Johnson to renege on Withdrawal Agreement

Watch
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#21
Report 2 weeks ago
#21
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
You're mistaken. I'm suggesting we get out and ignore European harmony. We wait for the inevitable crumble of the EU. Everything else you said suffers from saying lots of words without substance. No one is a global laughing stocks. That's all nonsense. As too is talk of economic euthanasia.

International law isn't proper law. We're free to break is if it benefits us. As other have done and will continue to do. There aren't any serious punishments to come from it.
Absolute tosh. International law very much is proper law.

(Original post by Rakas21)
I am in agreement with Maddie.

The withdrawal agreement as it stood last year was a blatant land grab by Ireland and as such beyond the politics of getting the process moved on i don't especially care that the government intends to tear it up (though it's more an admission that we are headed for No Deal so why stomach a bit we really hate).

To the wider negotiations i also agree that the government should not relent on the level playing field. There is more benefit in the long run from doing things which breach state aid, procurement and tax rules in the EU than even going around signing trade agreements in my opinion. That is before the intangible sovereignty benefit.
Very disappointed to see you take such an unprincipled stance. This deal is one we voluntarily signed up for. It's one that Parliament voted through and the Tories campaigned on during an election. If we care about the rule of law and our democratic process, we must obide by our legal obligations. If not, we're no better than a banana Republic.

Not to mention that no country, anywhere, will ever sign a trade deal or treaty with us again if we don't honour our obligations.
3
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#22
Report 2 weeks ago
#22
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
The deal was only a stop-gap until a better deal could be negotiated. As a deal can't be negotiated it's right to opt for the next best thing (no deal). Reneging on a treaty isn't a big deal.
Impressive, wrong on all 3 counts. Especially the last one.

My hope is he remains strong and does follow through on all the threats. The worst move would be caving to anything the EU want. I don't like to call the discussions 'negotiations. Calling them negotiations implies both sides compromise on things. I don't want to see that. I would rather Britain refuses to make compromises!
Sigh and this is why Britain is a 3rd rate power these days.
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#23
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#23
(Original post by Napp)
Sigh and this is why Britain is a 3rd rate power these days.
Will of the people and all that.
1
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#24
Report 2 weeks ago
#24
(Original post by DiddyDec)
Will of the people and all that.
B...b...but the EU will just give us an amazing deal coz they'd be too stupid not too right?
0
reply
Lucifer323
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#25
Report 2 weeks ago
#25
(Original post by DiddyDec)
Boris Johnson has reportedly decided that the "oven ready" deal that he personally negotiated now doesn't make sense.

In doing so the UK will be breaking an international treaty before trade deals with other nations who are expected to trust us.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...hnson-tell-eu/
Spoiler:
Show


The Brexit divorce deal is "contradictory" and must be rewritten to protect the Union, Boris Johnson will tell EU leaders on Tuesday.

The Prime Minister believes the UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement is legally ambiguous and would leave Northern Ireland isolated from the rest of the UK, something that was "unforeseen" when he agreed to it last year.

Michel Barnier, the EU's chief Brexit negotiator, arrives in London on Tuesday morning for the latest round of formal trade talks after Mr Johnson said he "will not back down" over his plan to change the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement through legislation being tabled on Wednesday.

The move has triggered a major row between London and Brussels, with the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, saying the issue was a matter of "trust".
She threatened not to do business with Britain in future if the Government refused to abide by the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement, which Brussels insists is legally binding.

Mr Barnier said honouring the existing agreement was a "precondition" for progress to be made in trade deal negotiations this week, while critics of Mr Johnson accused him of wanting to force a "no trade deal" exit at the end of the year.
A Brexit Withdrawal Q&A
But David Frost, the UK's lead negotiator, will tell Mr Barnier it is time for the EU to recognise the "reality" that Britain is a sovereign state, free to set its own laws. He will also "drive home our clear message that we must make progress this week if we are to reach an agreement in time".

Downing Street insisted it merely wanted to "clarify" parts of the Agreement to protect the interests of Northern Ireland and the ongoing peace process as a "safety net" in case no trade deal is agreed, and that a deal was still the Government's objective.

