Breaking International Law

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
mercalia
Posts: 14061
Joined: 22 Sep 2013, 10:03pm
Location: london South

Breaking International Law

Postby mercalia » 14 Sep 2020, 10:38pm

AN interesting article from the Spectator

from 1964


But do you remember when the UK broke the Geneva Convention? Oh. Well we did. The government ratified the Geneva Convention on the Sea on 10 September 1964. From then the UK was bound forever by the treaty and bound by international law. On 25 September 1964, we were not. No explanation was given. No explanation was asked.

'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.

That Judge became Lord Diplock and he was, one of our very best judges


And an example where Germany broke International Law and the EU did NOTHING -


https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-didn-t-the-eu-punish-germany-when-it-broke-international-law-?

I personally think Boris is right in his basic premise that if there is no trade agreement then our sovereignty will be damaged if we keep to the withdrawal agreement and we can discard those sections. so what you say. Well sovereignty is the way self determination is realised and that is the right of any people according to the UN. It cant be taken away from you ( and I think you cant give it away either ) and restoring it doesnt depend on a third party , its like the right to have air to breathe? So by this thinking if the withdrawal agreement conflicts with this the withdrawal agreement is at fault and is null and void. This is all the fault of the EU insisting of separating the withdrawal talks from the trade talks ( remember Davies under Mrs May wanted them to run simultaneosly ) that didnt take into consideration the special circumstances of the GFA. I suppose the honest thing to have done would be to have just left and let the EU and the UK struggle how to keep the GFA after the fact but think of the chaos that would have brought?

DevonDamo
Posts: 392
Joined: 24 May 2011, 1:42am

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby DevonDamo » 15 Sep 2020, 12:03am

Impressive verbal gymnastics. I can't wait to see how you explain to us all why the absolute economic disaster that will be visited upon us in a few short months is a triumph.

Tangled Metal
Posts: 7022
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby Tangled Metal » 15 Sep 2020, 12:10am

Whatever the situation with international law I always thought forcing a difference in customs controls between parts of a single sovereign state was wrong. How wrong I have no idea but the real question should have been whether movement across NI/Republic of Ireland border is more important than movement between NI and rest of UK. Is Northern Ireland going to be rife with republican terrorism if freedom of movement over the border between Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland is sacrificed in favour of the border with rest of UK?

Isn't it wrong to create a division within another sovereign state? Could there not have been a better way if the EU and UK government weren't entrenched in n their positions? They're was bad as each other IMHO.

mercalia
Posts: 14061
Joined: 22 Sep 2013, 10:03pm
Location: london South

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby mercalia » 15 Sep 2020, 9:55am

well I am glad Johnson got his bill thru the Commons with an impressive majority of 77 just short of the 80. I dont like Johnson or his govt but more up to the job than May who would have sold us out - a rather stupid woman.
The situation we have at the moment - as a consequence of the GFA(+trade or lack of) deal the UK stands to lose some sovereignty whereas the co-signer the EU doesnt? hardly a partnership in maintaining peace in Ireland? Boris's bill corrects this and tells the EU if it wants to maintain peace in Ireland it has to pay some price?
Last edited by mercalia on 15 Sep 2020, 10:04am, edited 2 times in total.

roubaixtuesday
Posts: 3293
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby roubaixtuesday » 15 Sep 2020, 9:59am

mercalia wrote:well I am glad Johnson got his bill thru the Commons with an impressive majority of 77 just short of the 80. I dont like Johnson or his govt but more up to the job than May who would have sold us out - a rather stupid woman


Given your own convoluted and frankly incomprehensible attempt to defend the indefensible above, I'd suggest keeping off the insults to May, or anyone else for that matter.

Tangled Metal
Posts: 7022
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby Tangled Metal » 15 Sep 2020, 10:13am

Didn't boris negotiate the final agreement that he's breaking with this law, if it makes it through? So he's proving that he's lying at this end or that ends. Afterall it can't be a great deal then but so bad now that you have to break the law to correct it.

Just get an effing deal and it'll go away without the law breaking law.

thirdcrank
Posts: 29469
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby thirdcrank » 15 Sep 2020, 10:23am

His big USP is that he is not Jeremy Corbyn. While he will never be Jeremy Corbyn, that will eventually be less of an issue.
The other side of that is that he he is Boris Johnson and that's what united his party to select Teresa May before him. He will always be Boris Johnson and that won't become less of an issue. On the contrary, it will eventually be his downfall.

mercalia
Posts: 14061
Joined: 22 Sep 2013, 10:03pm
Location: london South

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby mercalia » 15 Sep 2020, 10:24am

Tangled Metal wrote:Didn't boris negotiate the final agreement that he's breaking with this law, if it makes it through? So he's proving that he's lying at this end or that ends. Afterall it can't be a great deal then but so bad now that you have to break the law to correct it.

