Some lite reading.

[cromwell]

You have to read further than the headline nick, then you'll get your answer. I gave it to you, just read. You do know what click bait is ?  headlines are not the detail.

Of course Gerry we all know what's click bait,it's we are the eu and the eu is us also you're much more powerful now than the old evil empire.

[GerryT]

I don't need to go any further, the answer is there.

Answer the question. What stops us from walking away from a treaty? You told Tom that the UK can't just walk away, what prevents us?

You have to read further than the headline nick, then you'll get your answer. I gave it to you, just read. You do know what click bait is ?  headlines are not the detail.

[Nick]

Is that as far as you got, or are you looking to have the UK leave all international bodies, go full hermit in the new North Korea of EU. Just read and see what the professionals in the industry say and it will make sense why the UK withdrew the offending clauses in the IMB, they were always a bluff, the EU knew it and it's why they didn't kick up a storm. Letting Johnson score some points with his domestic audience is no skin off the EU's nose.

Is that as far as you got

I don't need to go any further, the answer is there.

Answer the question. What stops us from walking away from a treaty? You told Tom that the UK can't just walk away, what prevents us?

[GerryT]

Do you actually read the links you resource? I'll give you the answer... No you don't.

First link.

How are treaties enforced?

There is no over-arching compulsory judicial system or coercive penal system to address breaches of the provisions set out in treaties or to settle disputes. That is not to say that there are no tribunals in the international legal system.

Is that as far as you got, or are you looking to have the UK leave all international bodies, go full hermit in the new North Korea of EU. Just read and see what the professionals in the industry say and it will make sense why the UK withdrew the offending clauses in the IMB, they were always a bluff, the EU knew it and it's why they didn't kick up a storm. Letting Johnson score some points with his domestic audience is no skin off the EU's nose.

[Nick]

Depends on the agreement, have a read of this and then come back to be

https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/events/2010/Press_kit/fact_sheet_5_english.pdf

https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf

To become party to a treaty, a State must express, through a concrete act, its willingness to undertake the
legal rights and obligations contained in the treaty – it must "consent to be bound" by the treaty. It can do
this in various ways, defined by the terms of the relevant treaty.

What your proposing is the UK being a rogue state outside any known global body, the UN, WTO, Vienna Convention. Is the UK planning on leaving all of these, going totally solo ?
Do you think

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/11/brexit-override-plan-would-breach-vienna-convention-qc-says

"Every international lawyer is familiar with the Vienna convention on the law of treaties, and its article 27, which reflects a general principle: 'A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty'.
"There is simply no way around this binding rule – to opine that parliament is sovereign is, in this sense, hopeless."

Do you actually read the links you resource? I'll give you the answer... No you don't.

First link.

How are treaties enforced?

There is no over-arching compulsory judicial system or coercive penal system to address breaches of the provisions set out in treaties or to settle disputes. That is not to say that there are no tribunals in the international legal system.

[GerryT]

What governing body or mechanism stops us?
You'll now talk about the ramifications of doing so but that's not the argument.

Depends on the agreement, have a read of this and then come back to be

https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/events/2010/Press_kit/fact_sheet_5_english.pdf

https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf

To become party to a treaty, a State must express, through a concrete act, its willingness to undertake the
legal rights and obligations contained in the treaty – it must "consent to be bound" by the treaty. It can do
this in various ways, defined by the terms of the relevant treaty.

What your proposing is the UK being a rogue state outside any known global body, the UN, WTO, Vienna Convention. Is the UK planning on leaving all of these, going totally solo ?
Do you think

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/11/brexit-override-plan-would-breach-vienna-convention-qc-says

"Every international lawyer is familiar with the Vienna convention on the law of treaties, and its article 27, which reflects a general principle: 'A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty'.
"There is simply no way around this binding rule – to opine that parliament is sovereign is, in this sense, hopeless."

[Nick]

Have you anything of note to add about the glorious one sided deal that the likes of Nick, who hasn't a clue of its contents, has deemed a victory,

Oh dear, I'd ask the Dr to up your lithium if I were you.

[GerryT]

no irishman on this earth would say what you have just said and insinuated, which is because every irish man on the planet knows

1. there is no british language only english.( so a word would never be said to be of "british origin")

2. Scotlands language is the same as irelands within around 500 words , every irishman is taught gaelic in ireland  , and taught about the gaelic links which bind scotland and ireland over the last three thousand years.

Caught out again with yet another slip of the tongue.

only a person who sees himself as british would use such terminology for language. No irishman would possobily say a word in english is of british origin.

you really are far too machiavellian for us plebs arent you gerry? 

So typical of you Thomas, make the debate personal or historical to 1800BC. You just can't debate the points. My point stands, I never said Bristish was a language. You did that, mr strawman.
Secondly every Irish man is taught Irish (seldom called gaelic, if you lived here you would know that) and most can't string a sentence after 14yrs in school. But you wouldn't know that, and I can also tell you very few would know anything about the links with Scotland, other than the prodestants brits that came over and stole the land from the Irish, apart from that Scotland doesn't get much of a mention.
But keep continuing with your personal insults, it just demonstrates your loosing the debate.

Have you anything of note to add about the glorious one sided deal that the likes of Nick, who hasn't a clue of its contents, has deemed a victory, or maybe you should just stick with personal insults.

