Jump to content

Beyond Brexit - A new dawn? A leap of faith?


Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, The_godfather said:

Forget the hot mess of the rest of the reply, this is the key line; the emperor's new clothes.

What kind of country doesn't have values, or culture that are conducive to international law? A tinpot dictatorship; an authoritarian state, a revolution?

Loads of countries, apparently, only follow the law when it suits them. So on that basis, it's only fair, and reasonable that we should just pick and choose which laws we should follow, based on our values and culture; not the laws themselves. Maybe we should extend that train of thought, whereby individuals could also pick and choose which laws to break when they are not conducive to their values and culture. 

That seems like a sensible way to run a society.

Haha I love this tactic.

 

"Forget the hot mess of the rest of reply"

 

Well let's not forget it for a moment, the rest of the reply was a copy on paste section of the exact UK law which gives the UK authority to set aside this <ovf censored> "international law" that you are hanging your hat on.

 

The other thing in that post that you are very keen to forget is 2 examples of GERMANY deciding in their courts that their domestic law is sovereign even though it is not compatible with an international law.

 

I'm not sure why you have called either of those things a hot mess but I think we all know why you'd like to forget about them. It is so you can try and label the UK as an "authoritarian tinpot dictatorship".

 

Why don't you tell me what law is sovereign in the UK, is it UK law or international law? 

Who punishes us if we break international law?

How can I hold the people who create international law, accountable? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There's a difference between not accepting the result and not agreeing with the result.  I accepted it would happen but that doesn't make me think it's the right thing to do.  The Brexiteers have been

Grammar.

I hope Brexit is everything that has been promised.  I am long enough in the tooth to realise that the people making those promises have made a career from telling lies without shame. The result

Posted Images

The way I see it..... Boris is correct in changing the agreement if a loop hole has been found which the EU will take advantage of, in fact if it benefits the U.K. he should change the agreement as much as he can. What I think he has totally cocked up is the fact all this should have been picked up in the first place and the agreement should have been bolted down so that there are no possible loop holes that can be manipulated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, philpvfc said:

The way I see it..... Boris is correct in changing the agreement if a loop hole has been found which the EU will take advantage of, in fact if it benefits the U.K. he should change the agreement as much as he can. What I think he has totally cocked up is the fact all this should have been picked up in the first place and the agreement should have been bolted down so that there are no possible loop holes that can be manipulated. 

Exactly so, Phil, and it's perfectly possible that the loop holes would have been spotted if Parliament had been given the a proper length of time to scrutinise the details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jacko51 said:

Exactly so, Phil, and it's perfectly possible that the loop holes would have been spotted if Parliament had been given the a proper length of time to scrutinise the details.

Doubt it, MPs as a whole are not fit for purpose but someone with some clout on legal sides should have spotted the potential pitfalls. I’ve got more of a worry that there are other loopholes we have missed that the EU will take advantage of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, philpvfc said:

The way I see it..... Boris is correct in changing the agreement if a loop hole has been found which the EU will take advantage of, in fact if it benefits the U.K. he should change the agreement as much as he can. What I think he has totally cocked up is the fact all this should have been picked up in the first place and the agreement should have been bolted down so that there are no possible loop holes that can be manipulated. 

I asked a while ago who were the "experts" who scrutinised the documents so diligently,  the ones especially trained, selected and paid to know and understand the possible pitfalls contained within the documents.

MPs depend on others to do the donkey work, some of them don't have the brain cells to operate a stapler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I asked a while ago who were the "experts" who scrutinised the documents so diligently,  the ones especially trained, selected and paid to know and understand the possible pitfalls contained within the documents.
MPs depend on others to do the donkey work, some of them don't have the brain cells to operate a stapler.
The EU have been doing it for 40 odd years on our behalf as well as the other 20 odd members, where have our experts come from? The easiest deal in the world brigade, went there with no papers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Doha said:

:laugh:

What is that disinformation <ovf censored> supposed to be?

Puddled.

You sure know how to choose a source. 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-KS7pbRXz5jKLugwmVxGPA/videos

Its not supposed to be anything other than what it is.

It perports to be an example of breaking international law, there are others that claim the same thing.

I have no idea how accurate it is or how trustworthy or reliable the source is.

Some people are claiming the government are breaking the law by making a law, I maintain that it's not the making of the law that's the problem, the problem arises if that law is acted upon not simply because it's made. Some are infering every country obeys international law,  which they don't and no one is above the law, which is questionable.

Make of it what you will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, geosname said:

Its not supposed to be anything other than what it is.

It perports to be an example of breaking international law, there are others that claim the same thing.

I have no idea how accurate it is or how trustworthy or reliable the source is.

Some people are claiming the government are breaking the law by making a law, I maintain that it's not the making of the law that's the problem, the problem arises if that law is acted upon not simply because it's made. Some are infering every country obeys international law,  which they don't and no one is above the law, which is questionable.

Make of it what you will.

It might be best to ask Germany about breaking International law geo,along with Spain they seem to be the masters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, For Us All said:

It might be best to ask Germany about breaking International law geo,along with Spain they seem to be the masters.

This is the school yard response to being caught out - "Well he was doing it as well, sir"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 21/09/2020 at 20:18, Regal Beagle said:

Haha I love this tactic.

 

"Forget the hot mess of the rest of reply"

 

Well let's not forget it for a moment, the rest of the reply was a copy on paste section of the exact UK law which gives the UK authority to set aside this <ovf censored> "international law" that you are hanging your hat on.

 

The other thing in that post that you are very keen to forget is 2 examples of GERMANY deciding in their courts that their domestic law is sovereign even though it is not compatible with an international law.

