Are we bovvered?

[Cor Blimey!]

And boy have you picked the wrong people this time.

I dunno. Seems to me that a country with a fifth column in excess of 16 million people would be precisely the 'right' people to 'pick' on. (if you were so inclined, that is).

[T00ts]

That is correct.
The UK is saying that it will abide by the spirit and the letter of the WA, until such time as the EU does not.
Conditional on the EU doing the same.

This is in direct response to an EU threat made at the highest levels to break the spirit and the letter of the WA.
We have acted in such a way as to be able to prevent them from doing so.
They can still withdraw if they truely feel that honouring it is too much for them to bear. But we currently have no need to.

And let's be quite honest, the only reason they threatened to break the WA in the first place, was in an cyncial attempt to pressure us into screwing our own economy over to advantage theirs.

Bluff called. outmanouvred politically by Boris, who is a world class act that they are unable to follow. He is cat amingst those pigeons. Listen to them sqwark. See those disgruntled feathers fly.





There is no point anyone in the EU talking to us about upholding treaties.

Most of them are in NATO. None of them have upheld that treaty. Ever.
We aren't dealing with holy angels here.
We are dealing with the EU. A bunch of two faced conmen.
Who will steal anything that isn't nailed down and rape anyone who isn't pointing a gun at their head.
These people are the historical pinnacle of untrustworthiness.
Men without honour.  They are out to screw us and we are not so dumb as to be oblivious to this.
Play the victim all you like. You are the aggressors here.

And boy have you picked the wrong people this time.

I do hope you are right, not in your assessment of the EU, I agree wholeheartedly with that, but with your trust in BJ et al.

[Baff]

Your welcome.
But the UK isn't saying that they are going to ignore the WA, they aren't saying they will walk away. If it's a meaningless agreement then why don't the UK do that as opposed to this farce of writing a new law to over rule elements of the WA, seems like a strange way to get out of what you describe as a simple agreement.

This agreement has been made by the UK as a sovereign state, which is in the form of a treaty. The Vienna convention covers such things, are you suggesting that the UK is now going to tear up all the rule books and ignore the Vienna convention to, because as you would put it, it's just "shite"

That is correct.
The UK is saying that it will abide by the spirit and the letter of the WA, until such time as the EU does not.
Conditional on the EU doing the same.

This is in direct response to an EU threat made at the highest levels to break the spirit and the letter of the WA.
We have acted in such a way as to be able to prevent them from doing so.
They can still withdraw if they truely feel that honouring it is too much for them to bear. But we currently have no need to.

And let's be quite honest, the only reason they threatened to break the WA in the first place, was in an cyncial attempt to pressure us into screwing our own economy over to advantage theirs.

Bluff called. outmanouvred politically by Boris, who is a world class act that they are unable to follow. He is cat amingst those pigeons. Listen to them sqwark. See those disgruntled feathers fly.





There is no point anyone in the EU talking to us about upholding treaties.

Most of them are in NATO. None of them have upheld that treaty. Ever.
We aren't dealing with holy angels here.
We are dealing with the EU. A bunch of two faced conmen.
Who will steal anything that isn't nailed down and rape anyone who isn't pointing a gun at their head.
These people are the historical pinnacle of untrustworthiness.
Men without honour.  They are out to screw us and we are not so dumb as to be oblivious to this.
Play the victim all you like. You are the aggressors here.

And boy have you picked the wrong people this time.

[Stevlin]

And your correct that the UK as a sovereign state has total control over making its own laws and decisions. But what happens when the UK makes an agreement with another country, do you think that they can unilaterally decide to ignore parts of that agreement or do you think having the ability to make your own decisions and agreements that you would ensure you would either honour that agreement or sit down with the other party and try and change the agreement.

Secondly knowing this could happen would it not have been reasonable to have exit clauses in the agreement so that either party would know what they were getting into before signing the agreement in the first place.

As usual, you miss the point!! Of course a sovereign country has the ability to unilaterally withdraw from ANY agreement that it has made....but clearly, that action should ONLY be effected after informing the relevant Partiy/ Parties that are also signatories to that agreement! Hence my comment of 'unsavoury'....

[johnofgwent]

I'm aware of that but the rule of law has to be followed by those that make the rules/laws/agreements also, otherwise you just end up with a fascist state. Both sides, the public and the Govt have to follow the laws that they make.