A Number 10 spokesman left little doubt that Mr Johnson did not believe the Withdrawal Agreement – originally negotiated by Theresa May – made sense, as the UK internal market and the peace process would be "compromised by unintended consequences" if it was not amended.

Mr Johnson renegotiated the terms of the Northern Ireland Protocol, removing the so-called "backstop", before agreeing the terms of Britain's exit from the EU in October.

The current legal default position is that, after December 31, all goods passing from mainland Britain to Northern Ireland would be subject to customs checks and tariffs, that businesses in Northern Ireland would have to fill in customs declarations for goods being sold to the mainland, and that EU rules on state aid could be applied to mainland companies selling goods in Northern Ireland.

But a senior Government source said some of the consequences "were not foreseen" at the time. The source added: "The protocol is contradictory in some respects – it talks about protecting the EU single market but also giving Northern Ireland unfettered access to the UK market. You can't have both.

"Without a trade deal, all goods passing from the mainland to Northern Ireland would be subject to tariffs, because they would be classed as being 'at risk' of being sold on to the EU market. Even though traders could later claim back the money by proving the goods didn't leave the UK, the administrative costs would be considerable."

Ms von der Leyen warned there could be no backtracking by the UK on its previous commitments if it wanted to reach a free trade agreement, saying: "I trust the British Government to implement the Withdrawal Agreement, an obligation under international law and prerequisite for any future partnership."

Leaked diplomatic cables sent to EU capitals from Brussels in recent days accuse Mr Johnson of dithering on issues such as fisheries, state aid and dispute resolution during negotiations in order to achieve a "trade-off" at the eleventh hour.

A commission official has told EU diplomats these points can't be ironed out with a simple phone call, saying "it is leaving it too late", according to The Guardian.

In a letter to Conservative supporters, Mr Johnson said he "will not back down" but added that he still hoped for a trade deal.
The Prime Minister spoke to French president, Emmanuel Macron, on Tuesday, when both agreed on the need to make progress in the talks. Mr Macron said the two had a "very good exchange", suggesting he does not regard Mr Johnson's latest move as a deal-breaker.

Mr Frost said on Monday night: "We have now been talking for six months and can no longer afford to go over well-trodden ground. We need to see more realism from the EU about our status as an independent country.

"We have repeatedly made clear that key elements of our position derive from the fundamentals of being a sovereign state, and it's time for the EU to fully recognise this reality.

"If they can't do that in the very limited time, we have left then we will be trading on terms like those the EU has with Australia, and we are ramping up our preparations for the end of the year."
He said there was "still time to reach a good agreement". On Sunday, Mr Johnson had set a five-week deadline for an agreement to be reached.

Mr Johnson is understood to have reassured him that the changes were limited and technical, and that he would honour commitments made when the deal was agreed last year.

The Internal Market Bill, to be tabled on Wednesday, will ensure that goods from Northern Ireland continue to have unfettered access to the UK market while making clear that EU state aid rules – which will continue to apply in Northern Ireland – will not apply in the rest of the UK.

In addition, an amendment to the Finance Bill will give ministers, not the EU, the power to designate which goods going from Great Britain to Northern Ireland are considered "at risk" of entering the EU single market and are therefore liable to EU tariffs.
The Prime Minister's spokesman said: "As a responsible Government, we cannot allow the peace process or the UK's internal market to inadvertently be compromised by unintended consequences of the protocol.

"So we are taking limited and reasonable steps to clarify specific elements of the Northern Ireland protocol in domestic law to remove any ambiguity and to ensure the Government is always able to deliver on its commitments to the people of Northern Ireland."


Due to this the Head of the UK Government Legal Department has now resigned.

https://www.ft.com/content/6186bf1c-...3-4eea763e1b94
Spoiler:
Show


The head of the UK’s government legal department, has quit over suggestions that Boris Johnson is trying to row back on parts of last year’s Brexit deal relating to Northern Ireland.

Jonathan Jones is the sixth senior Whitehall civil servant to resign this year, amid growing tensions between the prime minister and officials at the top of the civil service.

Two Whitehall officials with knowledge of the situation told the Financial Times that the Treasury solicitor and permanent secretary of the Government Legal Department was leaving his position due to a dispute with Downing Street over its plans to challenge parts of the Brexit withdrawal agreement.

