Breaking International Law

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
reohn2
Posts: 40223
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby reohn2 » 1 Oct 2020, 8:25pm

Whether you like it or not the UK,by it's own volition,is now on the outside looking in and because of that simple fact the the EU is 26 to 1 against us,and as a result means we lose.
The world is not our oyster,that is to say not the ordinary wo/man on the street's oyster,the oligarchs,the shysters and the rich will win out at our expense.
Get that into your head!
-----------------------------------------------------------

mercalia
Posts: 14497
Joined: 22 Sep 2013, 10:03pm
Location: london South

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby mercalia » 3 Oct 2020, 4:53pm

reohn2 wrote:Whether you like it or not the UK,by it's own volition,is now on the outside looking in and because of that simple fact the the EU is 26 to 1 against us,and as a result means we lose.
The world is not our oyster,that is to say not the ordinary wo/man on the street's oyster,the oligarchs,the shysters and the rich will win out at our expense.
Get that into your head!


And it wasnt that way in the EU? remember the EuroMps gravy train for one. Do you detect this inconsistancy - the EU wants to protect its internal market but the UK must not be allowed to do the same ( the point of Johnsons law overriding the withdrawl agreement that was lopsided. The EU is also a guarantor of the GFA and wants to get off scot free and let the UK suffer all the consequences of being a guarantor )

reohn2
Posts: 40223
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby reohn2 » 3 Oct 2020, 10:45pm

mercalia wrote:
reohn2 wrote:Whether you like it or not the UK,by it's own volition,is now on the outside looking in and because of that simple fact the the EU is 26 to 1 against us,and as a result means we lose.
The world is not our oyster,that is to say not the ordinary wo/man on the street's oyster,the oligarchs,the shysters and the rich will win out at our expense.
Get that into your head!


And it wasnt that way in the EU? remember the EuroMps gravy train for one. Do you detect this inconsistancy - the EU wants to protect its internal market but the UK must not be allowed to do the same ( the point of Johnsons law overriding the withdrawl agreement that was lopsided. The EU is also a guarantor of the GFA and wants to get off scot free and let the UK suffer all the consequences of being a guarantor )

We knew what we were dealing with in the EU and we knew it wasn't perfect by a long shot but out of it the UK is a small fish in a sea of sharks YVMV but the truth is the truth.
See how the UK and by that I mean all of us,not just the rich few,get along with the likes of BoJo and his bunch of incompetents running the show funded by multinational business and oligarchs and with the EU sick of trying to deal with idiots.
You simply don't get the bigger picture because along with many other brexit supporters you're part of the hoodwinked little englander brigade,who think the UK is some world power that can dictate to the EU and the worlds big players who'll fall over themself to do business with us on our terms,when the truth is we're just another small country(fish) in a big world(ocean)with little going for us on our own,it's the reason the EU(shoal)of countries is so powerful.
It's tried as much as it can to be adult about us leaving but it's loosing it's patience.
The loonies currently running the UK think they can dictate to the EU on their terms and us simply walk away,we can't,in the end we(majority of the people in the country) lose because we need the EU more than it needs us and none moreso economically than a seemless and smooth trading agreement which we're not going to have on the present course this government is taking.
Putin and Trump want to see the EU broken up because it's easier for them to handle single small countries they can dictate to on trade

These are the practicalities of the modern world,If you can't see that I can't help you,and if I'm proved wrong you'll be the first to have my apology.
-----------------------------------------------------------

mercalia
Posts: 14497
Joined: 22 Sep 2013, 10:03pm
Location: london South

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby mercalia » 4 Oct 2020, 10:10am

reohn2 wrote:
mercalia wrote:
reohn2 wrote:Whether you like it or not the UK,by it's own volition,is now on the outside looking in and because of that simple fact the the EU is 26 to 1 against us,and as a result means we lose.
The world is not our oyster,that is to say not the ordinary wo/man on the street's oyster,the oligarchs,the shysters and the rich will win out at our expense.
Get that into your head!


