PROMS-BBC disappoint

[Oldjohnw]

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

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

[Oldjohnw]

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

[Jdsk]

Phew!

: - )

Jonathan

[mercalia]

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]

What would Elgar think about the above?

[Jdsk]

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.

[Jdsk]

... 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]

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]

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

[Jdsk]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Jdsk]

Yes, that's one of the big problems.

Jonathan

[mercalia]

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