Breaking International Law

[mercalia]

A case where the EU has broken international law

How the EU is breaking its own Lisbon Treaty


We shouldn't be surprised by the EU failing to stick to the rules it made. But what is of greater concern is that as a fundamentally bureaucratic organisation it increasingly puts administrative and managerial criteria ahead of the messy, but essential, need to pay heed to the sensitivities surrounding Europe’s painful historical past (save to manipulate it for bureaucratic ends). This applies as much to its member states as to those who have chosen democratically to leave. Europe’s bloody history was the raison d’être of the European Union; it forgets its past at its peril.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-the-eu-is-breaking-its-own-lisbon-treaty?

Is that about the EU Parliament sitting in Brussels rather than Brussels and Strasbourg?

That decision was made because of the outbreak, and specifically in order to avoid the need to quarantine staff who moved.
https://www.politico.eu/article/coronavirus-european-parliament-limited-session/

And this week the President wrote to the people of Strasbourg on the subject:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/the-president/en/newsroom/sassoli-thank-you-to-the-people-of-strasbourg-we-hope-to-return-as-soon-as-possible

Jonathan

PS: And it was a much smarter decision about ways of working than that of the House of Commons. Not to mention last year's illegal attempt to prevent Parliament sitting at all in the UK... what did the Spectator say about that at the time?

from the article On 8 September, France’s Europe minister and the mayor of Strasbourg released a joint communiqué decrying the decision of the European Parliament to hold, yet again, its September plenary session in Brussels. They called for a return to Strasbourg ‘in keeping with the treaties’. The French prime minister then phoned the president of the European Parliament voicing his ‘deep regrets’ at the decision.

unless that is mistaken, so if you have just cause you can break a treaty against the wishes of the other party, it seems: it sounds as if it was unilateral not agreed. Familiar?

[Jdsk]

That's tautological, if it's just of course it's just.

But the legal point is valid. Exceptional circumstances are exceptional circumstances and may demand exceptional measures. But you should still behave responsibly and remain liable for the effect of breaches.

But if you're trying to equate a rational response to an unexpected outbreak of a communicable disease to a totally foreseeable (and foreseen) effect of a recent agreement the analogy doesn't hold. And even if you think it does the UK Government should use the recently-agreed dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve the dispute rather than legal chicanery. As the resignation of so many of its senior law officers clearly demonstrates.

Jonathan

PS: Giving more control to the House of Commons over invoking the relevant powers doesn't change the legality at all.

PPS: Have you worked out yet when Johnson decided that the Withdrawal Agreement was unacceptable?

PPS:
"On two wheels between the two seats of the EU Parliament"
https://www.euronews.com/2019/09/20/on-two-wheels-between-the-two-seats-of-the-eu-parliament-part-one
We had breakfast in the Strasbourg building while on the EV15. Quite convenient.

[Jdsk]

And the USA's special envoy for Northern Ireland joins in:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... y-accident

“Everyone assures me that no one is interested in seeing a hard border between the republic and Northern Ireland. We appreciate that, we respect that and we agree with that. The one thing I keep trying to assure is on the front of everybody’s mind is avoiding a border by accident. The Trump administration, state department and the US Congress would all be aligned in the desire to see the Good Friday agreement preserved to see the lack of a border maintained.”

I like that "by accident".

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

And the Special Envoy on Media Freedom has resigned:
https://www.scribd.com/embeds/476540894/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-ahmPIw68JrMpxCYqWce6

"In these circumstances I have been dismayed to learn that the government intends to pass legislation – the Internal Market Bill - which would, by the government’s own admission ‘break international law’ if enacted.

I was also concerned to note the position taken by the Government that although it is an ‘established principle of international law that a state is obliged to discharge its treaty obligations in good faith’, the UK’s ‘Parliament is sovereign as a matter of domestic law and can pass legislation which is in breach of the UK’s Treaty obligations’.

 Although the government has suggested that the violation of international law would be ‘specific and
limited’, it is lamentable for the UK to be speaking of its intention to violate an international treaty signed by the Prime Minister less than a year ago."

"I am disappointed to have to do so because I have always been proud of the UK’s reputation as a champion of the international legal order, and of the culture of fair play for which it is known. However, very sadly, it has now become untenable for me, as Special Envoy, to urge other states to respect and enforce international obligations while the UK declares that it does not intend to do so itself. As the President of the Bar Council of England and Wales has affirmed, undermining the rule of law that ‘this country is built on … will fatally puncture people’s faith in our justice system’. And it threatens to embolden autocratic regimes that violate international law with devastating consequences all over the world."

Jonathan

[simonineaston]

The increasingly right-wing & elected power holders know that they can take risks with the law and indeed the judiciary. They know that the people's faith in democractic processes is slowly being eroded and that the electorate can be relied on to put their mark against anyone who looks strong. Trump, Johnson, Putin, Lukashenko, Bolsonaro et al are ready to go to extremes with respect to law - they know they can get away with it, in today's post-internet climate. How far they are willing to go remains to be seen. Johnson has toyed with it, as we know. There's talk that Trump is preparing as yet unspecifed ways to retain power in the event that November's election goes against him...
People don't seem to have woken up to the extent that democracy is in crisis and how important is is to try to restore it - in fairness, even the established commentators are simply at a loss to explain how the internet has affected the way the colossal amounts of black money is now making its way into the political machine and exactly how disinformation seems to have become the norm. Any attempt to present a rational arguement is simply swamped by aggressive, illogical and extreme opinion, via the www. Be afraid, folks. Life is quickly morphing into something that ordinary people will have very little control over...
Two generations of our antecedents gave up much to defeat the threats raised against us, last century in the guise of two world wars. The enemy was straight-fowardly easy to spot back them. Now, nobody's quite sure what the enemy looks like or even exactly how they will behave. They've learnt to act like they're everybody's friend.

