Breaking International Law

[roubaixtuesday]

You've got to admire the chutzpah. From the graun:

No 10 claims internal market bill covered by Salisbury convention, meaning peers must accept it
At the Downing Street lobby briefing the No 10 spokesman also claimed that the Salisbury convention - a non-statutory but widely respected rule saying the House of Lords does not vote down policies in a governing party’s election manifesto - applies to the internal market bill. The spokesman said:

We would expect the Lords to abide by the Salisbury convention.

Guaranteeing the full economic benefit of leaving the EU to all parts of the United Kingdom and ensuring Northern Ireland’s businesses and producers enjoy unfettered access to the rest of the UK were clear Conservative manifesto commitments which this legislation delivers

Yes, that's right folks. The government is claiming that their manifesto simultaneously promised an oven ready deal, and that they would later renege on that deal, which therefore the Lords must support.

The level of dishonesty here is one thing. That, as amply demonstrated by this thread, many are positively eager to believe such transparent lies is far more disturbing.

Too much time on this now, no more from me.

[Mick F]

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?

What did you think when you were in the Navy in international waters? Did you think it was lawless?

Yes, it is.

[Jdsk]

What did you think when you were in the Navy in international waters? Did you think it was lawless?

Yes, it is.

Royal Navy piece on responsibilities in the Gulf, includes:
“Our coalition has grown since I took command,” said Parkin. “I expect that it will continue to grow. With increased membership comes greater influence over those who fail to respect the rule of international law, and over those who might want to interfere with the free flow of global trade.”
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2020/may/05/200505-imsc-supersession

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

If EU gives whole of the UK good trade terms such that there can be open borders between EU and uk as a whole then that's the workable solution surely? Optimist me!!!

You're describing a customs union.

The UK - not the EU - has decided not to do that.

Yes, and an option still open to us as a sovereign state.

That's what we could now.

But of course the wider historical and political point is who said what before and after the referendum on the subject of the future trade arrangement.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

... so couldnt have forseen that the later trade deal would likely flounder.

Couldn't have foreseen?

Johnson repeatedly discussed the possibility of "no deal" and how he thought it would be OK for the UK.

Here's an example from 12 March 2017:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/12/leaving-eu-without-deal-brexit-will-not-apocalyptic-boris-johnson/

Jonathan

[Mick F]

..........the free flow of global trade.

Exactly.
Might is Right.

The only "Laws of the Sea" are ones imposed by powers with a vested interest in trade and they have arms and warships to impose them. There ain't no laws when you get into international waters, just rules of conduct and strength of arms.

Take the argument to extreme perhaps?
What about space?
Do we have "laws" 300,000miles up?

No, we don't.

[Jdsk]

What's the resistance to accepting that international law exists? Of course it's different from domestic law (and church law for that matter) but no-one is suggesting anything else.

Is it that you think that treaties and similar don't exist?

Or that treaties and similar do exist but that they don't constitute international law?

Thanks

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

It's not only the likes of Lenin who value useful idiots.

[Mick F]

What's the resistance to accepting that international law exists? Of course it's different from domestic law (and church law for that matter) but no-one is suggesting anything else.
Is it that you think that treaties and similar don't exist?
Or that treaties and similar do exist but that they don't constitute international law?

Pedantic head on.

It's the LAW word that I'm suggesting is wrong.
Dunno what word could replace it, but "agreement" or "accepted rules" maybe?

BTW, it's Ecclesiastical Law, not church law.

[Jdsk]

Thanks. So we're agreed that it exists and debating what label to give it. How about using the label that others use?

I'm not sure if Godwin's Law has an eponymous opposite but here's Churchill using "international law". Good enough for me.