And it wasnt that way in the EU? remember the EuroMps gravy train for one. Do you detect this inconsistancy - the EU wants to protect its internal market but the UK must not be allowed to do the same ( the point of Johnsons law overriding the withdrawl agreement that was lopsided. The EU is also a guarantor of the GFA and wants to get off scot free and let the UK suffer all the consequences of being a guarantor )

We knew what we were dealing with in the EU and we knew it wasn't perfect by a long shot but out of it the UK is a small fish in a sea of sharks YVMV but the truth is the truth.
See how the UK and by that I mean all of us,not just the rich few,get along with the likes of BoJo and his bunch of incompetents running the show funded by multinational business and oligarchs and with the EU sick of trying to deal with idiots.
You simply don't get the bigger picture because along with many other brexit supporters you're part of the hoodwinked little englander brigade,who think the UK is some world power that can dictate to the EU and the worlds big players who'll fall over themself to do business with us on our terms,when the truth is we're just another small country(fish) in a big world(ocean)with little going for us on our own,it's the reason the EU(shoal)of countries is so powerful.
It's tried as much as it can to be adult about us leaving but it's loosing it's patience.
The loonies currently running the UK think they can dictate to the EU on their terms and us simply walk away,we can't,in the end we(majority of the people in the country) lose because we need the EU more than it needs us and none moreso economically than a seemless and smooth trading agreement which we're not going to have on the present course this government is taking.
Putin and Trump want to see the EU broken up because it's easier for them to handle single small countries they can dictate to on trade

These are the practicalities of the modern world,If you can't see that I can't help you,and if I'm proved wrong you'll be the first to have my apology.


one mistake you are making about me I think it a big mistake to leave the EU . more trouble than its worth. Thats doesnt mean I think the way the EU has behaved is not beyond criticism. Treating the UK like any other country leaving the EU is a mistake as due to the GFA, of which the EU is a guarantor, it isnt. I cant make my mind whether that mistake is just stupidity or an oversight or deliberate to its advantage. Either way thats why Johnson has had to claw back some of the Withdrawal agreement should the EU refuse to accept its responsibilities under the GFA and expect the UK to shoulder the whole load of damage to its internal market ( Mrs May never would stand up the EU- thank god shes gone, she was weak and very wrong headed)

Jdsk
Posts: 4058
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby Jdsk » 4 Oct 2020, 10:20am

mercalia wrote:Treating the UK like any other country leaving the EU is a mistake as due to the GFA, of which the EU is a guarantor, it isnt. I cant make my mind whether that mistake is just stupidity or an oversight or deliberate to its advantage. Either way thats why Johnson has had to claw back some of the Withdrawal agreement should the EU refuse to accept its responsibilities under the GFA and expect the UK to shoulder the whole load of damage to its internal market ( Mrs May never would - thank god shes gone)

I have no idea what this means. I understand how the WA protects the GFA but not how undermining it does. Please could you explain?

And, as before, I'd be grateful for your thoughts on when Johnson decided that the WA wasn't fit for purpose, perhaps in relation to the key events of negotiating it, signing it, recommending it in his party election manifesto and guiding it into UK law with the Withdrawal Agreement Act.

Jonathan

mercalia
Posts: 14497
Joined: 22 Sep 2013, 10:03pm
Location: london South

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby mercalia » 4 Oct 2020, 10:45am

The WA places the full burden of protecting the GFA on the UK ( whether Mays or Johnsons version). The EU keeps on ranting about protecting its internal market - that isnt really open to it as a guarantor of the GFA unless it agrees a comprehensive trade deal with the UK which the EU has been dragging its feet on demanding this or that as a condition, thus watering down Brexit. Protecting the GFA is supposed to be a joint matter not the sole responsibility of the UK - The EU is failing its side ( so why should we? rather Johnson is hoping to get the EU to start living up to its responsibilites and realise the GFA will require compromises on ALL SIDES )

regarding the time matter it was obvious to any one at the time, but had to be agreed to get to the trade talks otherwise we would be at an impasse or drop to WT trade rules: the hope was that a good trade deal would never activate the damage to the internal market in the UK. ( I think the UK was also thinking should it happen it could all be done electronically but the EU subsequently said no I believe - I remember seeing a BBC report from the former head of Uk customs who said it was happening already with very little physical inspection) Couldnt be plainer. I have no more to say on this matter.
Last edited by mercalia on 4 Oct 2020, 10:55am, edited 1 time in total.