[Jdsk]

The enemy was straight-fowardly easy to spot back them.

If the enemy was fascism rather than Germany it took a lot of people far too long to spot it.

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

IMO, the iceberg for HMG here is the strength of feeling in the US about the Emerald Isle: a lot of Americans are proud of their Irish roots. Let's remember that it was largely American money funding one side in the Troubles. The events of 9/11 caused some rethinking about freedom fighters etc., but the underlying sentiment must still be there.

[Smallcog]

If we merrily plan to break a treaty we have recently negotiated and signed, shouldn't we expect the other side to feel free to do the same? Does the same expectation now apply to all the other treaties we intend to negotiate?

Oh, and I think Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson got "oven ready" and "stuffed" confused.

[Jdsk]

If we merrily plan to break a treaty we have recently negotiated and signed, shouldn't we expect the other side to feel free to do the same? Does the same expectation now apply to all the other treaties we intend to negotiate?

See "Global Britain" and the future fisheries agreement...

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

If we merrily plan to break a treaty we have recently negotiated and signed, shouldn't we expect the other side to feel free to do the same? Does the same expectation now apply to all the other treaties we intend to negotiate?

See "Global Britain" and the future fisheries agreement...

And Fox's attempt to become Director General of the WTO:
"Well, it didn’t help when we were voting last week that was happening."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/sep/21/uk-coronavirus-news-latest-whitty-and-vallance-to-present-data-showing-how-trend-in-uk-heading-in-wrong-direction?page=with:block-5f6872898f084965ab0cd561#block-5f6872898f084965ab0cd561

Jonathan

[mercalia]

All the many people mentioned here frightened for the the UKs reputation should realise its already <expleted deleted>?

What happens in suite 2B, (second floor of 175 Darkes Lane, Potters Bar) is just one particularly large-scale example of the part the UK plays in global money laundering.

A total of 3,282 British companies were named in the leaked suspicious activity reports - that's more than any other country in the world. And the flood of dirty money is damaging the UK's international reputation. A leaked US Treasury report describes Britain as a "higher-risk jurisdiction" and compares it to notorious financial centres "such as Cyprus" in its role.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54204053

What Boris intends to do is small change by comparison

[roubaixtuesday]

All the many people mentioned here frightened for the the UKs reputation should realise its already <expleted deleted>?

What happens in suite 2B, (second floor of 175 Darkes Lane, Potters Bar) is just one particularly large-scale example of the part the UK plays in global money laundering.

A total of 3,282 British companies were named in the leaked suspicious activity reports - that's more than any other country in the world. And the flood of dirty money is damaging the UK's international reputation. A leaked US Treasury report describes Britain as a "higher-risk jurisdiction" and compares it to notorious financial centres "such as Cyprus" in its role.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54204053

What Boris intends to do is small change by comparison

You do realise that the whole point of Brexit is to get away from the need to regulate in line with the EU. And that Britain has worked consistently to reduce the impact of EU regulation on financial services. And that Russian money is a significant proportion of dirty money in the UK. And that Russian oligarchs have funded Johnson, including paying six figure sums to play tennis with him. And that the conservative government refused to allow our security services to investigate the role played by Russia in the Brexit campaign.

In other words, here you are, supporting the Johnson's attempts to do the opposite of what you claim to want. You've been stitched up like a kipper.

[mercalia]

All the many people mentioned here frightened for the the UKs reputation should realise its already <expleted deleted>?

What happens in suite 2B, (second floor of 175 Darkes Lane, Potters Bar) is just one particularly large-scale example of the part the UK plays in global money laundering.

A total of 3,282 British companies were named in the leaked suspicious activity reports - that's more than any other country in the world. And the flood of dirty money is damaging the UK's international reputation. A leaked US Treasury report describes Britain as a "higher-risk jurisdiction" and compares it to notorious financial centres "such as Cyprus" in its role.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54204053

What Boris intends to do is small change by comparison

You do realise that the whole point of Brexit is to get away from the need to regulate in line with the EU. And that Britain has worked consistently to reduce the impact of EU regulation on financial services. And that Russian money is a significant proportion of dirty money in the UK. And that Russian oligarchs have funded Johnson, including paying six figure sums to play tennis with him. And that the conservative government refused to allow our security services to investigate the role played by Russia in the Brexit campaign.

In other words, here you are, supporting the Johnson's attempts to do the opposite of what you claim to want. You've been stitched up like a kipper.

a) This was going on while we were part of the EU so leaving dont make a difference
b) Who says I am a Boris Fan? Even B*******ds can some times get it right, and Boris has this time, with the leaving agreement

[Jdsk]

a) This was going on while we were part of the EU so leaving dont make a difference

Leaving might make this better or might make it worse.

But roubaixtuesday's summary of what's been going on seems about right to me.

The UK is also one of the rich countries in which it's easiest to set up companies that can be used for nefarious purposes. A student in the USA once showed this by direct experiment.

Jonathan

[roubaixtuesday]

a) This was going on while we were part of the EU so leaving dont make a difference
b) Who says I am a Boris Fan? Even B*******ds can some times get it right, and Boris has this time, with the leaving agreement

a) Yes it does, it gives the exact same people who have consistently over decades tried to reduce regulation the ability to do exactly that.
b) I didn't say you're a fan. I said you are supporting him on this, as you confirm again with your latest.