If a UK Govt binds the UK to an international treaty then a future UK Govt that wants to get out of that agreement needs to do so by either the prescribed exit clause in the treaty or by consultation with the parties to the treaty.
So your correct no UK parliament is bound by a previous UK parliament but that doesn't mean a UK Govt can unilaterally ignore its commitments under a treaty.

But that is the whole point.

Whether we end up with what you call a fascist state because it won't dance to YOUR tune is hardly relevant.

The fact is we voted to take back the right to put two fingers up to the EU becaue we were totally pissed off with them putting two fingers up to us.

And now we have control back. Best get ready for a bumpy ride Gerry.

[Baff]

I'm aware of that but the rule of law has to be followed by those that make the rules/laws/agreements also, otherwise you just end up with a fascist state. Both sides, the public and the Govt have to follow the laws that they make.

If a UK Govt binds the UK to an international treaty then a future UK Govt that wants to get out of that agreement needs to do so by either the prescribed exit clause in the treaty or by consultation with the parties to the treaty.
So your correct no UK parliament is bound by a previous UK parliament but that doesn't mean a UK Govt can unilaterally ignore its commitments under a treaty.

That rather depends on what laws the UK government has passed in regards to said treaty.
The law is the law after all.

Unlike a treaty. Which isn't.

If the UK for example passes a law recinding the treaty, that's it.
Treaty ended.

After the referendum the UK govt had two choices.
To leave the treaty using the agreed exit mechanism. Article 50.
Or to simply recind the law that joined us to the EU.

It chose the later, and that turned out to be a very bad choice in my opinion.
The reasoning behind it was that we wanted trade deal with the EU after we left....

[GerryT]

At least the Irish are on our side.

According to the Central Bank of Ireland, a no deal Brexit could lead to the loss of 75% of Irish food exports to the UK, something that won't please the Republic's farmers. And it appears that Irish SME are already paying two and a half times as much as the rest of the EU for business loans. So one way and another Ireland is not going to rock the boat. 

Ireland has reduced it's exports over the past 4 yrs from over 20% to about 10% of it's total exports. Yes it will be a hit but I haven't see the 75% loss number (that would be 7.5% of IRL exports). And loan rates in IRL have always been very high, nothing to do with Brexit and I'm sure it will continue for a long time to come, but nothing the UK has an involvement in anyway.

I think you'll find the Irish are in no way on the UK side of brexit matters, very much happy with the EU "co-op".

[GerryT]

What you clearly choose to ignore is the fact that nomparliament may enact legislation binding the hands of a future parliament.

Whatever shyte the europhiles might have tried to force us to accept is revoked by a one line bill and a bit of political will, such as a 90 seat majority provides ...

I'm aware of that but the rule of law has to be followed by those that make the rules/laws/agreements also, otherwise you just end up with a fascist state. Both sides, the public and the Govt have to follow the laws that they make.

If a UK Govt binds the UK to an international treaty then a future UK Govt that wants to get out of that agreement needs to do so by either the prescribed exit clause in the treaty or by consultation with the parties to the treaty.
So your correct no UK parliament is bound by a previous UK parliament but that doesn't mean a UK Govt can unilaterally ignore its commitments under a treaty.

[GerryT]

Thanks Gerry.
Appreciate you taking the time to school me.



With regards to laws, a treaty isn't a law.
It's an agreement, only.

And again there is no mechanism for enforcement in this.
No mention of agreeing to being fined or imprisoned for example.
Failure to comply with the agreement simply ends it.

Which is no bother. It's shit.

Your welcome.
But the UK isn't saying that they are going to ignore the WA, they aren't saying they will walk away. If it's a meaningless agreement then why don't the UK do that as opposed to this farce of writing a new law to over rule elements of the WA, seems like a strange way to get out of what you describe as a simple agreement.

This agreement has been made by the UK as a sovereign state, which is in the form of a treaty. The Vienna convention covers such things, are you suggesting that the UK is now going to tear up all the rule books and ignore the Vienna convention to, because as you would put it, it's just "shite"

[Borchester]

At least the Irish are on our side.

According to the Central Bank of Ireland, a no deal Brexit could lead to the loss of 75% of Irish food exports to the UK, something that won't please the Republic's farmers. And it appears that Irish SME are already paying two and a half times as much as the rest of the EU for business loans. So one way and another Ireland is not going to rock the boat. 

