Page 8 of 13

Re: Breaking International Law

Posted: 22 Sep 2020, 8:11pm
by Jdsk
“Today, the Northern Ireland Assembly voted in favour of an SDLP motion that rejected the Internal Market Bill. Having demanded that Assembly consent be written into the Withdrawal Treaty, Johnson's Government should finally listen to what we are saying."
http://sdlp.ie/news/2020/sdlp-secures-assembly-opposition-to-internal-market-bill/

Jonathan

Re: Breaking International Law

Posted: 22 Sep 2020, 9:15pm
by Tangled Metal
I wonder if we should have a competition to see who can list the most examples of UK government breaking international law. Then start another thread similar for other European countries that have broken international law.

I guess my point is that it's probably a more frequently occurring situation among even those nations considered more democratic than the UK. It's not too say we should ignore it just accept that it happens and people simply move on and forget it eventually. Even if they were bothered by it in the first place.

Re: Breaking International Law

Posted: 22 Sep 2020, 9:17pm
by Jdsk
This one is a little more topical than an historical review... the Bill hasn't been passed yet, and we have some important trading agreements to achieve in the next 100 days...

Jonathan

Re: Breaking International Law

Posted: 23 Sep 2020, 8:35am
by Tangled Metal
It's still going to be one more breach of international law among the others and is likely to be forgotten soon enough, until someone mentions it during a discussion on the next breach in international law of course.

Right now some are making more of it than others but it will matter not in the long term, like all the others in the past that the UK government has committed.

Re: Breaking International Law

Posted: 23 Sep 2020, 8:36am
by pete75
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.
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?


Mrs May refused any terms in her agreement that would have led to a "border" in the Irish Sea. Johnson readily agreed to such a thing in his "oven ready" deal. You've got things completely the wrong way round in your misogynist rant.

Re: Breaking International Law

Posted: 23 Sep 2020, 9:38am
by bikepacker
pete75 wrote:Mrs May refused any terms in her agreement that would have led to a "border" in the Irish Sea. Johnson readily agreed to such a thing in his "oven ready" deal. You've got things completely the wrong way round in your misogynist rant.


If Mrs May's backstop agreement had been accepted by parliament. In the event of no deal where would the "border" have been placed?

Re: Breaking International Law

Posted: 23 Sep 2020, 9:43am
by Jdsk
bikepacker wrote:If Mrs May's backstop agreement had been accepted by parliament. In the event of no deal where would the "border" have been placed?

Explainer from the Institute for Government with explicit comparison of the two:
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/brexit-deal-northern-ireland-protocol

Jonathan

Re: Breaking International Law

Posted: 23 Sep 2020, 9:53am
by Jdsk
"The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and Breach of Domestic Law"
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/09/23/ronan-cormacain-the-united-kingdom-internal-market-bill-and-breach-of-domestic-law/

... and that does say Domestic Law.

Jonathan

Re: Breaking International Law

Posted: 23 Sep 2020, 10:18am
by bikepacker
Have previously read the documents you are referring to but the fact of the matter is; with both Mrs May's and the current agreement the EU would regard the Irish Sea as the border.

Re: Breaking International Law

Posted: 23 Sep 2020, 10:19am
by pete75
bikepacker wrote:
pete75 wrote:Mrs May refused any terms in her agreement that would have led to a "border" in the Irish Sea. Johnson readily agreed to such a thing in his "oven ready" deal. You've got things completely the wrong way round in your misogynist rant.


If Mrs May's backstop agreement had been accepted by parliament. In the event of no deal where would the "border" have been placed?


There wouldn't have been one. There would have been a customs union between the UK and the EU.

Re: Breaking International Law

Posted: 23 Sep 2020, 10:21am
by merseymouth
Hi all, Noticed in the financial section of the DT that Unilever Board have voted nem con to move the legal HQ to London.
They are doing it despite the threats coming directly from the E.U. that they will be hit with a £10 billion departure tax hit?
Unilever have said that they will go to Law as such a measure would breach International Law in a few ways including applying Illegal Protectionist Offences? :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: Now what has the E.U. been saying about the U.K. having to follow the strict letter of International Law?? :roll: :roll: :roll: Do as we say, not do as we do! MM

Re: Breaking International Law

Posted: 23 Sep 2020, 10:29am
by Jdsk
Assuming that we're talking about the border for goods rather than any other type of border...

bikepacker wrote:Have previously read the documents you are referring to but the fact of the matter is; with both Mrs May's and the current agreement the EU would regard the Irish Sea as the border.

Are you saying that the IfG piece is wrong? If so how?

pete75 wrote:There wouldn't have been one. There would have been a customs union between the UK and the EU.

Yes.

Jonathan

Re: Breaking International Law

Posted: 23 Sep 2020, 10:31am
by roubaixtuesday
merseymouth wrote:Hi all, Noticed in the financial section of the DT that Unilever Board have voted nem con to move the legal HQ to London.
They are doing it despite the threats coming directly from the E.U. that they will be hit with a £10 billion departure tax hit?
Unilever have said that they will go to Law as such a measure would breach International Law in a few ways including applying Illegal Protectionist Offences? :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: Now what has the E.U. been saying about the U.K. having to follow the strict letter of International Law?? :roll: :roll: :roll: Do as we say, not do as we do! MM


Which would only be equivalent if the EU were saying that their approach to Unilever's position is explicitly and deliberately against the law.

Is this the case?

Otherwise, what you describe is a dispute as to what the law is. Which there is a mechanism to resolve. Which Unilever will doubtless follow.

Re: Breaking International Law

Posted: 23 Sep 2020, 10:41am
by Oldjohnw
roubaixtuesday wrote:
merseymouth wrote:Hi all, Noticed in the financial section of the DT that Unilever Board have voted nem con to move the legal HQ to London.
They are doing it despite the threats coming directly from the E.U. that they will be hit with a £10 billion departure tax hit?
Unilever have said that they will go to Law as such a measure would breach International Law in a few ways including applying Illegal Protectionist Offences? :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: Now what has the E.U. been saying about the U.K. having to follow the strict letter of International Law?? :roll: :roll: :roll: Do as we say, not do as we do! MM


Which would only be equivalent if the EU were saying that their approach to Unilever's position is explicitly and deliberately against the law.

Is this the case?

Otherwise, what you describe is a dispute as to what the law is. Which there is a mechanism to resolve. Which Unilever will doubtless follow.


There is a means to resolve disputes which is not the same as unilaterally going outside the law. Disputes about exactly what the law means go on all the time and courts exist to resolve these. I fear MM's indignation is somewhat synthetic.

Re: Breaking International Law

Posted: 23 Sep 2020, 10:48am
by Jdsk
roubaixtuesday wrote:Otherwise, what you describe is a dispute as to what the law is. Which there is a mechanism to resolve. Which Unilever will doubtless follow.

Oldjohnw wrote:Disputes about exactly what the law means go on all the time and courts exist to resolve these.

Yes, usual processes of international law.

Oldjohnw wrote:There is a means to resolve disputes which is not the same as unilaterally going outside the law.

Exactly. And see post above concerning deliberate breach of domestic law.

Jonathan