Breaking International Law

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
Jdsk
Posts: 3954
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby Jdsk » 22 Sep 2020, 8:11pm

“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

Tangled Metal
Posts: 7342
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby Tangled Metal » 22 Sep 2020, 9:15pm

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.

Jdsk
Posts: 3954
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby Jdsk » 22 Sep 2020, 9:17pm

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

Tangled Metal
Posts: 7342
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby Tangled Metal » 23 Sep 2020, 8:35am

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.

pete75
Posts: 13440
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby pete75 » 23 Sep 2020, 8:36am

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.

bikepacker
Posts: 2068
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:08pm
Location: Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby bikepacker » 23 Sep 2020, 9:38am

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 is your way. There is my way. But there is no "the way".

Jdsk
Posts: 3954
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby Jdsk » 23 Sep 2020, 9:43am

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

Jdsk
Posts: 3954
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby Jdsk » 23 Sep 2020, 9:53am

"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

bikepacker
Posts: 2068
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:08pm
Location: Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby bikepacker » 23 Sep 2020, 10:18am

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.
There is your way. There is my way. But there is no "the way".

pete75
Posts: 13440
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby pete75 » 23 Sep 2020, 10:19am

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.

merseymouth
Posts: 2040
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 11:16am

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby merseymouth » 23 Sep 2020, 10:21am

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

Jdsk
Posts: 3954
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby Jdsk » 23 Sep 2020, 10:29am

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

roubaixtuesday
Posts: 3439
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby roubaixtuesday » 23 Sep 2020, 10:31am

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.

Oldjohnw
Posts: 5336
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: Northumberland

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby Oldjohnw » 23 Sep 2020, 10:41am

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.
John

Jdsk
Posts: 3954
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby Jdsk » 23 Sep 2020, 10:48am

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