Johnson to renege on Withdrawal Agreement

Watch
Burton Bridge
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#61
Report 2 weeks ago
#61
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
Biggest load of tosh I’ve read on here, and that includes my posts.
That sets the bar high
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#62
Report 2 weeks ago
#62
(Original post by Rakas21)
On the later point that's the issue. The withdrawal agreement (divorce payment and NI provisions) are supposed to apply regardless.

I think we just need to wait, I'll be shocked if we end up no deal and don't pay our legal due fees.

Its also down to a genuine principal that you cannot amend a treaty you signed unilaterally.
the withdrawal agreement isn't a permanent treaty, its a temporary agreement thrown together in a haste because of the monumental **** up the Conservative government made brexit from 2015 to 2019, we ended up in a pickle days away from no deal.

Remoaners are naturally focussing on one side, leavers the other because nobody really likes the withdrawal stipulations for NI (it's an Irish land grab in effect).

agreed and neither are seeing reality. The WA was not ideal and as I said on here last year, "get Brexit done" isnt true "get brexit started" would be a more accurate slogan. Unfortunately its not very catchy

I tend to be neutral to supportive of the government here because although I don't much like breaching the treaty I don't at all like the withdrawal agreement either. For me the British parliament is sovereign and so if on this issue it votes the change through then I can live with that.

we need to wait to see what happens, negotiations are tough and both sides say/do extreme things they dont have intentions of doing, the compromise will come
Answers in bold mate.
Last edited by Burton Bridge; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#63
Report 2 weeks ago
#63
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
Answers in bold mate.
This isn't even really about the EU.

The facts of this case are relatively simple. We signed up to a deal voluntarily - we didn't have to. The government proclaimed this deal, the Tories put this deal at the heart of their manifesto, Parliament voted through this deal. It's law. That's unarguable.

The fact that it's a terrible deal we never should have signed up to is our fault.

The question is whether we should be a country that abides by international law and treaties, or one that doesn't. And if it's the latter, why would any country sign a deal with us again?
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#64
Report 2 weeks ago
#64
(Original post by Lucifer323)
And of course it doesn't matter that we could an have lost so many jobs with no prospect of recovering.
Perhaps i have missed your PhD in Economics but do you have any actual evidence of this... like, at all.

As somebody that has actually read the OBR/IMF/Treasury/BOE worst case scenario forecasts they essentially (and the effect will probably be muted in the short term by Covid having already ready reduced output and reduced employment) all agree that the UK is not going to head for some economic collapse but rather that we will simply header for slower long run growth than would otherwise have been the case (assuming no long term structural changes to the economy which we would be stupid not to engage in). If your able to feel the difference between average growth of 1.8% rather than 2.2% in your daily life then i commend you because you sir are a titan among mere men.
0
reply
Lucifer323
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#65
Report 2 weeks ago
#65
(Original post by DSilva)
This isn't even really about the EU.

The facts of this case are relatively simple. We signed up to a deal voluntarily - we didn't have to. The government proclaimed this deal, the Tories put this deal at the heart of their manifesto, Parliament voted through this deal. It's law. That's unarguable.

The fact that it's a terrible deal we never should have signed up to is our fault.

The question is whether we should be a country that abides by international law and treaties, or one that doesn't. And if it's the latter, why would any country sign a deal with us again?
According to the Tories we shouldn't abide by International Law or treaties.

According to another Brexiteer who writes here Mrs Maddie, International Law isn't really law...!!!

Well, you can make up your conclusions about the ignorance and ludicrous arguments coming from most Brexit Supporters who are 'offended' when we point to them the obvious.
Last edited by Lucifer323; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
Lucifer323
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#66
Report 2 weeks ago
#66
(Original post by Rakas21)
Perhaps i have missed your PhD in Economics but do you have any actual evidence of this... like, at all.

As somebody that has actually read the OBR/IMF/Treasury/BOE worst case scenario forecasts they essentially (and the effect will probably be muted in the short term by Covid having already ready reduced output and reduced employment) all agree that the UK is not going to head for some economic collapse but rather that we will simply header for slower long run growth than would otherwise have been the case (assuming no long term structural changes to the economy which we would be stupid not to engage in). If your able to feel the difference between average growth of 1.8% rather than 2.2% in your daily life then i commend you because you sir are a titan among mere men.
Hello Mr Rakas,

You should know that not everyone is an amateur here.

PhD yes, but not in economics. In a subject which economics is part of..

I want make an analysis here but will reply later on.