I'll stick with the very very minor point I made which is that word is not of british origin.  A perfectly correct statement, unless you want to add some worrds and twist its mening.  Remember I was asking people not to lecture me on the word, which you seem to be only able to do, how ironic.

[GerryT]

you should feel vindicated toots.

Lets be clear , gerry has sat on our forums talking cac about brexit for the last few years. In fact talking cac about a lot more than brexit.

Everything he has predicted , right up to this thread has been proved to be absolute rubbish non stop.

Care to give some exampes of the points I made not being correct. Now I know you'd live to stray off topic as you usually do and talk about some invasion of Ireland in 1800BC but can you try your best to list brexit related points. 5 or 6 should do for starters

[Nick]

You seem to think the uk can walk away from commitments and legal obligations.

What governing body or mechanism stops us?
You'll now talk about the ramifications of doing so but that's not the argument.

[GerryT]

Gerrys porkie pies starting tocatch up with him by the dozen.

His latest wan about a quickly ratified deal that can't ever be changed forever and ever seems to be dissappearing quicker than snaw aff a dyke on the costa del govan.

Thats the trouble wae these highly intelligent machiavellian types , far too intelligent for the likes of us mere plebs.

Like usual Thomas your just making up stuff. You seem to think the uk can walk away from commitments and legal obligations. Good luck with that one. Johnson does talk sh1t about it but in the end his advisers will make sure he doesn't cross that line.

[GerryT]

You are aware that the UK is the EU's largest trading partner now Gerry?

In total trade terms, I thought USA then China, unless you have some new Info. Well then you had better sign that trade deal then. You wouldn't want to risk losing all that tariff free trade. Once you understand the importance of the percentage of trade the EU does with the UK and vice versa.

And now we have a deal it will be a shoe in that the US is going to deal with the UK. The guess what! The EU won't be our biggest trading partner.

So you know what the EU deal is with regard to food standards, and how that ties into the USA wanting to sell GM foods and angel dust beef into the UK ? How the UK/EU dispute resolution and level playing field issues have been resolved. How the EU/UK have resolved diverging standards on goods/workers rights/environment is being managed, I'm sure it's in the deal but very very little analysis coming out. I wonder why.
I'm not commenting as I haven't seen the detail, but your all excited and in celebration mode, I presume you know the detail.

Oh and Gerry, 11th hour deal that the EU was never going to do. 😂

If this deal is all one sided for the UK I suggest they sign it tomorrow, get it passed. But don't delay with any reading or anything like that. Just remember its binding and no future UK govt can change that.

[Thomas]

No, exactly what I meant, not of british (England/Wales/Scotland/NI) origin. I never said british was a language. Typical, seldom addressing the point, preferring to pick up on stupid irrelevance like this or maybe you want to go on about where I come from. I don't particularly mind, I know when you do that you've conceded the substantive issue anyway.

no irishman on this earth would say what you have just said and insinuated, which is because every irish man on the planet knows

1. there is no british language only english.( so a word would never be said to be of "british origin")

2. Scotlands language is the same as irelands within around 500 words , every irishman is taught gaelic in ireland  , and taught about the gaelic links which bind scotland and ireland over the last three thousand years.

Caught out again with yet another slip of the tongue.

only a person who sees himself as british would use such terminology for language. No irishman would possobily say a word in english is of british origin.

you really are far too machiavellian for us plebs arent you gerry?

[Sheepy]

I have little respect for a minority that are hell bent on causing damage to its neighbours but more importantly destroying the lives of many UK citizens.

Well as you are in Dublin so called, you have probably noticed, I find your ideas of what it is good and bad ideas for the UK a little amusing to say the least. Your concern is somewhat ironic.

[Thomas]

So you weren't misquoting me as you were answering a question from 2yrs ago.

your waffling gerry , i have no idea what you are on about . Please inform us more.

The point stands.

No it doesnt, tory mps and former brexit secretary david davis and many other government ministers past and present has said no soverign government in history would ever sign up to a deal it could not withdraw from.

So what are you talking about?

Johnson did threaten to break an international agreement in the WA, but he didn't did he.

the point im making is you were acting as though he was going to break it , so obviously you believed him , which puts to bed your nonsense argument that the uk couldnt , if it so chose , break any agreement. You quite obviously thought it could a few months back.

Thomas you need to try harder, much much harder.

i dont mate , this is so easy its frightening.

even cromwell is saying you talk cobblers and the rest know it as well.

It sounds like you want to go back to a time when countries invade each other non stop,

hang on you are the one who has been on this forum making agressive threats to the english because of brexit , and hating your own people as they were too clever for yourt new labour alleged machiavellian ways , now you are trying to bleat about peace and tranqulity.

LOLZ

What the hell are you talking about. You said "The yes movement hasnt been ecstatic about anything in this feckin union since 2014". I said they were and went on to outline the celebration over the WA -- oven ready and all that. Your barking up some mad tree.

for the forum to see this is a clear example of nice but dim gerrys lies.

is said..

The yes movement seem particularly optimisitic about johnsons deal which can't be a bad thing.

you replied...

They were ecstatic about the WA also.

which is a clearly demonstrable lie , and i replied to you further. Read the thread , and stop lying.