[GerryT]

To my mind, albeit there are perhaps unsavoury associations with the newly proposed UK bill, because of the 'international law' reference, but ultimately, the UK has now finally regained their 'sovereign status'.  Therefore, in accordance with the definition of  'sovereignty', it means that EU law AND laws emanating from any international source do NOT have precedence over sovereigndomestic legislation.
 This prime legislation is produced via the democratically elected British government - and processed via the UK Parliament.
As I have stated before of course, I have no legal background - but the state of having 'sovereignty' speaks for itself. Any sovereign country, by definition, must have the ability to exercise control of it's own affairs.

And your correct that the UK as a sovereign state has total control over making its own laws and decisions. But what happens when the UK makes an agreement with another country, do you think that they can unilaterally decide to ignore parts of that agreement or do you think having the ability to make your own decisions and agreements that you would ensure you would either honour that agreement or sit down with the other party and try and change the agreement.

Secondly knowing this could happen would it not have been reasonable to have exit clauses in the agreement so that either party would know what they were getting into before signing the agreement in the first place.

[johnofgwent]

Laws are there and people have to abide by them .....

What you clearly choose to ignore is the fact that nomparliament may enact legislation binding the hands of a future parliament.

Whatever shyte the europhiles might have tried to force us to accept is revoked by a one line bill and a bit of political will, such as a 90 seat majority provides ...

[patman post]

Surely, a major concern must be that if a party breaks their word on a widely publicised agreement/law/treaty, or whatever, that they freely gave, they are likely to find it more difficult to get any third party's trust in the future...

[Baff]

Laws are there and people have to abide by them or face sanctions (fines/imprisonment etc) but those laws have to be also followed by the people that make them. It's not a one way street, if your going to argue that then no point in reading any further.
An international agreement is a set of rules that both countries or parties to the agreement are bound by. This would include items such as the treaty duration or exit mechanism and also how disputes are resolved.

This is not a domestic dispute that will be thrashed out in the HOC, this is a matter between the UK and EU and the WA has a resolution process, written into the agreement. You can find it for yourself but the relevant clause is:

Title 111 Dispute resolution There are 15 pages in the agreement. You need to look beyond the Govt website in that case, slightly misleading.

Article 168 For any dispute between the Union and the United Kingdom arising under this Agreement, the Union and the United Kingdom shall only have recourse to the procedures provided for in this Agreement.
Article 169 The Union and the United Kingdom shall endeavour to resolve any dispute regarding the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Agreement by entering into consultations in the Joint Committee in good faith, with the aim of reaching a mutually agreed solution.
Article 170 Without prejudice to Article 160, if no mutually agreed solution has been reached within 3 months after a written notice has been provided to the Joint Committee in accordance with Article 169(1), the Union or the United Kingdom may request the establishment of an arbitration
panel. Such request shall be made in writing to the other party and to the International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
Article 171 The Joint Committee shall, no later than by the end of the transition period, establish a list of 25 persons who are willing and able to serve as members of an arbitration panel.....An arbitration panel shall be composed of five members.

Article 175 The arbitration panel ruling shall be binding on the Union and the United Kingdom. The Union and the United Kingdom shall take any measures necessary to comply in good faith with the arbitration panel ruling and shall endeavour to agree on the period of time to comply with the ruling in accordance with the procedure in Article 176.

That last bit is the binding part.

Thanks Gerry.
Appreciate you taking the time to school me.



With regards to laws, a treaty isn't a law.
It's an agreement, only.

And again there is no mechanism for enforcement in this.
No mention of agreeing to being fined or imprisoned for example.
Failure to comply with the agreement simply ends it.

Which is no bother. It's shit.

[Stevlin]

To my mind, albeit there are perhaps unsavoury associations with the newly proposed UK bill, because of the 'international law' reference, but ultimately, the UK has now finally regained their 'sovereign status'.  Therefore, in accordance with the definition of  'sovereignty', it means that EU law AND laws emanating from any international source do NOT have precedence over sovereigndomestic legislation.
This prime legislation is produced via the democratically elected British government - and processed via the UK Parliament.
As I have stated before of course, I have no legal background - but the state of having 'sovereignty' speaks for itself. Any sovereign country, by definition, must have the ability to exercise control of it's own affairs.