Those close to Sir Jonathan said he was “very unhappy” about the decision to overwrite parts of the Northern Ireland protocol, part of the 2019 withdrawal agreement, with new powers in the UK internal market bill.

Number 10 insisted the new powers were “limited” and were needed to bring clarity to the protocol agreed and signed by Mr Johnson last October.Sir Jonathan’s departure follows the exit of cabinet secretary Mark Sedwill, Simon McDonald from the Foreign Office, Philip Rutnam from the Home Office, Richard Heaton from the Ministry of Justice and Jonathan Slater from the Department for Education.

Dominic Cummings, Mr Johnson’s chief adviser, wants civil servants to take more responsibility when things go wrong, but the failure of any minister to quit during the coronavirus crisis has heightened tensions. He has also promised that a “hard rain” will fall across Whitehall.

His formal departure is expected to be announced on Tuesday. The Cabinet Office declined to comment.

This is what solicitors do when they can no longer defend their client.
(Original post by DiddyDec)
Why bother with agreements if one party can just change their end of the bargain to suit themselves whenever they want?

Would you make deals with someone that can't be trust to keep a promise?
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
I am beyond annoyed at this now. This is an utter **** up. It was anyway, but this man is an absolute disgrace. This was the ‘oven ready deal’ that he presented to the British people in a GE. If there’s something wrong with that deal that HE made, then we should have another GE, as it’s finally been revealed he’s talking through his arse again. Add to that, the sheer brazenness of being willing to not only tear up a withdrawal agreement but also in turn ignore what is an international peace treaty in the GFA; I’m speechless.

‘Brexit deal never made sense’ says man who negotiated it, signed it, prevented MPs from scrutinising it, campaigned for it and won a general election on the back of it.

He wants arrested. I hope the sheep that voted for this process and this man are happy. We’re even more of a laughing stock than we were.

Image

/rant
(Original post by barnetlad)
The EU are acting reasonably all along in my opinion. I am so ashamed of this country and the criminal liar in number 10 that I do my utmost to avoid being seen as English when I am abroad.

The EU also remember his behaviour when the Brussels correspondent of the Daily Telegraph.
Please don't say such things around here as the Right Wing Brexiteers will be very unhappy! Such as

Mr Liber
Mr Paul
Mr L i b
Mr Burton
And a couple of others...

Besides and as I said to my other Thread: Those who vote for the Tories are either naive or stupid or both...
Although Brexit did steal votes from Labour idiots, the entire project is another success of the most ludicrous party in the UK consisting of the greatest Charlatans and Clowns of politics.

But wait a moment! What evidence do you have to condemn Brexit? What's that? Common sense?? Did you say common sense?! Did you say evidence based research by the London School of Economics?

These are not enough!!!

There is nothing more reliable and credible than

The SUN
The Daily Mail
The Daily Telegraph
The Daily Express
The Daily Star
Last edited by Lucifer323; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
Lucifer323
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#26
Report 2 weeks ago
#26
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
The deal was only a stop-gap until a better deal could be negotiated. As a deal can't be negotiated it's right to opt for the next best thing (no deal). Reneging on a treaty isn't a big deal.

My hope is he remains strong and does follow through on all the threats. The worst move would be caving to anything the EU want. I don't like to call the discussions 'negotiations. Calling them negotiations implies both sides compromise on things. I don't want to see that. I would rather Britain refuses to make compromises!
You have absolutely no clue of what is going on!!!

Let's take our country back
Let's look at the world
Feedom from the oppresion of then EU
£350M per week for the NHS

And other oddities...
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#27
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#27
(Original post by Lucifer323)
Please don't say such things around here as the Right Wing Brexiteers will be very unhappy! Such as

Mr Liber
Mr Paul
Mr L i b
Mr Burton
And a couple of others...

Besides and as I said to my other Thread: Those who vote for the Tories are either naive or stupid or both...
Although Brexit did steal votes from Labour idiots, the entire project is another success of the most ludicrous party in the UK consisting of the greatest Charlatans and Clowns of politics.

But wait a moment! What evidence do you have to condemn Brexit? What's that? Common sense?? Did you say common sense?! Did you say evidence based research by the London School of Economics?

These are not enough!!!