I will however divert a little to the comments made by Mrs Maddie another Brexiteer. She said that International Law is not really Law...

You do understand that it is better if someone doesn't engage with them in any conversation.
0
reply
Lucifer323
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#67
Report 2 weeks ago
#67
(Original post by L i b)
Proud campaigner for Britain Stronger in Europe here - the sort that actually did active campaigning for a Remain vote rather than just mouth off on the interwebs - and before that, for many years, a member of the European Movement UK.

But, of course, clearly a "right-wing Brexiteer".
At least I am getting most Brexiteers right... I can't possibly know all Brexiteers here. But from my list most are correct.
0
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#68
Report 2 weeks ago
#68
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
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
Fair play.

What I would say however is that there is no 'crowing' about breaking international law... This also plays into the bigger picture. I mean, the whole campaign was a lie to begin with, but now, he's lied about something that he won the GE on the back of. It's hardly a surprise, but it's still the principle. The man is a joke.
(Original post by DiddyDec)
The substance of the bill will not change regardless of which paper is reporting on it.
I tried to rep, but couldn't.
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
That sets the bar high
Now now.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#69
Report 2 weeks ago
#69
(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.
Haven't there been lots of deliberate breaches of international law postwar? For example, when the French blew up the Greenpeace vessel in New Zealand; when the allied forces invaded Iraq on deliberately falsified claims of weapons of mass destruction; when the US bombed Laos and Cambodia, neutral nations - I could go on, but in practise it's a long list. One also thinks of more recent cases involving EU member states such as Italy refusing to rescue stricken refugees in the Med, France waving refugees on to the UK, Spain harassing Gibraltar, etc.

I think Boris's biggest threat comes from the US Congress - his supposed free trade deal with the US won't amount to a hill of beans if a Democrat Senate blocks it, or President Biden gets annoyed. Biden has already critiqued the proposed bill.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#70
Report 2 weeks ago
#70
(Original post by Rakas21)
Perhaps i have missed your PhD in Economics but do you have any actual evidence of this... like, at all.

As somebody that has actually read the OBR/IMF/Treasury/BOE worst case scenario forecasts they essentially (and the effect will probably be muted in the short term by Covid having already ready reduced output and reduced employment) all agree that the UK is not going to head for some economic collapse but rather that we will simply header for slower long run growth than would otherwise have been the case (assuming no long term structural changes to the economy which we would be stupid not to engage in). If your able to feel the difference between average growth of 1.8% rather than 2.2% in your daily life then i commend you because you sir are a titan among mere men.
That is what they've said, but I can't understand why Brexiteers think this is acceptable. Is it really worth slipping behind the rest of the EU economically just to keep some Poles out, many of whom were leaving anyway?

Anyway, I don't believe these forecasts - it is going to be much worse that they say. Why? Partly because it is clear that a great many of our biggest companies are going to relocate to the EU. Secondly, an attractive trading location, Dublin, is just over the water and less than an hour's flying time away and speaks English and has solid connections with the US as well as the EU. Thirdly, the government are completely ignoring our massive service sector on the negotiations and are obsessed with flag waving issues such as fish. This strongly indicates a lack of overall concern for the real economy and points to a future of decline, with a sort of mad aristocratic government fiddling while Rome burns.
1
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#71
Report 2 weeks ago
#71
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
Fair play.

What I would say however is that there is no 'crowing' about breaking international law... This also plays into the bigger picture. I mean, the whole campaign was a lie to begin with, but now, he's lied about something that he won the GE on the back of. It's hardly a surprise, but it's still the principle. The man is a joke.

I tried to rep, but couldn't.

Now now.
Lol

Oh there is crowing, the nobody remainers names popping back out the woodwork to crow, the whole leave campaign wasn't a lie, no more than any polical campaign was/is a lie. Regards BJ lieing about something he won the GE on that's not strictly true either.

In any case, I still dont think we will end up with no deal.... time will tell
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#72
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#72
The EU has released a statement on the Bill.

They are less than impressed.
Image
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#73
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#73
Suella Braverman has also released a statement on the UK Government's legal position.

In it she says "treaty obligations only become binding to the extent that they are enshrined in domestic legislation" this is a lie.

Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties states the following;

"A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46."

Image
Last edited by DiddyDec; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#74
Report 2 weeks ago
#74
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Haven't there been lots of deliberate breaches of international law postwar? For example, when the French blew up the Greenpeace vessel in New Zealand; when the allied forces invaded Iraq on deliberately falsified claims of weapons of mass destruction; when the US bombed Laos and Cambodia, neutral nations - I could go on, but in practise it's a long list. One also thinks of more recent cases involving EU member states such as Italy refusing to rescue stricken refugees in the Med, France waving refugees on to the UK, Spain harassing Gibraltar, etc.

I think Boris's biggest threat comes from the US Congress - his supposed free trade deal with the US won't amount to a hill of beans if a Democrat Senate blocks it, or President Biden gets annoyed. Biden has already critiqued the proposed bill.
Rainbow Warrior- yes

Iraq- no
Every state actor believed Saddam was lying about his denials about weapons of mass destruction. Clearly some very dubious characters invented evidence about those weapons and allied spooks variously convinced themselves the evidence was genuine and "sexed up" sceptical reports about the evidence. In the same way that policemen "fit up" people they believe to be guilty, the politicians who invaed Iraq believed the invasion was justified.

Laos-Cambodia- no
The US and South Vietnam maintained that Laos and Cambodia were in breach of their duties to South Vietnam by failing o prevent infiltration by North Vietnamese forces,

Spain and Gibraltar - no
Spain regards Gibraltar as its territory which it claims is illegally occupied.

Whatever Cummings has wargamed as a strategy, this isn't going to get through the Lords. The Salisbury Convention doesn't apply. No hostile peer is going to accept this was a manifesto commitment by the Tories. He hasn't got a majority for his Bill in the Lords and he hasn't got the time for the Parliament Act. Cummings might fancy packing the Lords, but the Queen isn't going to agree to that without an election. The Queen worships her father and grandfather and she will do what George V demanded from Asquith.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#75
Report 2 weeks ago
#75
(Original post by DiddyDec)
Suella Braverman has also released a statement on the UK Government's legal position.

In it she says "treaty obligations only become binding to the extent that they are enshrined in domestic legislation" this is a lie.

Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties states the following;

"A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46."

Image
You are misrepresenting her position here. The extract you quote is clearly referrring back to "Parliament is sovereign as a matter of domestic law"
She is making a comment about the binding effect in domestic, not international law. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties has not been enacted into domestic law.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#76
Report 2 weeks ago
#76
Who is legally correct does not really matter here. As i have stated before, this an admission that the government expects the negotiations to collapse (removing the incentive for us to comply) and so either the EU will cave on the level playing field and the UK will have an 'embarrassing u-turn' on this bill (in reality our ploy will have worked) or the negotiations will collapse and this compounds the narrative that the nasty Eurocrats are trying force their foreign rules on us (great politics for the government since most people who will get angry did not vote with them in December).

Those of you focusing on the legal minutia are rather missing the real messages here. We have a withdrawal bill detonator and are essentially playing our last card in the trade negotiations (concede the level playing field or we will do this).

(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Haven't there been lots of deliberate breaches of international law postwar? For example, when the French blew up the Greenpeace vessel in New Zealand; when the allied forces invaded Iraq on deliberately falsified claims of weapons of mass destruction; when the US bombed Laos and Cambodia, neutral nations - I could go on, but in practise it's a long list. One also thinks of more recent cases involving EU member states such as Italy refusing to rescue stricken refugees in the Med, France waving refugees on to the UK, Spain harassing Gibraltar, etc.

I think Boris's biggest threat comes from the US Congress - his supposed free trade deal with the US won't amount to a hill of beans if a Democrat Senate blocks it, or President Biden gets annoyed. Biden has already critiqued the proposed bill.
Yeah, France gets into trouble with the ECJ all the time. Nobody outside the bubble cares much and it does impinge other negotiations.

It's worth saying that there is heavy caveat in the Democrat objection which is where they add 'if this forces a hard border'. Essentially it's just faux outrage and i expect with so much US investment in the UK already they probably would not bawk if Biden was president (more complicated if they keep the House but its Trumps deal they get to block).
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
That is what they've said, but I can't understand why Brexiteers think this is acceptable. Is it really worth slipping behind the rest of the EU economically just to keep some Poles out, many of whom were leaving anyway?

Anyway, I don't believe these forecasts - it is going to be much worse that they say. Why? Partly because it is clear that a great many of our biggest companies are going to relocate to the EU. Secondly, an attractive trading location, Dublin, is just over the water and less than an hour's flying time away and speaks English and has solid connections with the US as well as the EU. Thirdly, the government are completely ignoring our massive service sector on the negotiations and are obsessed with flag waving issues such as fish. This strongly indicates a lack of overall concern for the real economy and points to a future of decline, with a sort of mad aristocratic government fiddling while Rome burns.
It's acceptable in the sense that it's acceptable to actively tax growth through VAT or raise taxes on the rich. If we lived in a world where economic growth was all important then the left would never be elected and introduce policies which actively entail fiscal drag. We (or at least those Leavers who are not idiots) accept the fact that we may bleed but we are prepared to roll the dice on a potentially different economic model (i would hope the government is not just playing politics on state aid rules and will actually discriminate in favour of British business) and sovereignty (it may be hard to accept as a southerner but for millions in the UK, Europe is a foreign land. I personally do not consider myself European at all and so a foreign court dictating directives is politically offensive. Your also asserting that we will slip behind Eu nations while ignoring the fact that actually we generally outperform the Eurozone in terms of growth and that the majority of our growth is not dependent on even trade with the EU let alone membership.

To deal with your points in reverse the service sector not being dealt with is a bit of a red herring since the single market for services is incomplete anyway and global trade barriers for services are generally much less of an issue (we also won't be diverging all that much for years). In short beyond the finance sector (to which it may be advantageous to be independent if we can become the worlds clearing house rather than just europe's) there's not a massive level of harm (though i acknowledge some impact). To deal with with your first and second points i would assert that you are overestimating the number of firms which are reliant or owned by EU firms. The UK receives some of the largest inward investment in the world and has a much more dynamic business environment than our European peers. Even Germany does not get close to the level of new business creation in the UK and London is still forecast to retain its position as one of the most attractive cities in the world. The UK will bleed and so yes growth may be slower than would otherwise be the case as Mercedes build their next car in Germany rather than the UK but there won't be a mass exodus to Ireland or Berlin simply because of sunk costs and the fact that on a whole mirade of metrics the UK is an incredibly good place to do business in.
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#77
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#77
(Original post by nulli tertius)
You are misrepresenting her position here. The extract you quote is clearly referring back to "Parliament is sovereign as a matter of domestic law"
She is making a comment about the binding effect in domestic, not international law. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties has not been enacted into domestic law.
I disagree, she is attempting to justify breaking international law with domestic law which is not how international law works. We are bound to honour international law regardless, unless of course circumstances have changed radically which would allow the triggering of Article 62 of The Vienna Convention.
2
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#78
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#78
(Original post by Rakas21)
Who is legally correct does not really matter here. As i have stated before, this an admission that the government expects the negotiations to collapse (removing the incentive for us to comply) and so either the EU will cave on the level playing field and the UK will have an 'embarrassing u-turn' on this bill (in reality our ploy will have worked) or the negotiations will collapse and this compounds the narrative that the nasty Eurocrats are trying force their foreign rules on us (great politics for the government since most people who will get angry did not vote with them in December).

Those of you focusing on the legal minutia are rather missing the real messages here. We have a withdrawal bill detonator and are essentially playing our last card in the trade negotiations (concede the level playing field or we will do this).
The incentive to comply remains as if we do not the EU can rightly trigger penalty mechanisms for noncompliance. Regardless of how this looks politically while it may add fuel to Brexit fire it does not change whether or not we get a deal or whether we leave, that is already a foregone conclusion.

This penalties will likely be financial in nature and could lead to trade sanctions with further noncompliance of payment of those penalties. This is worst case scenario. The EU already thinks they have grounds to trigger those penalties even if the bill is not passed.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#79
Report 2 weeks ago
#79
(Original post by DiddyDec)
The incentive to comply remains as if we do not the EU can rightly trigger penalty mechanisms for noncompliance. Regardless of how this looks politically while it may add fuel to Brexit fire it does not change whether or not we get a deal or whether we leave, that is already a foregone conclusion.

This penalties will likely be financial in nature and could lead to trade sanctions with further noncompliance of payment of those penalties. This is worst case scenario. The EU already thinks they have grounds to trigger those penalties even if the bill is not passed.
I’m not sure there are provisions for a penalty that is financial in nature and there’s certainly no court capable of enforcing it.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#80
Report 2 weeks ago
#80
In an amusing about turn for some remoaners it seems the government and Labour may have agreed an amendment to the bill to allow them to back it.

The amendment is simply that in the case of no deal there will be votes In parliament on the three specific breaches before Dec 31st (in which case I'd expect labour to avoid having handprints on the weapon and abstain).
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)
21.43%
No (275)
78.57%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed