PROMS-BBC disappoint

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
Oldjohnw
Posts: 4900
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: Northumberland

Re: PROMS-BBC disappoint

Postby Oldjohnw » 9 Sep 2020, 5:57pm

mercalia wrote:
Oldjohnw wrote:Johnson freely negotiated (and boasted of his skills), signed, campaigned on, obliged all Tory candidates to sign up to, won an election on, tried to stop parliament debating (eventually three days were allowed and no committee stages) and now he says it was hopeless from the beginning.

The S of S for NI said yesterday in parliament that the EU would be breaking international law.


and Blair still went to war in Iraq.

Boris (tried to? I cant remember if he did so in the end) porogue Parliament last year and was advised it was ok to do so.

So if a politician says something then it is true? god help you :wink:


I agree about Blair. Doesn't let Johnson off.
John

Oldjohnw
Posts: 4900
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: Northumberland

Re: PROMS-BBC disappoint

Postby Oldjohnw » 9 Sep 2020, 5:58pm

Jdsk wrote:
Oldjohnw wrote:The S of S for NI said yesterday in parliament that the EU would be breaking international law.

Did you mean that as it came out, John?

Thanks

Jonathan


Predictive! Now edited
John

Jdsk
Posts: 2224
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: PROMS-BBC disappoint

Postby Jdsk » 9 Sep 2020, 6:24pm

Phew!

: - )

Jonathan

mercalia
Posts: 13999
Joined: 22 Sep 2013, 10:03pm
Location: london South

Re: PROMS-BBC disappoint

Postby mercalia » 9 Sep 2020, 9:26pm

The BBC's take on the new laws
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/54088596

the Guardians take

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/09/brexit-bill-northern-ireland-criticised-as-obvious-breach-of-international-law?

cant say I understand a lot of this but para 43 ( not 42 as in the quote) at the bottom of the Guardian article

Paragraph 42 gives the government powers to disregard article 10 of the protocol that defines the state aid rules, saying article 10 should “not to be interpreted – (i) in accordance with case law of the European court; (ii) in accordance with any legislative act of the EU, including regulations, directives and decisions.”

seems reasonable - why should EU institutions be sole interpreter of legal matters? I bet that wasnt in the treaty - a loop hole? The little I know about the law - there are laws then decisions etc that interpret the law, its not simply the law says this.. - why we have matters going back to appeal courts then the Supreme Court?


and

David Wolfson QC
No, Boris isn’t breaching the rule of law. Here’s why


Contracts should be honoured and treaties should be kept: so says the (different) principle of pacta sunt servanda. But a breach of contract does not itself entail a breach of the rule of law, and breaching a treaty obligation because parliament has so legislated does not either.......I do not consider that there is a breach of the rule of law in the government’s approach. Whether it is wise or unwise is a different question – a political and not a legal one – and not the subject of this argument.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/no-boris-is-not-breaching-the-rule-of-law-here-s-why?

mumbojumbo
Posts: 361
Joined: 1 Aug 2018, 8:18pm

Re: PROMS-BBC disappoint

Postby mumbojumbo » 11 Sep 2020, 7:17am

What would Elgar think about the above?

Jdsk
Posts: 2224
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: PROMS-BBC disappoint

Postby Jdsk » 11 Sep 2020, 10:07am

mercalia wrote:Paragraph 42 gives the government powers to disregard article 10 of the protocol that defines the state aid rules, saying article 10 should “not to be interpreted – (i) in accordance with case law of the European court; (ii) in accordance with any legislative act of the EU, including regulations, directives and decisions.”

seems reasonable - why should EU institutions be sole interpreter of legal matters? I bet that wasnt in the treaty - a loop hole? The little I know about the law - there are laws then decisions etc that interpret the law, its not simply the law says this.. - why we have matters going back to appeal courts then the Supreme Court?

There's no loophole. The current arrangements for dispute resolution are in the Withdrawal Agreement signed by the UK Government and ratified in the Withdrawal Act passed by the UK Parliament and supported by the Conservative Party manifesto.

Some of them change at the end of the transition period.

And all of them are open to change by negotiation between the UK and the EU.

Jonathan

PS: I was tempted to take the bet as there isn't a loophole, but the CJEU has very limited scope, and domestic law is also relevant especially when there has been primary legislation incorporating directives so the CJEU isn't the sole interpreter.
Last edited by Jdsk on 11 Sep 2020, 11:33am, edited 1 time in total.

Jdsk
Posts: 2224
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: PROMS-BBC disappoint

Postby Jdsk » 11 Sep 2020, 10:12am

mercalia wrote:... why we have matters going back to appeal courts then the Supreme Court?

And those UK courts have made it absolutely clear that Ministers are bound to uphold international law.

Jonathan

Jdsk
Posts: 2224
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: PROMS-BBC disappoint

Postby Jdsk » 11 Sep 2020, 10:38am

mercalia wrote:TDavid Wolfson QC
No, Boris isn’t breaching the rule of law. Here’s why


Contracts should be honoured and treaties should be kept: so says the (different) principle of pacta sunt servanda. But a breach of contract does not itself entail a breach of the rule of law, and breaching a treaty obligation because parliament has so legislated does not either.......I do not consider that there is a breach of the rule of law in the government’s approach. Whether it is wise or unwise is a different question – a political and not a legal one – and not the subject of this argument.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/no-boris-is-not-breaching-the-rule-of-law-here-s-why?

Wolfson makes the limited point that merely laying the Bill before Parliament does not breach any treaties or international law. Even if that is correct it doesn't address the problems, and in the pages of discussion above I haven't seen any suggestion that it does. Yesterday's debate in the unelected House described those problems well.

And that article includes:

"Contracts should be honoured and treaties should be kept: so says the (different) principle of pacta sunt servanda."

"None of this is to suggest – as some still say – that international law doesn’t exist, nor that treaties don’t matter: of course it does and they do."

Do you agree?

Jonathan

mercalia
Posts: 13999
Joined: 22 Sep 2013, 10:03pm
Location: london South

Re: PROMS-BBC disappoint

Postby mercalia » 11 Sep 2020, 12:29pm

Jdsk wrote:
mercalia wrote:Paragraph 42 gives the government powers to disregard article 10 of the protocol that defines the state aid rules, saying article 10 should “not to be interpreted – (i) in accordance with case law of the European court; (ii) in accordance with any legislative act of the EU, including regulations, directives and decisions.”

seems reasonable - why should EU institutions be sole interpreter of legal matters? I bet that wasnt in the treaty - a loop hole? The little I know about the law - there are laws then decisions etc that interpret the law, its not simply the law says this.. - why we have matters going back to appeal courts then the Supreme Court?

There's no loophole. The current arrangements for dispute resolution are in the Withdrawal Agreement signed by the UK Government and ratified in the Withdrawal Act passed by the UK Parliament and supported by the Conservative Party manifesto.

Some of them change at the end of the transition period.

And all of them are open to change by negotiation between the UK and the EU.

Jonathan

PS: I was tempted to take the bet as there isn't a loophole, but the CJEU has very limited scope, and domestic law is also relevant especially when there has been primary legislation incorporating directives so the CJEU isn't the sole interpreter.


and since the trade agreement talks may fail what then about subsequent failure in any negotiations since they will likely in that scenario also fail? We are back to what the govt is doing in anticipation, to put pressure on the EU? Its only sensible to look ahead at the likely chain of events given the worst possible case. It is this countries future at stake at the end of the day: the EU is hide bound by its legalism and rules of its bureaucracy
Last edited by mercalia on 11 Sep 2020, 12:35pm, edited 1 time in total.

Jdsk
Posts: 2224
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: PROMS-BBC disappoint

Postby Jdsk » 11 Sep 2020, 12:34pm

Before we move on to speculate about possible futures could I check that you now agree that dispute resolution is included in the treaty that we signed and in its ratification by Parliament? That's the treaty that Johnson was so proud of having negotiated and promoted in his party's manifesto along the way to winning an election.

And that you now agree there is such a thing as international law?

Thanks

Jonathan

mercalia
Posts: 13999
Joined: 22 Sep 2013, 10:03pm
Location: london South

Re: PROMS-BBC disappoint

Postby mercalia » 11 Sep 2020, 12:40pm

Jdsk wrote:Before we move on to speculate about possible futures could I check that you now agree that dispute resolution is included in the treaty that we signed and in its ratification by Parliament? That's the treaty that Johnson was so proud of having negotiated and promoted in his party's manifesto along the way to winning an election.

And that you now agree there is such a thing as international law?

Thanks

Jonathan


I have only disputed what International law is, it doesnt compare to domestic law which is opt out only ( with consequences of fines or imprisonment ), not opt in and opt out where the only consequence is reputation loss ( as the QC mentions ). The so called International law we are talking about here doesnt compare to the hague trials to do with genocide. In this case the agreements that Boris or May ( had to becuause the EU wouldnt simultaneoulsy discuss leaving and trade as requested by I think it was Davies) entered into made us a laughing stock because they undermined our sovereignty and for that reason I suspect there would be no reeputation loss as long as the GFA is not damaged

I get the impression the EU wants to make out that International law is no different to domestic law, as it suits their purposes

Jdsk
Posts: 2224
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: PROMS-BBC disappoint

Postby Jdsk » 11 Sep 2020, 1:31pm

We're now agreed that international law exists, and that it's different from domestic law. That's great. Thanks.

How about the other question: do you agree that dispute resolution is included in the Withdrawal Agreement?

Jonathan

Oldjohnw
Posts: 4900
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: Northumberland

Re: PROMS-BBC disappoint

Postby Oldjohnw » 11 Sep 2020, 1:47pm

Of course, even if International law has not been breached (altough the Government itself admits it has), or if international law, breached or not, is worthless, the UK Government's word is worthless, never to be trusted. Whatever they agree to in future might well be torn up within to he year if it suits. Britain's soft influence exists no more.
John

Jdsk
Posts: 2224
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: PROMS-BBC disappoint

Postby Jdsk » 11 Sep 2020, 1:50pm

Yes, that's one of the big problems.

Jonathan

mercalia
Posts: 13999
Joined: 22 Sep 2013, 10:03pm
Location: london South

Re: PROMS-BBC disappoint

Postby mercalia » 11 Sep 2020, 2:10pm

Oldjohnw wrote:Of course, even if International law has not been breached (altough the Government itself admits it has), or if international law, breached or not, is worthless, the UK Government's word is worthless, never to be trusted. Whatever they agree to in future might well be torn up within to he year if it suits. Britain's soft influence exists no more.


not true for the reason given above - no self respecting country would ever allow another block to have control over any part of its territory, so in this case I think any self respecting country would not let this count against the UK as long as the GFA is safe. And I explained above why the UK is in this predicament. If any thing the EU comes out badly in all of this