"All the horrors of all the ages were brought together, and not only armies but whole populations were thrust into the midst of them. The mighty educated States involved conceived-not without reason-that their very existence was at stake. Neither peoples nor rulers drew the line at any deed which they thought could help them win. Germany, having let Hell loose, kept well in the van of terror; but she was followed step by step by the desperate and ultimately avenging nations she had assailed. Every outrage against humanity or international law was repaid by reprisals-often of a greater scale and of longer duration. No truce or parley mitigated the strife of the armies. The wounded died between the lines: the dead mouldered into the soil. Merchant ships and neutral ships and hospital ships were sunk on the seas and all on board left to their fate, or killed as they swam. Every effort was made to starve whole nations into submission without regard to age or sex. Cities and monuments were smashed by artillery. Bombs from the air were cast down indiscriminately. Poison gas in many forms stifled or seared the soldiers. Liquid fire was projected upon their bodies. Men fell from the air in flames, or were smothered often slowly in the dark recesses of the sea. The fighting strength of armies was limited only by the manhood of their countries. Europe and large parts of Asia and Africa became one vast battlefield on which after years of struggle not armies but nations broke and ran. When all was over, Torture and Cannibalism were the only expedients that the civilized, scientific, Christian States had been able to deny themselves: and they were of doubtful utility."
(My emboldenment.)

Jonathan

PS:

BTW, it's Ecclesiastical Law, not church law.

Wrong again. The most common technical label is "canon law", but all three mean the same. I prefer "church law" because it's closest to everyday English. Here's an example of all three used in one paragraph to offer variety: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law.

[windmiller]

Sovereignty when it is threatened transcends international law - as it should.

It's a bit bleeding obvious.

[Jdsk]

Negotiations between sovereign states are the basis of international law.

But if the UK Government now thinks that the terms of the Agreement are unacceptable it's perfectly free to use the dispute resolution process, to renegotiate terms, or to withdraw.

But instead it chose to breach them in domestic law. That isn't acting in good faith, which we signed up to do, and the effects on trust, future trade agreements and Northern Ireland will be as described above.

Jonathan

[mercalia]

Negotiations between sovereign states are the basis of international law.

But if the UK Government now thinks that the terms of the Agreement are unacceptable it's perfectly free to use the dispute resolution process, to renegotiate terms, or to withdraw.

But instead it chose to breach them in domestic law. That isn't acting in good faith, which we signed up to do, and the effects on trust will be exactly as described above.

Jonathan

presumably you are referring to the withdrawal agreeement? then down the snake to the start again? The bad faith is the eu separating the withdrawal and trade talks, though maybe for good reasons in general but not in this case as there is the GFA which has trade and sovereignty consequences. The eu just dont want to suffer any damaging consequences from being party to the GFA want the UK pick up the tab. You dont want to consider that maybe the UKs hands have been tied leading to what the Germans would do any way as explained previously. I suppose the difference is that the Germans have a clearer constitution and they wouldnt need to enact new legislation it would already be there to allow them to discard some thing like the withrawal agreement if it turns out to conflict with their constitution given subsequent conditions. On its own the withdrawal agreement is innocuous, when combined with a bad trade deal it becomes a killer

[Jdsk]

presumably you are referring to the withdrawal agreeement?

Yes, the Withdrawal Agreement that Johnson agreed to in 2019 and subsequently promoted.

The bad faith is the eu separating the withdrawal and trade talks, though maybe for good reasons in general but not in this case as there is the GFA which has trade and sovereignty consequences.

What was the date on which "the eu" separated those, please?

Thanks

Jonathan

[mercalia]

presumably you are referring to the withdrawal agreeement?

Yes, the Withdrawal Agreement that Johnson agreed to in 2019 and subsequently promoted.

The bad faith is the eu separating the withdrawal and trade talks, though maybe for good reasons in general but not in this case as there is the GFA which has trade and sovereignty consequences.

What was the date on which "the eu" separated those, please?

Thanks

Jonathan

I dont know the date but it came to my knowledge when Davies for Mrs May was doing the business - he wanted them to run simultaneously but some one here explained in the Brexit thread that thats not how the EU does things - you first leave then talk trade, makes sense in general but not in this case due to the GFA. And these contortions are the result? Just think, if the talks had been concurrent and we came to realise the trade talks were not going to bear fruit we would never have agreed to leave the way we did. And then the EU would have had the difficult task of working out how to meet its responsibilites under the GFA and squaring that with its internal market, some thing they have conveniently sidestepped, at the UKs expence

The problem is compounded by the fact that Brussels is running the show and can only do things by the book? follow the rules. They dont have a mandate to "think out of the box", that would require the intervention of politicians - One article I mentioned some where( the rule britannia thread?) suggested this was likely to happen soon with Barnier being side lined by Merkel who doesnt want to leave a sour legacy and the French guy who sorely needs UK military cooperation in the pact we have with them, with an over stretched French military