There is nothing more reliable and credible than

The SUN
The Daily Mail
The Daily Telegraph
The Daily Express
The Daily Star
My OP literally quotes The Torygraph :lol:

(Original post by DSilva)
B...b...but the EU will just give us an amazing deal coz they'd be too stupid not too right?
We hold all the cards :rofl:
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#28
Report 2 weeks ago
#28
(Original post by DSilva)
Absolute tosh. International law very much is proper law.

Very disappointed to see you take such an unprincipled stance. This deal is one we voluntarily signed up for. It's one that Parliament voted through and the Tories campaigned on during an election. If we care about the rule of law and our democratic process, we must obide by our legal obligations. If not, we're no better than a banana Republic.

Not to mention that no country, anywhere, will ever sign a trade deal or treaty with us again if we don't honour our obligations.
We were trapped and needed to move on to the next stage. While I regret us not being able to act in good faith there’s really no incentive to maintain such an agreement without a trade agreement (this is effectively an admission we are allowing negotiations to end).

Our democratic process is being satisfied, our sovereign parliament will approve these changes.

You say this while ignoring the number of states in breach of a host of agreements. What makes this one so much more meaningful than any other countries. A single instance in a single part does not constitute a pattern.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#29
Report 2 weeks ago
#29
(Original post by Rakas21)
We were trapped and needed to move on to the next stage. While I regret us not being able to act in good faith there’s really no incentive to maintain such an agreement without a trade agreement (this is effectively an admission we are allowing negotiations to end).

Our democratic process is being satisfied, our sovereign parliament will approve these changes.

You say this while ignoring the number of states in breach of a host of agreements. What makes this one so much more meaningful than any other countries. A single instance in a single part does not constitute a pattern.
This is a legally binding international treaty which we voluntarily signed up to.

If we don't abide by our legal obligations or uphold international treaties we are party to then no country will ever sign a treaty or trade agreement with us again. And why would they? Why would they sign an agreement with a country they can't trust to honour their obligations? Would you sign a deal with someone you couldn't trust to keep their end of it?

I love this country, and fundamental to that is the rule of law. I want this country to set an example to others. Shame you don't.
Last edited by DSilva; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#30
Report 2 weeks ago
#30
(Original post by DSilva)
This is a legally binding international treaty which we voluntarily signed up to.

If we don't abide by our legal obligations or uphold international treaties we are party to then no country will ever sign a treaty or trade agreement with us again. And why would they? Why would they sign an agreement with a country they can't trust to honour their obligations? Would you sign a deal with someone you couldn't trust to keep their end of it?

I love this country, and fundamental to that is the rule of law. I want this country to set an example to others. Shame you don't.
I agree but your conflating a single instance as being a pattern. Hell, the ECJ took France to court more often than the U.K. while we were members but I don’t see you suggesting France is a pariah state.

This is a very specific circumstance forced upon us by previous parliamentary constraints and EU intransigence.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#31
Report 2 weeks ago
#31
(Original post by Rakas21)
I agree but your conflating a single instance as being a pattern. Hell, the ECJ took France to court more often than the U.K. while we were members but I don’t see you suggesting France is a pariah state.

This is a very specific circumstance forced upon us by previous parliamentary constraints and EU intransigence.
No, it was forced upon us by ourselves.

Johnson paraded this 'deal' as a huge success, as if he'd forced huge concessions from the EU. He campaigned on it, every Tory MP voted it through Parliament. In reality, this was a terrible deal which amounted to the UK capitulating to the EU.

But that's our own fault. If you voluntarily sign up to an an awful deal, you don't just get to ignore it because you now don't like it. We are legally bound by it.

This idea that it's fine for us to break the law is ludicrous. It's unpatriotic and unconservative. It goes against what this country stands for. And really, I expected better from you.

It's not a specific or limited contravention. It drives a horse and cart through the agreement we signed up to.
1
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#32
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#32
(Original post by Rakas21)
This is a very specific circumstance forced upon us by previous parliamentary constraints and EU intransigence.
It wasn't forced on us at all. Johnson made this deal and was very happy with it, in fact he forced every Tory MP to pledge to vote for it.

How does a deal go from being "fantastic" to "not making sense" without the deal changing?
0
reply
Lucifer323
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#33
Report 2 weeks ago
#33
(Original post by Rakas21)
We were trapped and needed to move on to the next stage. While I regret us not being able to act in good faith there’s really no incentive to maintain such an agreement without a trade agreement (this is effectively an admission we are allowing negotiations to end).

Our democratic process is being satisfied, our sovereign parliament will approve these changes.

You say this while ignoring the number of states in breach of a host of agreements. What makes this one so much more meaningful than any other countries. A single instance in a single part does not constitute a pattern.
Indeed we were trapped but in a very different manner...

The most immature and ignorant electorate in Europe, if not in the world, chose to follow a bunch of Charlatan & Populists Politicians and voted against the National Interest. The damage is more than financial of course.

The worst decision in the history of Politics. Even worst than voting for the Tories continuously.
0
reply
Lucifer323
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#34
Report 2 weeks ago
#34
(Original post by DiddyDec)
It wasn't forced on us at all. Johnson made this deal and was very happy with it, in fact he forced every Tory MP to pledge to vote for it.

How does a deal go from being "fantastic" to "not making sense" without the deal changing?
We shouldn't forget that we consider here the Tories as a Party and those who vote for them.

Everything is possible! From Fantastic to Nonsensical in a few weeks!
There is no logic when the Tories are involved and of course just as I have been saying in my thread Those who vote for the Tories, there is no logic and rational arguments to vote for them if you are not wealthy and rich. If you do it continuously you are plain stupid snd nothing else.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#35
Report 2 weeks ago
#35
(Original post by Rakas21)
We were trapped and needed to move on to the next stage. While I regret us not being able to act in good faith there’s really no incentive to maintain such an agreement without a trade agreement (this is effectively an admission we are allowing negotiations to end).

Our democratic process is being satisfied, our sovereign parliament will approve these changes.

You say this while ignoring the number of states in breach of a host of agreements. What makes this one so much more meaningful than any other countries. A single instance in a single part does not constitute a pattern.
There are three things that make this exceptional

It isn't covered by dipomatic falsehood. Of course, this isn't the same order of magnitude, but can you think of any instance of a deliberate breach of international law since the 1930s? Iraq took back control of its 19th Province. The independent peoples of Crimea sought union with Russia. The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia punished his disobedient servants.

This is a recent commitment expressly adopted to deal with issue about which the breach is proposed. It is not a generic treaty, one of whose terms comes into conflict with something not extressly provided for in the treaty such as prisoner voting and the ECHR.

The committment was entered into by the same people who are going to breach it. This is not a Government caught by the unwise promises of its predecessors.

Boris has essentially gambled that he will get away with this. He may be right, or this will all unwind and his Government will fall.
0
reply
Lucifer323
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#36
Report 2 weeks ago
#36
(Original post by nulli tertius)
There are three things that make this exceptional

It isn't covered by dipomatic falsehood. Of course, this isn't the same order of magnitude, but can you think of any instance of a deliberate breach of international law since the 1930s? Iraq took back control of its 19th Province. The independent peoples of Crimea sought union with Russia. The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia punished his disobedient servants.

This is a recent commitment expressly adopted to deal with issue about which the breach is proposed. It is not a generic treaty, one of whose terms comes into conflict with something not extressly provided for in the treaty such as prisoner voting and the ECHR.

The committment was entered into by the same people who are going to breach it. This is not a Government caught by the unwise promises of its predecessors.

Boris has essentially gambled that he will get away with this. He may be right, or this will all unwind and his Government will fall.
A Government of fools and charlatans can only add assault to the injury.
0
reply
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#37
Report 2 weeks ago
#37
(Original post by DSilva)
No, it was forced upon us by ourselves.

Johnson paraded this 'deal' as a huge success, as if he'd forced huge concessions from the EU. He campaigned on it, every Tory MP voted it through Parliament. In reality, this was a terrible deal which amounted to the UK capitulating to the EU.

But that's our own fault. If you voluntarily sign up to an an awful deal, you don't just get to ignore it because you now don't like it. We are legally bound by it.

This idea that it's fine for us to break the law is ludicrous. It's unpatriotic and unconservative. It goes against what this country stands for. And really, I expected better from you.

It's not a specific or limited contravention. It drives a horse and cart through the agreement we signed up to.
Law and order is something the Conservatives make a lot of noise of supporting. A tradition going back to when Robert Peel was their leader. Even if the reality has been that they have cut police numbers more than recent Labour governments.

Another reason why I say this is not a Conservative government, but one made up of members of the Conservative Party.
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#38
Report 2 weeks ago
#38
(Original post by Lucifer323)
Please don't say such things around here as the Right Wing Brexiteers will be very unhappy! Such as

Mr Liber
Mr Paul
Mr L i b
Mr Burton
And a couple of others...
Please explain
1) how Lib is a brexiteer?
2) how I am right wing?

Feel free to chant on with your parrot like drivel about the world being thick and stupid, Charlatans and Clowns and some BS about the Sun newspaper. In fact would you like me to reply for you...
0
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#39
Report 2 weeks ago
#39
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
You're mistaken. I'm suggesting we get out and ignore European harmony. We wait for the inevitable crumble of the EU. Everything else you said suffers from saying lots of words without substance. No one is a global laughing stocks. That's all nonsense. As too is talk of economic euthanasia.

International law isn't proper law. We're free to break is if it benefits us. As other have done and will continue to do. There aren't any serious punishments to come from it.
"We wait for the inevitable crumble of the EU"

Not going to happen. If anything because of Covid they need each other more than ever, it is us who will be the outcasts.

"No one is a global laughing stock"

We are, don't lie to yourself. And this just tips us over the edge. Like another poster has said, do you really think anyone will take us seriously, or want to trade with us given the circumstances?

"International law isn't proper law. We're free to break is if it benefits us. As other have done and will continue to do. There aren't any serious punishments to come from it."

So trade embargoes etc wouldn't be damaging to an already dead nation, I suppose. It is also the sheer principle of it. Like I said above, do you want to be viewed as a country which has no morals?
(Original post by DiddyDec)
Will of the people and all that.
Ya ya. 52% knew what they were voting for. :rolleyes:
(Original post by DSilva)
B...b...but the EU will just give us an amazing deal coz they'd be too stupid not too right?
"They need us more than we need them."
(Original post by Lucifer323)
Please don't say such things around here as the Right Wing Brexiteers will be very unhappy! Such as

Mr Liber
Mr Paul
Mr L i b
Mr Burton
And a couple of others...

Besides and as I said to my other Thread: Those who vote for the Tories are either naive or stupid or both...
Although Brexit did steal votes from Labour idiots, the entire project is another success of the most ludicrous party in the UK consisting of the greatest Charlatans and Clowns of politics.

But wait a moment! What evidence do you have to condemn Brexit? What's that? Common sense?? Did you say common sense?! Did you say evidence based research by the London School of Economics?

These are not enough!!!

There is nothing more reliable and credible than

The SUN
The Daily Mail
The Daily Telegraph
The Daily Express
The Daily Star
The Mr's in front of usernames always make me laugh.
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
Please explain
1) how Lib is a brexiteer?
2) how I am right wing?

Feel free to chant on with your parrot like drivel about the world being thick and stupid, Charlatans and Clowns and some BS about the Sun newspaper. In fact would you like me to reply for you...
I'm intrigued what you think of this. In terms of, I'm not getting into another Brexit argument with you because we've been there and done that and both received plenty of T-Shirts, however, do you honestly think it's justifiable to break international law to 'Get Brexit done?'
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#40
Report 2 weeks ago
#40
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
I'm intrigued what you think of this. In terms of, I'm not getting into another Brexit argument with you because we've been there and done that and both received plenty of T-Shirts, however, do you honestly think it's justifiable to break international law to 'Get Brexit done?'
No I dont think it's a good idea to break an agreement or international law.

I'm going to be completely honest, I've been busy in my personal/professional life of recent therefore I'm a little out of touch with happenings. I'm not 100% sure what the current train wreck of a government has done, or what part if the agreement they have broke. However I don't think it's a good idea to break international agreements at a time when we are trying to sign new ones (or at least should be).

In short I'm not defending the government, however I'm a little uninformed on the subject matter at present, I'm finding it amusing how some hard core remainers are desperate to crow about stuff like this though
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you confident you could find support for your mental health if you needed it in COVID-19?

Yes (75)
21.61%
No (272)
78.39%

Watched Threads

View All