Just get an effing deal and it'll go away without the law breaking law.


yes but he was put in that position ( all PMs were ) by the insistance by the EU - no trade talks before you settle the withdrawal issue. Where as under May , her man Davies wanted them to run simultaneously as we now see they are connected. The UK govt was hoping that the trade deal would leave our sovereignty intact and put us in a similar position to where we were when in the EU with the GFA not activating the clauses about no frontier in Ireland. So he wasnt lying just maybe naive ( all PMs were), or you could argue he had to give the EU a chance to be fair and bear some of the problem of the GFA where you have 2 independant sovereign blocks or countries involved whereas before we were all in the same block ? It looks as if the EU isnt going to, they are just concerned with their own interests and let the UK pick up the tab of the GFA

roubaixtuesday
Posts: 3293
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby roubaixtuesday » 15 Sep 2020, 10:33am

mercalia wrote:...yes but he was put in that position ( all PMs were ) by the insistance by the EU...


It was his deal.

It was sold to the British people on the basis of being "oven ready".

He won an election on the position that it was a good deal and would "Get Brexit Done"

He's either catastrophically incompetent, or an abject liar. There really isn't another option.

Give up blaming the EU and put responsibility for this omnishambles where it belongs: With the people who led, voted for and are implementing Brexit. Start with Johnson.

Jdsk
Posts: 2414
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby Jdsk » 15 Sep 2020, 10:33am

Tangled Metal wrote:Didn't boris negotiate the final agreement that he's breaking with this law, if it makes it through? So he's proving that he's lying at this end or that ends. Afterall it can't be a great deal then but so bad now that you have to break the law to correct it.

Yes, negotiated it, got it through Parliament (after trying to suspend it illegally), ran an election campaign based on it and followed it up with the Withdrawal Bill.

Conservative MPs who saw the problem were expelled.

And Johnson explicitly lied about the effect of the agreement on trade in goods between Great Britain and Northern ireland.

But I'd be careful with the word "final"... there's a negotiation continuing at the moment.

Jonathan

EDITED: Crossed with roubaixtuesday's.

Jdsk
Posts: 2414
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby Jdsk » 15 Sep 2020, 10:47am

Tangled Metal wrote:Whatever the situation with international law I always thought forcing a difference in customs controls between parts of a single sovereign state was wrong.

I wouldn't use the word "wrong" but it was always going to cause major problems. There was no neat solution from the precise moment that the UK Government decided to leave the Single Market and the Customs Union. NB that says "the Single Market and the Customs Union" and not "the EU". Of course this was immediately spotted. Venn diagrams are available. May couldn't square it. Johnson couldn't square it but lied about the implications.

Tangled Metal wrote:Is Northern Ireland going to be rife with republican terrorism if freedom of movement over the border between Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland is sacrificed in favour of the border with rest of UK?

Republican terrorism wasn't the only problem before the Good Friday Agreement et al. A whole load of politicians and others agreed an amazingly successful package. Some of it is institutional, some of of it political, some ideological, but the whole caboodle depends on trust. And that is threatened by the undermining domestic legislation and the accompanying behaviour of the UK Government.

Freedom of movement of people across the land border isn't an enormous issue yet. Movement of goods is.

Jonathan
Last edited by Jdsk on 15 Sep 2020, 11:02am, edited 1 time in total.

roubaixtuesday
Posts: 3293
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby roubaixtuesday » 15 Sep 2020, 11:00am

Tangled Metal wrote:I always thought forcing a difference in customs controls between parts of a single sovereign state was wrong.


This is caused by Brexit.

There is a fundamental contradiction between Brexit and unionism.

The whole purpose of Brexit is to put controls at the UK/EU border.

For Northern Ireland, in the other hand, it is accepted that there must be no controls at the border.

Ergo, there must be controls between the UK and NI.

The WA is a heroic effort to square this circle with an enormous and very carefully crafted application of fudge. Whether or not this bill passes, whether or not there is a trade deal, this fundamental contradiction cannot be removed.

mikeonabike
Posts: 190
Joined: 20 Jun 2016, 8:22am

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby mikeonabike » 15 Sep 2020, 11:38am

mercalia wrote:... I suppose the honest thing to have done would be to have just left and let the EU and the UK struggle how to keep the GFA after the fact but think of the chaos that would have brought?

In effect this is what Johnson is now proposing to do. Stick two fingers up at the EU and see what chaos results. Though I don't think that struggling to keep the GFA is one of his priorities.

Of course doing it now rather than last year is not honest.

roubaixtuesday
Posts: 3293
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby roubaixtuesday » 15 Sep 2020, 11:41am

A very well argued case that deregulation is the end game, and this tactic only makes sense in that context.


https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1305 ... 82240.html

Still, it assumes a level of strategy and competence entirely lacking elsewhere in our govt, so who knows ?

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 49862
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby Mick F » 15 Sep 2020, 11:43am

Is there such a thing as International Law?

Surely, laws are for your specific country created by your own government. We don't have an international government, so there cannot be international law.

.......... or am I wrong?
Mick F. Cornwall