 

I'm not sure why you have called either of those things a hot mess but I think we all know why you'd like to forget about them. It is so you can try and label the UK as an "authoritarian tinpot dictatorship".

 

Why don't you tell me what law is sovereign in the UK, is it UK law or international law? 

Who punishes us if we break international law?

How can I hold the people who create international law, accountable? 

 

 

RB, I only have 24hrs in a day, so unfortunately I just don't have time to rebut line by line the ill-informed nonsense that you continue to put on here, whatever the best intentions are. I do actually appreciate that you continue to try and piece together some sort of argument, even as I find it within it as many holes as the A500. It wasn't a tactic. I picked the central point of your post/argument to refute. If you would like me to elaborate on it, I will do so.

No issue in relation to the content of your copy and paste. No issue in relation to acknowledgment that Clause 38 of the WAB does indeed state that Parliament is 'sovereign'. The key word in that paste is "notwithstanding" - it's doing a lot of heavy lifting.

It means "even though". It's a posthumous addition of 'sovereignty'. The Withdrawal Agreement was already signed. The terms were agreed upon, deemed 'oven ready' indeed. Even though we signed it and agreed to it, we've decided internally after that we can just override it and change it. Our law is now incompatible, and we can do what we like.

Flip it 180 degrees. The UK agree something, anything with someone, anyone. Then after, the other party internally decide - "well, look even though we've signed it, we've decided to change our mind". You'd be screaming bloody murder. How dare they? It's enshrined in law, blah blah blah. Go further. What's the point in having any kind of agreement, for anything? We'll just override the bit we don't like, we're sovereign don't you know? It's a graceless, limited argument. Even if you win the battle, so what? The war will be lost.

In short, you cannot argue in good conscience, only in bad, that breaking the law is somehow a matter of choice based on culture.

You cannot then, as evidence to back that up, say - "look Germany are doing it, you're not mentioning that!" (OK, I will do so.  Germany break law. Germany bad. EU not punish Germany for break law. EU bad. Do you feel better now?)
 
In particular, you cannot, to back your point up, cite as evidence a couple of especially poor supposed examples of this.

First example

Your first link to the Spectator article was written by a lawyer. While he says that Germany broke international law, and the EU have not yet done anything about it, he also says the following:

1) "There are endless examples of breaches of international law by the 193 nations. The UK is, rightly, one of the good guys. It is my view that the solution is to simply copy Germany. Germany’s constitution puts international law on the highest footing – at least expressly, because if I am right and ours moves to copy it them then ours will too."

2) In the associated, linked Spectator article (yes, I do the reading!), Britain should back the EU in the argument, not Germany. Why?  Because "...what matters is that EU law is part of the international legal order. Honouring it is as important as honouring any other international treaty. Nobody in Britain should split here along any political fault line other than support for international law."

Are we getting it? A lawyer says we should support the EU, and copy Germany. So far, so good.

In addition, this example is just a bad one. I'm sure there are better ones. It relates to a legal ruling in Germany, from their court, relating to the European Central Bank's public sector purchase programme. It does not compare well to a very obvious and partisan political manoeuvre to try and escape from a deal that you yourself have negotiated, agreed, not properly ratified.  

Second example

The second article you linked to refers to a 2015 report on cross border bribery. It specifically states that Germany is 1 of the 4 countries, along with the UK, that come out BEST. Did you read it? 

So, to return to your post:
"I think we all know what is happening here...
...A bunch of people who don't care about international law suddenly care about international law because they think it harms brexit. It is a similar pattern of mud slinging, next week it will be something else and this heinous "illegality" will be completely forgotten about."

Actually this is the literal opposite of what is happening. What is happening is that a bunch of people who care about international law (i.e embodied by a transnational, rules based organization such as, say, the EU), continue to care about it, and are advocating sticking to it, because they think it harms Britain, its integrity, its reputation to ignore it in such a flagrant way. And they are right! Other countries may not stop trading with the UK, but they will certainly stop working as closely with them, or trust them. Is that the Brexit dividend?

And if something else comes up next week, it will probably be because next week the $hitshower in charge will find a new low to stoop to, a new/old target to blame for the latest cock-up (insert: No Deal preparation, customs, lack of trade readiness, immigrants as you see fit).

Your questions:

Why don't you tell me what law is sovereign in the UK, is it UK law or international law? We just had this discussion. We're sovereign baby. And who cares, really? The government don't worry about laws, so why should we?

Who punishes us if we break international law? The answer is, there should be a legally enforceable mechanism overseen by a supra-responsible body with either a) mutually agreed punishments for transgressions, or b) the authority to hand out punishments. But again, what does it matter? We're sovereign, yeah! 

How can I hold the people who create international law, accountable? You can't now. We are not subject to international law, remember? Who creates international law? It's a co-operation between different groups. In the case of the EU, you could have voted for your democratically elected MEP to assist. It's just a shame most of them were right-wing grifters like Farage that never turned up for work while robbing a living and not actually contributing.

How are you holding the current government accountable? They are laughing at you every single day for letting them do whatever the hell they want. Every. Single. Day. That must hurt a bit?

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a serious question to all remainers, and i'm not winding anyone up, if as  you all want we turn and say sorry can we come back in, would we be able to rejoin , on what kind of terms,  at what price? we'd loose our rebate for sure... 

   Only serious answers please, and before anyone comments on my reasons, as maggie said "i'm not for turning"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Reporting Posts and Ignoring Users

    Moderators don't read everything. Please don't assume we'll spot rule breaking (e.g. personal abuse) - use the orange report button above a post to alert them.

    If you can't get on with another forum user you can select the "ignore" option. Simply click on the link below, type in their username and save - Click here




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy