We most certainly expect our own people to interpret our own laws in our own favour.
We recognise that others may not wish us to.

We will wait and see how this develops, but the EU is following up on this. Far from fake news. The WA Treaty has mechanisms to deal with this and the UK is bound by international law to follow that process, don't worry the EU will help the UK along the way.

We are not offering the EU an FTA at this time. Only a TA.
The EU requirements for us to get anFTA with them are incompatible with the referendum result.
The EU would very much like us to get an FTA with them, but we just left the EU. Ended our FTA with them.
An FTA with the EU = Brino. Brexit in name only. Theresa May's style which cost her not only her job, but her reputation.

First your not offering a FTA, both parties are trying to negotiate one. The EU offered the UK a canada stype deal which is in line with the Ref result but the UK turned down a simple FTA, it said it wanted a Canada+++, which was actually akin to EU membership, very strange. Just like johnson saying he would be happy with a Australian style deal, I'll translate, that means no deal as Australia doesn't have a trade deal with the EU, again bizarre choice of language.

Both the EU and Westminster will continue to blame each other until the end of time, just as they have since the beginning of the EU.
No change there.
I also agree that the EU will not react in any great way. If they do we will simply end the agreement and they will be out of pocket to the tune of 30 billion for absolutely no gain.

How can the EU be out of pocket, the 30b has nothing to do with a FTA. That was part of the WA which the uk signed up to. That monies sorted, unless your suggesting that Johnson was lying, that's hard to believe.

[Borg Refinery]

His voice counted equally to mine.
One man one vote.

Are you suggesting his voice is worth more than anyone elses?

Perhaps you feel that if you live in Northern Ireland you are a first class citizen of the UK, while if you live in England you are a second class citizen of the UK.
Personally I prefer that all of us have an equal say in the country's rule. Call me old fashioned if you will.

As an aside, if you lived in NI before the 1970's Nationalists seldom had a vote and some Unionists could have 10 !!
This came about because the UK engineered a system where Unionists could dominate, first as most Catholics were very poor and lived in landlord owned slums they made a law that only property owners could have a vote, few Nationalists did and for those Unionists that held several properties they could have several votes in local elections, secondly election boundaries were changed so even if they had a vote it was rigged so very few Nationalist style MP's would get elected.
So being old fashioned in NI there were first class and 3rd class citizens by law.
Just an interesting bit of info of recent history. Funnily enough that all changed in the '70's due to civil rights groups and the UK joining the EU !

He doesn't even consider the possibility of those who think of seperate countries, not a union.

Which is extra ironic considering his oppositiin to the EU.

[GerryT]

His voice counted equally to mine.
One man one vote.

Are you suggesting his voice is worth more than anyone elses?

Perhaps you feel that if you live in Northern Ireland you are a first class citizen of the UK, while if you live in England you are a second class citizen of the UK.
Personally I prefer that all of us have an equal say in the country's rule. Call me old fashioned if you will.

As an aside, if you lived in NI before the 1970's Nationalists seldom had a vote and some Unionists could have 10 !!
This came about because the UK engineered a system where Unionists could dominate, first as most Catholics were very poor and lived in landlord owned slums they made a law that only property owners could have a vote, few Nationalists did and for those Unionists that held several properties they could have several votes in local elections, secondly election boundaries were changed so even if they had a vote it was rigged so very few Nationalist style MP's would get elected.
So being old fashioned in NI there were first class and 3rd class citizens by law.
Just an interesting bit of info of recent history. Funnily enough that all changed in the '70's due to civil rights groups and the UK joining the EU !

[Baff]

January 1st hopefully.
While our membership has ended, EU rule has not yet done so.

The fear is that the government signs us back up before we have actually even left EU rule.
The trade agreement is sensetive like that.
After all, the EU itself was sold to us as "just a trade deal". We have strong reason to be suspicious of agreeing another with them.

[GerryT]

We don't care. We want out, deal or no deal. Border in Ireland or no border in Ireland. When are you going to get it?

You are out Nick, when are you going to get it ?

[Baff]

His voice counted equally to mine.
One man one vote.

Are you suggesting his voice is worth more than anyone elses?

Perhaps you feel that if you live in Northern Ireland you are a first class citizen of the UK, while if you live in England you are a second class citizen of the UK.
Personally I prefer that all of us have an equal say in the country's rule. Call me old fashioned if you will.

[Borg Refinery]

The UK.

Nalaar is from Norn Ireland.

You're implying his voice doesn't count - but they didn't vote for Brexit did they? I don't know if he's a Unionist, but if not then you are riding roughshod over him and his.

England dictating to the Irish..history repeating.