Jdsk
Posts: 4058
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby Jdsk » 4 Oct 2020, 10:55am

mercalia wrote:... regarding the time matter it was obvious to any one at the time, but had to be agreed to get to the trade talks otherwise we would be at an impasse or drop to WT trade rules: the hope was that a good trade deal would never activate the damage to the internal market in the UK. Couldnt be plainer. I have no more to say on this matter.

Thanks.

I think that you're saying that Johnson knew that he might deliberately undermine it when he negotiated and signed the Withdrawal Agreement. And when he led on it in the General Election and in the subsequent UK legislation.

Jonathan

mercalia
Posts: 14497
Joined: 22 Sep 2013, 10:03pm
Location: london South

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby mercalia » 4 Oct 2020, 11:01am

Jdsk wrote:
mercalia wrote:... regarding the time matter it was obvious to any one at the time, but had to be agreed to get to the trade talks otherwise we would be at an impasse or drop to WT trade rules: the hope was that a good trade deal would never activate the damage to the internal market in the UK. Couldnt be plainer. I have no more to say on this matter.

Thanks.

I think that you're saying that Johnson knew that he might deliberately undermine it when he negotiated and signed the Withdrawal Agreement. And when he led on it in the General Election and in the subsequent UK legislation.

Jonathan


You seem to be surprised at politicians not telling the whole truth. ( I refer you back the Brexit campaign claims) Not necessarily. At the time I suspect people were confident a good trade deal could be done or if not then border issues could be mitigated - the confidence the British had in handling border issues electronically.( read the above about the former head of UK customs) I think this matter was up in the air at the time. So you cant accuse Johnson of being a liar or misleading. I bet Cummings though was thinking ahead.

At the end of the day how should underdogs behave, when some one else holds all the cards? Only a fool does thing "properly" where the norms are invented by the other side to protect its interests. I refer you to the Guardian article the number of times Germany or France are of have been taken to courty by the EU for deliberately breaking the law ( 45 and 25 was it?). 800 in total for the EU

Jdsk
Posts: 4058
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby Jdsk » 4 Oct 2020, 12:08pm

mercalia wrote:
Jdsk wrote:
mercalia wrote:... regarding the time matter it was obvious to any one at the time, but had to be agreed to get to the trade talks otherwise we would be at an impasse or drop to WT trade rules: the hope was that a good trade deal would never activate the damage to the internal market in the UK. Couldnt be plainer. I have no more to say on this matter.

Thanks.

I think that you're saying that Johnson knew that he might deliberately undermine it when he negotiated and signed the Withdrawal Agreement. And when he led on it in the General Election and in the subsequent UK legislation.

You seem to be surprised at politicians not telling the whole truth. ( I refer you back the Brexit campaign claims) Not necessarily. At the time I suspect people were confident a good trade deal could be done or if not then border issues could be mitigated - the confidence the British had in handling border issues electronically.( read the above about the former head of UK customs) I think this matter was up in the air at the time. So you cant accuse Johnson of being a liar or misleading. I bet Cummings though was thinking ahead.

I thought you didn't have any more to say on this matter?

The overwhelming view of trade experts last year was that exactly what has happened would happen. And that Johnson was lying at the time and subsequently when he denied that were would be the new restrictions between GB and NI.

But that isn't the concern about the Internal Market Bill. One part of that is yet another attempt to remove scrutiny of the executive by the elected representatives and the judiciary. But the one that's relevant in this discussion is the damage to the UK's interests by a Prime Minister who undermines his own recent international agreement when we're trying to negotiate the future trade agreement with our biggest trading partner and betting the shop on "Global Britain". This is dumb beyond all measure.

Jonathan

Jdsk
Posts: 4058
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby Jdsk » 4 Oct 2020, 12:11pm

And now perhaps you could explain why you think that the Internal Market Bill or undermining the WA supports the GFA? Especially in the light of the Government's law officers and all of the other parties and guarantors thinking the opposite.

Thanks

Jonathan

reohn2
Posts: 40223
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby reohn2 » 4 Oct 2020, 12:31pm

Or how such untrustworthiness will affect the UK's future?
-----------------------------------------------------------

Jdsk
Posts: 4058
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby Jdsk » 6 Oct 2020, 10:51am

Jdsk wrote:The US Special Envoy to Northern Ireland:
"It's not an immediate threat to the reinstitution of a hard border. Could it play a role in moving in that direction? Yes, which is why I'm here to reflect my government's commitment to the Good Friday Agreement."
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/us-president-trump-a-fan-of-irish-history-and-knows-more-about-gerry-adams-than-me-says-ni-special-envoy-mulvaney-39570812.html

And now we have the report from Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee:
"Northern Ireland-related terrorism"
https://docs.google.com/a/independent.gov.uk/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=aW5kZXBlbmRlbnQuZ292LnVrfGlzY3xneDo3ZDY5ZThhOTNhNTk1Nzc5
https://docs.google.com/a/independent.gov.uk/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=aW5kZXBlbmRlbnQuZ292LnVrfGlzY3xneDoxYjJiNDk1Y2ZjZTlkZjBk
which concludes:
"Any border infrastructure resulting from Brexit will be both a target and a recruiting badge for Dissident Republican groups, who have until now used the impasse in Stormont to justify their cause and bolster their numbers. This Committee would not support the use of any hard border infrastructure, and recommends that this be taken into account in any final settlement in relation to the border with the Republic of Ireland."

Jonathan

PS: Of course this is in addition to the effect of lost sharing of information on criminals and criminal investigations that will follow the UK Leaving the EU and about which we have been warned many times.

landsurfer
Posts: 5242
Joined: 27 Oct 2012, 9:13pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby landsurfer » 6 Oct 2020, 11:10am

This sort of takes us back 18 months to the impasse;
Dublin ... "UK, promise you won't put up a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland."
Uk ..." We promise we won't."
Dublin ... "Now UK, promise WE won't put up a hard border as well."
Be More Mike.
The Road Goes On Forever

mercalia
Posts: 14497
Joined: 22 Sep 2013, 10:03pm
Location: london South

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby mercalia » 6 Oct 2020, 12:48pm

landsurfer wrote:This sort of takes us back 18 months to the impasse;
Dublin ... "UK, promise you won't put up a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland."
Uk ..." We promise we won't."
Dublin ... "Now UK, promise WE won't put up a hard border as well."


not sure what your take on this amounts to. But it seems the EU wants the UK to shoulder the full burden of any GFA consequences due to Brexit, inspite of the fact the EU are co-guarantors of the GFA. That refusal by the EU is the impasse you are referring to?

Jdsk
Posts: 4058
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby Jdsk » 6 Oct 2020, 12:58pm

mercalia wrote:But it seems the EU wants the UK to shoulder the full burden of any GFA consequences due to Brexit, inspite of the fact the EU are co-guarantors of the GFA. That refusal by the EU is the impasse you are referring to?

As before: what does that mean?

We have the GFA and the Withdrawal Agreement/ Northern Ireland Protocol/ Political Declaration. All signed and ratified. The only party to any of those that is undermining any of them is the UK Government with the Internal Market Bill.

The EU hasn't shown any sign of derogating from or undermining any of them. What do you think it has "refused"?

Jonathan